Skip to main content

Swings and roundabouts in US trade talks

The UK government has published its position in trade talks with the United States.  At the outset, it makes clear that the NHS is not on the table, nor what the NHS pays for drugs. 


"The NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table. The NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic. Any agreement will ensure high standards and protections for consumers and workers, and will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards."

This is good news if they stick with those pledges.

The government must resist giving under pressure, and pressure there will be.  The US will want concessions if it is to provide more favourable access to its markets.

It is a market that the UK will increasingly depend upon unless it can strike a good deal with the EU. As with our relationship with the EU, much of the goods imported from the US are used in supply chains vital for British business.  

Thus, the government hopes that reductions in trade barriers will boost those UK industries in this supply chain.

There is no doubt that much could be gained, even if the overall boost to the economy is in the long run relatively small.  The government's own estimate is that it will boost the UK economy by just 0.16%.

This is certainly not a brave new horizon, and many slips could be made in the detail of the negotiations.

What cannot be assumed is that what we may lose from walking away from the EU without a trade deal can easily be compensated by an agreement with the United States.  It is clear from the forecasts in the position statement that this won't be the case even in the best scenario.

The US is the UK's largest trading partner after the EU, accounting for nearly 19% of all exports in 2018 and 11% of imports. The EU accounted for 45% of all exports and 53% of imports.

The government would be foolish to walk away from talks with the EU.  If more time is needed to get the best possible deal with the EU, then that time should be taken.   There is nothing to be gained for the UK economy by trading on WTO terms with the EU.

We can only assume that talk of doing so is merely playing hardball and that sense, in the end, will prevail.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database   will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...
2 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...
2 comments
Read more