Yves here. The United States is sensible trying to reduce trade agreements first with countries that perceives to be in a weak position to try to establish reference points that they can use to try to press others. Therefore, it should not surprise us that the United Kingdom has been head of the pack.
We pointed out the duration and after the Brexit that the United Kingdom would be, ERM, very anxious to enter a commercial agreement with the United States, but should be careful with what it wanted. The smallest countries that enter the commercial pacts with the US. They are the terms they occupy, with only some negotiation outward with the purpose of saving face. It is not clear that kindness will be observed here. This administration not only enjoys the domain, but Keir Starmer is in a wak position in general and even after the reform party staggers in the local board elections.
Richard Murphy provides the summary of the White House Agreement, and at least when comparing his shot with a much longer writing in the Financial Times, Murphy Aparks to have exaggerated part of the disadvantage of the agreement (which I generally agree). Specifically:
Murphy: “The protection of British agriculture and the quality of our foods have been submarances.”
Financial Times: “The negotiators of the United Kingdom avoided … make changes in the rules of food standards of the United Kingdom to allow products such as chicken washed with chlorine and rescue meat treated.”
Now, that does not mean that American cattle producers have no advantage compared to their counterparts from the United Kingdom, but it does not seem that food security, as defined by the United Kingdom, has been compromised. However, the devil is in the details, and an application/labeling regime could end up allowing some non -satisfied products to pass. And the Financial Times suggests that the rest in the American ethanol would more surely damage the producers of the United Kingdom.
But the main points still stand out:
The appearance of the United States is trying to follow a baseline or 10% tariffs. For example, that Ballyhooed’s break up to 100,000 cars from the United Kingdom (only one dint below the US export. UU. Last year) touched the rates of 27.5% to 10%. That translates into great damage to US consumers and companies, partly small businesses.
The fact that the 100,000 United Kingdom cars is the flagship of these agreements also show the United Kingdom a cold priority to preserve the work in their luxury car manufacturers (which is also other products for the parts of the EE Buyers engine engine. UU.)
Some parts of the United Kingdom agreement seem peculiar. Obtain an aluminum exemption? When aluminum is so intensive in energy that is called “solid electricity” and the United Kingdom and Europe have been sanctioned at high energy costs? But it seems that the exemption in steel and aluminum guides it to the prevention of double orientation in the aircraft pieces mentioned above.
Pink paper competition with Downbeat’s evaluation of Murphy:
Mattia Di Ubaldo, Main Research Fellow in International Trade of the University of Sussex, said that the agreement left the United Kingdom in “a significantly worse position” in its bilateral commercial terms with the United States that a year ago, but now with a competitive advantage advantage advantage advantage advantage advantage ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ”
Economists said the agreement provides relief to industries with the highest risk of tariffs, but would not give any difference to general economic perspectives in the United States or the United Kingdom. They suggested that the United States would also fight to achieve significant treatment with other countries.
The limited relief of the car and steel and aluminum rates “would bite” to the effective rate of the United States, but the average rate would still remain in two digits, hitting US consumers with force, said Michael Pearce Economics …
Paul Dales, an economist of the United Kingdom in Capital Economics, said that the US import rate. UU. In the United Kingdom it would be approximately 11 percent as a result of the agreement, much higher than the 1 percent that existed last year. That was an improvement in the 13 percent preceded on Thursday, but very depending on the future measures of the United States in critical sectors such as pharmaceutical products.
The results are also disappointing an advantage in the United States:
I suppose: the United Kingdom almost to a death may have reduced the average tariff rate of Great Britain, the charges of US exports from 1% to 0.8%.
And the United Kingdom is only 3% of US trade.
“So, if this sounds like small potatoes, it is because these are not potatoes. These are small peas.” pic.twitter.com/dba0lykkjq
– Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers) May 8, 2025
Then, Trump’s brilliant strategy was to reach an agreement with the United Kingdom, a country with which the United States already has a commercial surplus, but make the goods more successful for Americans, while the cheapest US assets for the United Kingdom.
Truly, a 2000D chess master coup. pic.twitter.com/9h3g7gwg9l
– Joshua Reed Eeakle 🗽 (@josheakle) May 8, 2025
By Richard Murphy, Professor of Accounting Practice at the School of Management of the University of Sheffield and director of the Corporate Responsibility Network. Originally published to finance the future
This statement was issued yesterday by the White House in the Commercial Agreement of the United Kingdom/EE. UU., Of which there is great uncertainty:
- President Trump: “The agreement includes billions of dollars in the greatest access to the market for US exports, especially in agriculture, drastically increasing access for beef, ethanol and virtuaxy in all products.”
- “The United Kingdom will reduce or eliminate numerous non -tariff barriers that unfairly discriminated against US products.”
- “This is now resulting in being a great offer for both countries.”
- Prime Minister Starmer: “This will boost trade between our country. Not only will you protect jobs, but to create jobs, open access to the market.”
- This commercial agreement will significantly expand access to the US market in the United Kingdom, creating an opportunity of $ 5 billion for new exports for American farmers, ranchers and producers.
- This includes more than $ 700 million in ethanol exports and $ 250 million in other agricultural products, such as beef.
- Commit to the country to work together to improve access to the industrial and agricultural market.
- Lagunas closes and increases the competitiveness of US companies in the United Kingdom’s acquisition market.
- Ensures simplified customs procedures for US exports.
- It establishes high -level commitments in the areas of intellectual property, work and environment.
- Maximize competitiveness and ensures the supply chain of US aerospace manufacturers through preferential access to the aerospace components of the United Kingdom of high quality.
- Create a safe supply chain for pharmaceutical products.
- The 10%reciprocal rate, as originally announced on the day of liberation, is in force.
- The United States will accept an alternative agreement for the rates of section 232 on the cars of the United Kingdom.
- According to the agreement, the first 100,000 vehicles imported to the US by car manufacturers of the United Kingdom each year are subject to the reciprocal rate of 10% and any additional vehicle each year are subject to rates of 25%.
- The United States also recognizes the tasks of the United Kingdom’s economic security measures to combat excess steel capacity and negotiate an alternative agreement for tariffs in section 232 on steel and aluminum.
- This agreement creates a new commercial union for steel and aluminum.
- This commercial agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom will mark a golden era of a new opportunity for US exporters and level the playing fields for US producers.
What does all this mean? The honest answer is, who knows?
What we do know is:
- The 10 percent rate that Trump imposed in April remains in place
- Tariffs are reduced in steel, aluminum and cars.
- The United Kingdom has to accept beef, ethanol and other products.
- We may have increased the access of the United States to NHS and other public services.
So, we can conclude:
- The United Kingdom cools a lot to avoid a threat of tariffs in British manufacturing luxury cars.
- So far, we have avoided granting tax revenues from digital services, but it seems likely to be on the table.
- It is likely that the competitive position of the United Kingdom suppliers to the United Kingdom government has been harmed.
- The protection of British agriculture and the quality of our foods have been undermining.
And all that to leave us in a position worse than April 1.
If this is how a good deal is seen, I suggest some shoulder that sometimes (with which I mean, generally or always) no treatment is better than a bad business, because that is what it has.
Last July, my most basic hope was that Starmer could judge the decrease in the quality of the British prime ministers. Now I realize that my hope was out of place. Starmer now occupies the place along Johnson for incompetence. You may not yet challenge the armor. But, give him time. Things are definitely getting worse.
