This looks like a government admission - for the first time - that a US trade deal will require the UK to change our food standards. Which has been widely known by experts but something the government has repeatedly denied until now.
The US and EU as trade giants are able to insist imports meet their approach to food standards in trade deals. The US also insists on their food being allowed in your market. Probably less of an issue for deals with other countries (though unknown in the case of CPTPP).
Ironically as the UK government reserves the right to change food standards for a US trade deal, California is insisting on higher animal welfare standards, and hoping to cut all trade from the rest of the US not meeting their standard. Perhaps a UK-California deal...?
Once again we are left to consider the nature of future UK regulatory independence if in fact we can't set our own food regulations for fear of not getting a US trade deal.
But this one will keep running...
I'm also reminded that (like so many things these days) there is a Scottish and Northern Irish dimension. The latter will be following EU rules so won't benefit from US food. And the former will use the subject as further grounds for independence...
Incidentally it might be worth checking with countries other than the US if they would be prepared to do a trade deal if we set minimum agricultural standards in some areas, because I reckon the answer is yes. But of course the US trade deal is symbolic...
Meanwhile another Brexit trade and food story that has been known about for some time is warming up... sugar beet growers (British sugar) v sugar cane importers (Tate & Lyle), we think the latter is winning... eadt.co.uk/business/farmi…
To be fair, and contra what some believe, I think the government is pretty sure they have the rural / farming vote anyway so don't feel any great need to listen or treat as a priority. Though The Mail on Sunday might be another matter...
A good point on the government's new-found concern for developing country farmers... but of course if the US trade agreement is the overwhelming priority then agriculture policy has to follow this.
Tough job running a country during a covid outbreak. Seems to need a respected leader who can bring a country and institutions together with relentless focus.
Incidentally the Minister for everything the government considers important (sorry, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) leads on, inter alia, covid, Brexit, and civil service reform.
To do even one of these properly looks like a full time job.
While I get the importance of allowing US food into the UK for those committed to a UK-US trade deal it seems entirely reasonable to ask questions about the impacts on the UK, and discuss those. And I see plenty on left and right, free traders and not, in agreement about this.
It is interesting and right to see developing countries being brought into the discussion. In many cases they already have to meet exacting rules set by supermarkets. Is that the best way, or perhaps consistent UK standards would suit them?
Or perhaps we are fine for the US to set our food standards, in which case could we admit that? For example, take ractopamine in pork, banned in over 160 countries according to this article. Should we just go with the US approach? pigprogress.net/Health/Article…
I was struck by this paragraph in particular on civil service reform - screams "we want something different" but whispers "we haven't really worked out what" so let's sack some senior civil servants now and work the rest out later...
So many problems with reforming a big organisation (and I've worked for a few) - you need a clear vision with wide support, leaders from within who can be the change, and reform of many 'boring' areas like assessment. I don't see any of these in the government's plans.
The civil service has plenty of issues widely recognised, including poor management, lack of detailed expertise, and endemic bullying linked to an insider / outsider culture. But it feels like the government's idea of reforms is just to have a few more people who think like them.
Important note - UK government optimism over an EU deal is not (NOT) yet shared by the EU, and in the past has not (NOT) been a good indicator. Maybe this time, and maybe a big move is in the offing - but advise caution, a lot of pieces have to slot into place.
For the last two weeks the UK side have been suggesting the state aid issue is getting closer. Best guess is this is projection to persuade the EU to accept the UK proposals, also show UK reasonableness. EU response, including today, UK has to go further.
At no point have we understood what sort of economic activity will be encouraged by free ports. Unlikely to be services (our major comparative advantage). Can't see why parts of global supply chains would move there given policy uncertainty. So what will it be?
I don't think we know if goods coming from UK freeports will be eligible for tariff free entry to other markets under UK Free Trade Agreements, or whether tax preferences for these areas could be challenged at the WTO. Important questions.
Let us say the PM gets an EU deal. Immediately Farage says he has sold out the country. Reasonable to assume some ERG MPs follow, for example in pointing out the Northern Ireland protocol remains. Does the PM take them on? Big decision for the PM.