Seeing a few articles like this, the supposed battle in the Conservative Party between free marketeers and protectionists, and sorry but it doesn't work. Because to equate a US trade deal, with an America first President, as free trade, just isn't true theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Real free traders wouldn't support putting up extensive trade barriers to 50% of their trade. A US that believed in free trade would actually offer trade liberalisation in procurement, services, or regulatory approvals, none of which are likely to be on offer.
Supporting a US free trade deal is not choosing free trade or protectionism. Similarly supporting UK farmers. It is to choose between the US and EU approaches to regulation. Neither of which are classic free trade as classic free trade doesn't exist in the modern regulated world.
Oh, and its also unlikely a US deal means cheaper food as we already have cheap food. Or that a US trade deal leads to more opportunities for UK exporters as the US doesn't typically offer new market access. Hence some of the lack of popularity. bbc.co.uk/news/business-…
So, some Conservative MPs and aligned groups, a few shall we say having strong links to US farming interests, are lobbying for a US trade deal and calling opponents protectionists. But its really a US v EU fight. It should be about UK interests first. /end theguardian.com/politics/2018/…
PS Anyone think that President Trump will be particularly generous with his offers in the run-up to a Presidential election? Also interesting tactics to ally ourselves so much to an unpopular President's agenda, when actually this should be bipartisan in the US. 
