UKC

Donald Trump today Tweeted:
Working on major Trade Deal with the United Kingdom. Could be very big & exciting. JOBS! The E.U. is very protectionist with the U.S. STOP!

Assuming he remains in office long enough to have any part in a future UK US trade deal do you see this as a good or bad thing? As a staunch Remainer I don't think it's a good thing as the U.S. is one of the few countries we have a trade surplus with, that won't have gone unnoticed by DT. However, I'm keen to have my view challenged as I know I'm looking at this in a non-partisan way.

In reply to Tyler:

In all talk of new trade deals, it worries me that we won't have the EU protection on standards. Even within the EU, I don't feel animal welfare standards are set highly enough (I won't by chicken for this reason), but they are still better than the US.

It feels like a sad race to the bottom

In reply to Tyler:

I in no way claim to understand the mechanics of these things. However can you please clarify something for me.

Before Brexit we did our trade negotiations within the framework of the EU. Yes/No
Before Brexit we had written guidelines to the standards etc required to trade. Yes/No

So why now that we have indicated we want to leave the EU do we automatically assume that we will suddenly lower our standards or indeed not just keep the standards we are currently working towards? Crikey, we might even raise them.

Brexit wasn't just a one way choice to dump everything good about the EU was it.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Animal welfare is a concern but as I don't eat only free range meat I'm a bit of a hypocrite. In effect it is just a (important) detail, more concerning for me is the idea that some of the Brexit optimism was predicated on a better U.S. trade deal but we already do quite well out of the U.S. and I can't see how a new deal with a protectionist president is going to leave us better off.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:

Have you seen who is in government? I don't see anything that makes me think they will even uphold standards, let alone raise them. All they want is to announce that they have a deal (even if it is an awful deal).

In reply to Tyler:

Any deal done in desperation will be bad for us, they can see that we are not in a good bargaining position.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:

Yes

Yes

Because to many on the Brexit and Tory side those standards are seen as a hindrance. Because this president won't countenance a deal unless our standards move towards US standards rather than US standards moving in the direction of our current ones. Because as part of the EU we were part of bigger and arguably stronger negotiating block. Because UK needs to get as many deals with as many countries ASAP after Brexit which means we won't have the luxury of a long drawn out negotiation. Because any trade negotiatiors we do have will be spread very thinly

Don't we already have this option? I honestly don't know and I imagine it will depend on what standards we are talking about whether the EU just sets minimums

It certainly wasn't meant to be. One of the good things what was meant to come of it was new trade deals, what I'm trying to establish is whether there is reason to be optimistic that that will be the case where the U.S. is concerned. I guess one of the questions is whether it's worth trading a trade surplus for an increase in trading volumes (obviously we could end up increasing our trade surplus and trade volumes in a win win scenario).

In reply to theLittlestHobo: when the Trumpster tweets JOBS he doesn't mean UK jobs. And the price of access to the US market is enhanced US access to UK markets for things like cheap meat.

Reality my friend will be a race to the bottom, that the UK loses.

In reply to wbo:

Stop talking the country down, the UK can win any race!

In reply to Tyler:


I somehow doubt Froome would win next year's TdF if he decided he no longer wanted to be part of Team Sky and chose to ride it on his own instead!

In reply to john arran:


Perhaps. He was once leading a group with Wiggins as lead team member drafting behind. froome decided he'd just go for the line and Wiggins couldn't keep up, but froome was stopped and told to back off by team sky. But I do get the real point you are making.

In reply to summo:


Nicely countered!

In reply to Tyler:

You guys are taking me wrong. All I was trying to point out was that we have no 'set in stone' set of rules for when we Brexit. If you want to influence these choices and standards then isn't your time better spent trying to influence who is in charge of the gorvenrment at any particular time.

So you don't like brexit, That's cool. But its still on the agenda wether you like it or not so why not influence the people that are in charge to make it something good. Imagine if we increased the standards of any trade deals. Imagine if we were the country who told Trump to do one. Imagine if the EU sat down and said ok we aren't in an agreement with UK but they are still our friends and we can work together.

But no, its easier to turn around, blame brexit, blame trump and twine about the Conservatives. Its not like the alternatives are any better. Imagine claiming to be able to wipe out 100billion of student debt and then having to back track........

The moment you realise they are all liars and all out to suit their own agenda you realise that moaning about trivial little things like nurses parking and electric cars will amount to the grand total of diddly squat

In reply to Tyler:

If nothing else, Trump prides himself on being able to get the best deal for himself. I would imagine that a UK cut adrift from the EU looks like a very good market to exploit, on his terms nach. So I'm yet to be convinced any deal with Trump won't involve bending over and taking it.

In reply to Tyler:

Hi Tyler, you are obviously better versed in all this than myself. TBH I gave up on policitcs when I saw how horrible the remainers reacted to anyone with a different opinion. After the recent voting and all the shenanigans I realised that its a turgid, rotting mess and we now have a situation where even when you win, you lose.

Your points are well put and understandable.

Because to many on the Brexit and Tory side those standards are seen as a hindrance. Because this president won't countenance a deal unless our standards move towards US standards rather than US standards moving in the direction of our current ones

Is that not just an assumption? Something that by directing your own views away from brexit and more towards our government may have better success. Do you really believe that an alternative of say Lbaour in charge would make any difference?

Don't we already have this option? I honestly don't know and I imagine it will depend on what standards we are talking about whether the EU just sets minimums

Exactly. So why are we complaining? Brexit, I assume wont effect this ability to agree our own standards

Just on another note away from the American trade deals. Arent we in a position to agree trade deals with whoever and wherever we want. Maybe we could help bring some of the poorer nations up to the table instead of throwing our eggs in one bascket with the US. I always thought of the EU as a bit of a cartel, and I don't like cartels. We spend 99% of our lives being told what we can and cant do and I find the implication that someone (EU) will hold it against us for wanting to have freedom of thought and commerce offensive.

In reply to Tyler:


No surprise there. In a U.K.-US trade deal the US can negotiate a far better trade deal for themselves than they can with the EU, as they are negotiating with an economy a fraction of their size, instead of negotiating with a bloc of equal strength.
Trump made clear he wants to negotiate trade deals on a bilateral basis, and rejected TTIP, and TPP, so that he can leverage the size of the US. Of course it's completely deluded as nobody is going to accept this type of commercial imperialism (appart from maybe the UK)

One possibility though, is that he gives a good deal to the UK as a way to undercut and weaken the rest of the EU, purely for political ends, in which case the EU is likely to retaliate by offering less favorable terms to the UK.

In reply to Tyler:

As somebody who exports about 50% of my business to the USA I obviously consider it a good thing. But I have never doubted that a deal will be signed quickly.The Uk is also one of the largest investors in the USA and they in us.It is pretty clear cut that a deal will be reached, and it would not matter if either the Republicans or the Democrats were in power.

To portray the USA has some market with low standards is frankly rubbish and insulting to both sides. Just remember they banned the use of cladding that was used in Grenfell as a counter example to the spin over chlorine washed chicken.So its a mixed picture.

In reply to Tyler:

Its all bluster designed to strengthen our position in the Brexit talks.

In principle its not bad thing to have a free trade deal with the US. Whether it actually is a good deal or not depends on, well, the deal.

However, both the UK and the US would be daft to negotiate an agreement before the UK's long-term relationship with the EU is clearer.

In reply to RomTheBear:

The last time I looked UK investment in the USA exceeded any other country---it works both ways.

In reply to Bob Hughes:
The EU would also be stupid not to recognise that a deal with the USA and Uk would be taken as being done pretty quickly. I bet its already been crossed off by all 3 sides as a non-issue....which is what it is.

In reply to Tyler: the cynic in me says a good guide might be the TTIP deal that was rejected.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


True, but it's not that simple, we live in a global economy. We can set our own high standards but assuming we want to keep out markets open, that means our companies end up with a competitive disadvantage over those with lower standards.

That's exactly what the single market seeks to achieve, align all the rules and standards to allow unfettered trade, whilst ensuring a level playing field.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Because this government is so known for listening to the people...

In reply to RomTheBear:

Totally agree. But we have witnessed over the years that the UK is pretty good at following the rules whilst others either ignore or circumvent them with rebates etc. Have a chat with a UK haulier and ask him what he thinks of all the EU lorries coming over with a fraction of the legislation to work under. I don't like trump but I don't blame him for saying We are the USA and we will do things on our terms. Within reason that's what everyone does anyhow, they just hide behind the rules.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, but we are way more economically dependent on US FDI in the UK than the US is reliant on UK FDI.
Note as well that the large volume of US FDI in the UK is in good part due to the fact that we are an extremely convenient bridge for them to access the single market.

In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:

You have more chance of achieving something with your little cross in the box than you have complaining about it on UK climbing. I don't trust any of them but then I have kind of given up thinking I can influence anything.

In reply to RomTheBear:

You might be surprised by how -if you read the US press etc- there is regular stuff about how much we invest in the USA. It is a two way trade.

Anybody who thinks this issue is even a big one in the context of Brexit needs a serious rethink as I see see it.

And then of course there is GCHQ and all the defence links.

As I have said I doubt anybody in the EU, UK or USA sees it as anything else other than a minor annoyance.

In reply to Tyler:

'As a staunch Remainer I don't think it's a good thing as the U.S. is one of the few countries we have a trade surplus with'

I don't understand your logic. If we have a trade surplus with the US currently when they have to pay tariffs on goods that we export to them, presumably they'll buy even more of our goods once the tariffs are removed.

As for the chlorine washed chicken nonsense - just because the product exists that does not mean that we will be forced to buy it. If we wish to impose a condition that this sort of chicken cannot be imported to the UK then the US and everyone else will have to abide by that condition.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


You are right to point out that the single market is far from complete, and there are still many disparities which led to complaints. But at least there is a mechanism (the ECJ) to address those. Is it perfect ? Of course not but better than nothing.

It seems to me Trump's vision is just unrealistic, he wants to do things on his terms but the other big trading blocs will just not be bullied in accepting them. And more likely than not all he will achieve is to isolate the US.

In reply to willworkforfoodjnr:


What was the referendum then?

In reply to John2:


So basically, you are saying we have a trade deal but we exclude anything that doesn't match our standards.
Well that's not really a free trade deal anymore in this case, the whole point of a FTA is to remove those barriers.

In reply to RomTheBear:

No, the whole point of a free trade deal is to remove tariffs. A case in point - you can walk into a shop in the US and buy a firearm. But the US are not allowed to export firearms to the UK at will.

In reply to neilh:


I've no idea about "standards in general" but they have a very different set up standards and regulation wise in farming and agriculture. The chlorine washed chicken isn't just about the chlorine, which we have in the water that pours from our domestic taps, but the fact it is indicative of the standards, quality and practices of an industry will will probably have to accept and the impact that will have on farming and agriculture in the UK.

Farming and agriculture in the UK needs an overhaul and we have potential for this leaving the EU and abandoning the CAP and it's influence. We need to unsure that this actually happens and we don't en up in a race to the bottom......

In reply to John2:

That's not even remotely the case. If all you want is removal of tarrifs on goods then that's just a very weak deal. The main barriers to trade these days are not tarrifs they are regulatory barriers, especially given that our economies are mostly services based.

The two issues are tied anyway. In your example, guns, do you think the US gun manufacturers would be happy with UK companies flooding the US market with UK-made guns tarriffs-free, whilst they are banned from selling their own products into the UK market ? Not gonnae happen.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Gave that a like because I agree.

The reason for me that brexit came about was two fold (For the majority of the general public)

The EU would not listen or even be seen to listen to the UK when it came to our concerns. It wasn't even for any particular issue. We just wanted to feel that we could influence things if we had too. Cameron coming back with his tail between his legs. The british public had given him the chance to get something and he came away with people like Merkel laughing in his face. I agree there is/was a mechanism in place but unless everyone is playing to the same tune and following that mechanism, or you feel like you have the ability to influence that mechanism. The mechanism isn't worth the paper its written on.

Totally agree with the vision of the US being isolated. However, as we have found in every facet of life, there will always be someone who is willing to dance with the devil for a little bit of cash. Trump knows, a pound to a pinch of poo, for every country that refuses to deal with him, there will be 2 more to replace them.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Please, try and talk about things that you actually know something about http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/free-trade-agreement.html

In reply to neilh:


If I was the US I'd want to know the status of the UK's passporting rights in the EU before negotiating a deal with the UK. That will take time to iron out - unlikely to be clear by March 2019.

I can't help but laugh at the way trump's Triumphant tweet about a "major trade deal" has turned into 3 days of cabinet ministers opining over chlorinated chicken. With friends like these...

In reply to John2:

Exactly what I said then "without tarrifs or hindrances".
Anyway you just have to look at all the FTAs that have been made for the past 20 years, removing tarrifs has become easier and anyway most On WTO are already low. The focus is now on removing other hindrances (I.e, non-tarrifs barriers, such as regulatory barriers), that's where the biggest gains are still to be made.

In reply to GrahamD:

He makes a lot of noise about his business credentials but an analysis of his business acumen tells a different story. He does deals to plump his ego, not his pockets. He'd probably be the world leader I'd most want to try to do a trade deal with if financial advantage were my objective.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:




Unfortunately I disagree with this, the mechanism was not perfect of course, but by far and large the best available today, and continually improving, in fact often in favour of UK workers.
I also disagree on the deal Cameron got. Those who rubbished that deal in the media should be ashamed, because it was actually a good deal, probably the biggest strategic win in the EU for the UK in decades. There was, in black and white, a set of binding principles that gave the UK a total opt-out on anything relating to eurozone and fiscal integration.


Really ? Don't see it happening. Maybe the UK will be desperate enough to dance to his tune, but it seems the rest of the world is starting to look elsewhere.

In reply to neilh:
Yours was one of the voices I wanted to hear as I know you export a lot. You are obviously doing ok under the existing system so why are you convinced things will be better under a new one, he wasn't promising a new free trade deal but a new deal. He's talking to an American audience in that Tweet, specifically his base to whom he has promised a more protectionist trade policy. His plans for a trade deal to replace NAFTA (such as they are) wasn't to help Mexico and Canada export more to the U.S. I certainly don't doubt a deal will be reached quickly, I'm just not sure why you think what we walk away with will benefit the economy.

It's not just about chlorine washed chicken though, there are lots of areas of divergence around things like labelling, pesticides GM crops and generally UK/EU standards seem a bit more rigorous. It could be that these standards are over bearing and uneccessary but someone thought they were a good idea, I'd guessing it's a case of (broadly) EU scientists vs the American laissez faire business lobby and I know who I'd rather put my faith in.

In reply to Tyler: Can we trust the halfwit who is responsible for negotiating on our behalf to look after our needs rather than being over impressed by the grownups [ ?] on the US team!

In reply to John2:


Has he said he is going to remove tariffs or has he promised his base more jobs as a result of a new deal? Given his simplistic outlook on things and his previous comments on trade how do you think he plans to do that? Even if we sell more goods to the U.S. as a result of a new deal we may end up with a worse balance of trade, if that were the case is that a better position or not for the UK?

My concern is that in Liam Fox's desperation to do a deal at any cost, that is just the sort of condition we won't be in a position to make the U.S. abide by.

In reply to Tyler:

For a second time, the removal of trade tariffs is the main point of a free trade agreement.

In reply to BnB:


I don't get that, I can see why you would want to deal with someone who is a bit dim (and I genuinely think he is) but he also acts irrationally. If he will not be persuaded from a position even if it is detremental to the U.S so it could be the only deal that could be made is one that leaves both parties worse off (obviously other outcomes are possible but the U.S. is one of the few countries we have a surplus with so any change to current deals has a risk to the UK).

In reply to John2:


You are assuming that is what he is promising. He had a free trade deal with Mexico and Canada but wants to replace that with something else, what he probably thinks he's aiming for is a one way free trade deal - you might say that is lunacy but this is the man who still thinks Mexico will pay for the wall!

In reply to John2:

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Rom on this - that is a very weak (and slightly out of date) version of a trade agreement (whatever Wikipedia says). The removal of tariffs is one aim, yes, but most modern free trade agreements have to look at more than this - they aim to remove non tariff barriers, which means regulatory equivalence etc.

This is why the UK's stated aim of a free trade agreement with the EU is so rubbish - it ignores all the other reasons why the single market works, by removing substantially all barriers to trade.

As an example - we could negotiate 0% tariffs on beef, but if the UK bans hormone grown beef (US market) and the US refuses UK beef (mad cow disease) then the removal of tariffs is meaningless. Negotiators know this, which is why a meaningful FTA has to address more than tariffs.

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Sure, but we still have the ability to say that we will not import chlorine-washed chicken. It may well be that if we do this the Americans will kick up a fuss, but that's what negotiating is all about.

Can you point me to a document which describes what an up to date free trade agreement consists of?

It's obvious that, for instance, there's no point in importing 110 volt American electrical goods into the UK - there has to be some degree of agreement of standards.

In reply to galpinos:
So when did you last have a bottle of Californian wine or ate dried fruit or Nut's from the USA.

You would be surprised by how much American food or drink you already consumed.

In reply to andyfallsoff:
Upto a point the EU market works.but if you think there are common standards on everything then you only have to look at Grenfell and cladding to see there are not

In reply to John2:

this is what the EU says it looks for in a trade agreement:

Trade negotiations in a nutshell
With EU trade deals, we aim to tackle things that get in the way of trade with other countries.

Depending on the agreement, partner governments in other parts of the world commit to a series of measures. These might include:

removing or cutting customs duties (taxes) on goods that European companies export
scrapping any limits (quotas) on the amounts EU firms can export
allowing EU businesses to provide services and bid for public contracts
cutting red tape which makes it harder for EU firms to export, without cutting corners on things like health and safety standards or environmental protection.

The EU negotiates trade deals either directly with other countries or regions, or through its membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


How on Earth does the EU operate as a cartel??? Anyone?
LD

In reply to Lurking Dave:


That's because Spain, France, Italy and Germany have always been the best of buddies with a totally common outlook on life, the gang, whereas Billy No Mates UK has always been the kid that got bullied. Obviously.

In reply to Lurking Dave:
CAP is viewed as a cartel by farmers outside the EU

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


Hey, the answer to this question is that the standards are up for negotiation just like everything else in a trade deal. When you negotiate as a bloc of 28 countries with the largest single market in the world, you can be quite firm on your standards and force the other side to raise theirs to meet yours. But when you're a small market like the UK negotiating with a big market like the US you have much less leverage, and will likely have to lower your standards to meet theirs - especially if, for political reasons, you need a quick deal to please your voters.

In reply to Conor1:


"The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you're dead."
- Donald Trump, The Art of the Deal

In reply to Tyler:

You can count that anything trump tweets as exciting and imminent, to be in reality disappointing and decades away.

In reply to Conor1:

I am confused-----you mean the 5 or 6 largest economy in the world is " small"?

Lets get a bit of perspective here.

In reply to neilh:



Yes it is small, compared to the first, second, and third.

In reply to neilh:


Stop it for a minute, the US spends roughly the same per head in farm subsidies as the EU does, and China vastly more.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Even as a remainer I find the pessimism about the uk's trading position unreal and out of perspective.

Have a happy weekend.

In reply to neilh:

I've not made any assessment of the UK trading position, I've been pointing out simple facts.

But if you asked me to make an assessment, then I have little doubt that our trading position is vastly inferior out of the EU. Even if we managed to retain a good level of access by accepting all EU terms, trading policy in the EU will be set without us, and you can be certain it will be to our disadvantage.

In reply to neilh:


Yes, 3.85% of the world economy and that fraction is shrinking as others are growing much faster.

Realistically we get to choose whether to tie ourselves to the EU and copy its rules/standards or tie ourselves to the USA and copy its rules and standards. Maybe in the future China will start building up its own sphere of influence and set of rules and standards.

I think the EU is by far the better option because it is larger, geographically closer, it is a federation of equals where you get a vote and we have spent the last 40 years developing our economy within the context of EU rules.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And not forgetting that these "EU rules" were ones that we, as principal members of the EU, helped draft and approve, to help maximise our national benefit. The press over the last 40 years hasn't been filled with stories about how the UK could not reach amicable agreements within the EU to mutual benefit, and if the UK had really been badly thwarted in its objectives by other EU countries, you can be sure as hell we would not have heard the end of it in the UK press.

edit: spelling