,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The US have published negotiating objectives for a future UK trade deal, though they aren't UK specific, being substantially the same as a similar document for the EU. No country should negotiate on the basis of them as they aren't based on mutual benefit ustr.gov/sites/default/…
All the expected stuff is in there - remove barriers to US food, drug pricing in NHS, withdraw from European standards community, no trade deal with China, discourage commercial boycotts of Israel. Plus lots of irrelevant boilerplate on e.g. labour standards
Plus, there is no suggestion of particular benefits for the UK. Thus for example no special regulatory dialogue in financial services, at least there is no mention of trade deficit,s as we both think we run a surplus with the other
The respected Peterson Institute in the US called the similar objectives to an EU trade deal the "pursuit of one-way managed trade" which "holds little promise for a transatlantic deal". It would be a sign of terrible weakness to negotiate on this basis piie.com/blogs/trade-in…
PS Under the Government's proposed processes for making free trade agreements there would not need to be any votes in Parliament on a UK-US FTA until negotiations are complete, and Parliament would only be able to vote to delay implementation assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Returning to the US objectives for a UK trade deal, I've been asked several times whether it isn't normal for these things to be one sided. Well, of course, but not this one sided. Compare these objectives to those of TTIP in one area, procurement for a clear example 
