The real significance of the leaked UK-US documents is that it provides one vision for future UK trade policy - the US first policy (in all senses). Farmers and manufacturers would be among those hit, and the NHS and UK regulatory system could be affected... thread 1/ 
There's no doubt from the documents about the US number one interest - removing the UK from the EU food standards system. It comes up clearly in the readout of the 4th round, but that wasn't the first mention 2/
Those who remember Johnson saying the UK would not change food standards for the US - well the documents make perfectly clear that if we don't change our approach in this area we get no US trade deal. 3/
Farmers leaders and some Conservative MPs have already been pushing back against US food standards. Parts of the food manufacturing sector will also have severe concerns about this affecting their supply chain 4/ theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Why food standards is a particularly big deal is that it is unlikely the EU or US will do a preferential trade deal without the UK aligning to their rules. Which clash in areas like chlorinated chicken. The UK may have to choose. 5/
Food isn't the only major US ask to take the UK out of an EU or in this case European system. They also want to see the UK accept US voluntary standards, which may well mean leaving European standardisation bodies. 6/
UK companies and BSI play a major role in developing what become European and often then global standards. That helps UK companies export more easily. The US has a different system and wants to see the UK adopt theirs. That would come at cost 7/ bsigroup.com/en-GB/about-bs…
So a US trade deal sees UK manufacturers lose because it will affect their access to the EU market, and their global influence. Do they get anything back from the US? Nothing is mentioned except tariff reduction, and even that may take time. 8/
What about greater UK access for services companies in the US with a trade deal? Unfortunately in the third meeting the US representative explains that they don't really look to improve market access... 9/
It gets worse. The UK has some long standing issues with the way the US approaches various issues. One is in telecoms and formed a part of our TTIP ask. the US weren't impressed and expect 'humble' trade partners... 10/
So, about the impact of the deal on the NHS. Well, the UK side were aware of the sensitivities of the issue of patents and the NHS from Meeting two. So we've had plenty of time to remove it from the table 11/
The message about the NHS not being on the table certainly hadn't got through to negotiators in meeting four... as has been said elsewhere, the two sides have been having a very sophisticated discussion 12/
The potential for US companies to provide services to the NHS (as is already the case to a degree) - covered in Meeting one. Everything to be locked down, or the alternative is "horrifying" 13/
Some will remember that the main focus of opposition to the EU-US 'TTIP' negotiation was the Investor State Dispute Settlement ISDS which allows companies to sue governments if they perceive unfair treatment. It was assumed this wouldn't come up again... oh 14/
There was a lot of discussion between 2013 and 2016 about whether ISDS was a threat to the NHS, with campaigners and trade unions arguing it needed to be excluded or would lock in privatisation. We could see the same arguments again... 15/ fullfact.org/europe/does-tt…
A few other bits and pieces worth noting - a US trade deal would put in treaty UK government responsibilities regarding consultation and impact assessments, under the Good Regulatory Practices chapter 16/
The powers of devolved assemblies come up a few times over the course of discussions. I wonder whether the UK government knows the answers yet.... 17/
Lest we forget who needs to benefit from a UK-US trade agreement... 18/
You can take issues off the table of a trade agreement if you want - witness the US response to the suggestion that climate change could be included in a trade agreement. That will be a no I think... 19/
So what happens next in UK-US negotiations? Well, both sides want to formally start. We're ready they say.
Which seems strange as the UK has no negotiating mandate and according to these documents no significant offensive interests 20/
Which seems strange as the UK has no negotiating mandate and according to these documents no significant offensive interests 20/
More significantly, it appears the US and UK are happy to move into the negotiations phase on the basis of including the NHS and food standards - and how many times did DIT complain that reports of the latter were misleading? 21/ businessinsider.com/uk-will-accept…
We wouldn't however see the details of what was being discussed until it was finalised - or at least the US part. For the moment that has to be kept secret. Even if the secrecy harms the negotiation. 22/
So from what we know so far - a UK-US trade deal with mean the UK (GB actually) leaving EU regimes for food safety and technical standards, at likely risk to any kind of future UK-EU deal. With no obvious new UK market access. And maybe the NHS affected. 23/
And if we do sign up to EU food standards and technical standards, no US trade deal. Those promises of both EU and US trade deals look shaky on these grounds. We're the rope in a tug of war. We'll need realism and choices, not simple denial. 24/ end
PS (first of many things I forgot) meant to say that I know many of the negotiators on both sides and have no doubt they are genuinely doing the best for their side. As they say, business is business...
