🔗 Share this article

Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Washington are "lacking a solid foundation." This comes after revelations that a recently announced deal on medicines, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any underlying contract beyond limited headline terms published in government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, hailed as a "significant" achievement, is still an "broad understanding" without detailed provisions. Critics have noted that the official announcements from the UK and US governments frame the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version celebrates securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement highlights the agreement for the NHS to pay 25% more for new medications.

"The danger exists that the UK government has made commitments to raise drug prices in return for only a verbal promise from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade expert. "We know he has form for not keeping promises."

Wider Concerns Amidst a Suspended Agreement

Anxieties have been amplified by Washington's action to put on ice the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously heralded as "a huge leap forward" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a failure to advance 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 still not been formally ratified by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not finalized the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Privately, ministers have admitted unease that the government's deals with Washington are flimsy and unreliable. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, remarked: "The only thing more surprising than the US approach is the UK government's credulous faith that his administration is a good faith actor. The NHS is of vital importance."

Government Downplays Risks, Points to Gains

Officials have sought to reduce the chances 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 more concrete than the paused tech deal.

Officials acknowledge that volatility is part and parcel of dealing with the Trump administration. However, they argue that the UK has secured concrete outcomes for businesses, such as preferential tariff rates compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is more favorable than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.

Yet, problems have arisen in enacting the broader trade deal. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have failed to be approved, and the assurance to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has remains unmet, with tariffs staying at 25%.

Looking ahead, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "very positive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.