🔗 Share this article

Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's series of deals with Washington are "built on sand." This stems from revelations that a recently announced deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which commits to zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS increasing its costs, lacks any detailed agreement beyond limited headline terms outlined by government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The deal on drug tariffs, described as a "significant" achievement, remains an "broad understanding" without detailed provisions. Observers point out that the press releases from the UK and US governments present the deal in divergent terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the commitment for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"The danger exists that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for nothing more than a pledge from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade expert. "We know he has a tendency for not honouring his word."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Concerns have been intensified by Washington's move to suspend the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously described as "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress from the UK on addressing wider trade issues as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions agreed to for British farmers as part of an initial accord have not been formally ratified by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "We have been informed that that the US has not finalized the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Anxiety Behind Closed Doors

Behind the scenes, ministers have expressed concerns that the government's US-UK accords are lacking substance. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "greater risk and fluctuation."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, stated: "What is even more astonishing than the administration's tactics is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is of vital importance."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Officials have attempted to minimize the possibility of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source indicated the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it of tangible value than the paused tech deal.

Officials admit that instability is part and parcel of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they argue that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "Our achievement of 25% steel tariffs, which is better than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.

Nevertheless, issues have emerged in carrying out the May tariff agreement. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have not materialized, and the assurance to "remove tariffs on British steel and aluminium" has not been fulfilled, with tariffs staying at 25%.

Moving forward, the two sides have agreed to resume talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.