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.



Comments

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As