The UK Government does not have realistic objectives for trade deals or really know why it wants them, and potential trade partners are in turn unsure as to how much they should be pointing this out or whether to start in the expectation of confusion later thesun.co.uk/news/10775218/…
Example - in one of the leaked reports of progress on informal US trade talks UK officials reported happily that they'd been told by US counterparts we were doing better than they expected. US unofficial message at the time "we've come to kick their butts to get ready"
A full US trade deal means a few minor market access concessions for the UK in the US, and the UK making significant changes to our approach to food safety and technical regulations (probably with NHS excluded). Still controversial. Worthwhile?
Even when you have the big picture of a trade deal you still have to discuss the details - for example the rules of origin for individual products that mean we benefit from any tariff cuts. Are government and business ready for all of the detail?
Interesting to see The Times come out in favour of abandoning EU food rules to get a US trade deal. As well as safety this needs to be considered in terms of impact on UK food and drink exports, and barriers to trade with Northern Ireland and the EU thetimes.co.uk/article/in-a-f…
Worth noting that US farming interests have put an awful lot of money into UK politics to get a UK-US trade deal that allows their food in, and pushes back against EU regulations. Sorry to say chlorinated chicken really is the defining issue of Brexit - EU or US regulations?
Reminded as well that food standards may well be a devolved issue but nobody quite knows how that works in a trade deal post Brexit...
