OK, it seems I don’t agree with everything in this report, but let’s go through it.
Finding 1. It’s unclear how committed the US is to the deal, this is true of the administration, but that isn't necessarily a reflection of the political landscape. 
The Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters, and as far as I know, there is a reasonable amount of support in both in doing a deal.
This includes Senator Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who has called for discussion on a trade deal with the UK.
In fact the House of Representatives specifically has been quite bullish, with people like Republican Charlie Dent saying after the vote he would introduce a resolution to urge the Obama administration to begin talks.
Finding 2. There is a clear imbalance. No kidding! The US has huge leverage. The UK also lacks experience, with their most experience negotiator comes from a country with a small services sector.
Finding 3. The UK must strike a trade deal with the EU before the US. This is a sentiment very much in alignment to the feelings of people on the Senate Finance Committee. With members such as Senator John Thune expressing this exact sentiment.
More significantly, the sentiments in the same committee come from Senator Rob Portman. Rob has presided over trade agreements with 30 countries. Making him probably the most successful trade negotiator in US history.
This fits with the schedule of the US, because right now, the UK deal is at the back of a priority queue, with NAFTA being the most important thing they need to negotiate.
Something they shouldn’t have to do because the Obama admiration renegotiated it as part of TPP and the US got everything they want, but now someone has pulled the plug on TPP, the US have to do it all over again.
Finding 4, again this is how it is. As Pascal Lamy said during the referendum: Trade negotiations are not about love. The Special relationship does not apply here, they are about numbers, and our numbers are worse outside the EU.
What it doesn’t talk about is the US eyeing up our defence sector. I believe this will be one of the things they will use their leverage for, and if that happens I believe it have a significant negative effect on UK defence companies.
Finding 5, again, yes. We are closer in terms of culture to the majority of countries on our continent (shocker!) and the US will push for opening up sectors that were cut out and protected by the EU when negotiating TTIP from a stronger position.
Finding 6, is also true. Do we align with the European market we are in, or do we align with a market on a different continent that is also, coincidentally, one of the hardest markets to sell to in the world. Tough choice…
It is better if both markets agree, and that is best done by being part of one of those powers and creating the regulations, rather than having regulations you didn’t create thrust on you by market forces by one or the other.
Finding 7, and again this is correct. There is the state / federal divide. There are issues in terms of how the deal can be done, and there are areas that are politically sensitive at the moment in the US.
Agriculture is a particularly sensitive issue politically because Donald Trump both pulled out of TPP and is trying to reduce crop insurance, and there is even a vote this week on liberalising the Sugar industry. rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-2
This Irish border also affect this, because for things like “Customs agreements”, even the fantasy unworkable ones involve signing up to the EU’s Phytosanitary policy, as Switzerland has.
Then the US trade deal becomes more difficult, because “Fast Track” which is the legal procedure that allows the president to do complex trade deals for Congress does not allow him to conclude a deal without movement on phytosanitary policy.
Also TTIP didn’t have a financial services chapter because Congress didn’t want the United States Trade Representative (USTR) anywhere near the financial market.
Then there is this table which highlights that the UK are under pressure to get this done from a political point of view, but have a weakened position. NAFTA comes first, the UK are at the back of a priority queue.
Ironically, people thought the Trump presidency would put us to the front of the queue, but he actually pulled the plug on the most important negotiation and decided to do it all again from scratch.
The table also pretty much summing up the sentiments I gave here about the political issue and the relative weakness.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-t…
huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-t…
And finally the conclusion that nothing meaningful, with the statement “which means open and strong trading relations already exist, so it is unclear how much more there is realistically to gain”
Which is important when you contrast it with New Zealand. Of all the countries supposed to be lining up to do deals, New Zealand was apparently one to celebrate and prioritise.
New Zealand amounts to 0.2% of exports from the EU. It’s on the other side of the world. It has a service sector which is growing slowly but is no bigger than that of Indonesia, a country with an enormous number of barriers.
New Zealand has one of the lowest average most favoured nation (MFN) applied tariff rates among industrialized countries. Add all of that up, and the gains are massive in this deal, and yet the UK government is really excited. Why?
Well I think the answer can be found in that US document. That’s right…they are “popular”.
The UK government should be seeking to break down barriers in the closest markets and the biggest markets with the biggest growth where the British business will benefit most, and therefore in the interest of economy and the people in it.
Instead they are seeking deals which are not likely to have a meaningful return for the benefit of votes. Never mind the miles, it’s all about smiles.
At this point, a good case for staying in the customs union and limiting the UK’s trading options is one year of UK trading policy. Pursuing trade deals that only benefit them and their popularity rating.
At least we’d have a grown up in the room who wasn’t indulging prejudice in return for deals with little meaningful return to anyone but themselves.
Of course, the solution that fixes all of the problems is staying in the European Union.
/End
/End
