It’s a deal. The words sound good. Most human beings are primed to think of a deal as desirable in itself. It isn’t hard to see why. Agreement is generally better than disagreement. In most aspects of life, shaking hands under shared rules makes sense. So it takes a bit of effort to think more objectively. But it is important to do that now, especially in the case of the proposed UK trade deal with the United States.Even beforeDonald Trumpbecame president again, and long before the US started its current tariff wars, there were already plenty of reasons for caution about what a free trade deal with the US might look like. In the wake of Brexit, these concerns centred on whether a deal could be struck – and sold at home – on bilateral trade issues such as pharmaceuticals, food products and digital regulation, on all of which very different standards and assumptions have long applied on the two sides of the Atlantic.None of those red lines – even though some are redder than others – has gone away under Trump. That does not mean there will be no UK-US deal. This week, though, the US vice-president, JD Vance, lobbed another grenade into the works. Shortly after it being widely reported that he said there wasa “good chance” of a US-UK trade deal, Vance was also reported as saying something far less emollient. Sources close to the vice-president werequoted as sayinghe will insist that Britain must repeal hate speech laws on LGBTQ+ people as the price of an agreement.If that really is the US administration’s view, then it would be an undisguisedly brutal example of how this White House sees trade deals. More reliable indicators of Washington’s approach may emerge from thetrade talks this weekbetweenthe US and Japan. Japan, after all, is both a longstanding US military ally and major US investor. It also had a notable record of deflecting Trump’s dangers during his first term. Yet Japan still faces 24% “reciprocal” US tariffs.Non-retaliation against the US is as embedded a reflex in London as it is in Tokyo. Yet the fact remains that, to Trump, a deal has always been a means of asserting his power and getting his way. There is little that is genuinely transactional about it. In Trump’s deals there has to be a winner – him. And that means there must always also be a loser – the other guy. The risk for Britain is that, beguiled by lazy thinking that saysBritain is a unique bridgebetween the US and Europe, which it isn’t, and that a trade deal is inherently desirable, which isn’t the case either, we are sleepwalking into becoming one of the losers.Step back for a moment. There have been states in the past which thought about trade the same way that Trump does today. Before the first world war, when Britain was the global hegemon, our politics were convulsed by the same argument. Tariff supporters led by Joseph Chamberlain wanted Britain to reject free trade and assert its sway through bilateral deals done on Britain’s terms. Under Trump, the US, not Britain, is acting as today’s global hegemon and using the selfsame approach. Chamberlain failed; Trump is likely to fail too.Don’t lose sight of the big picture as Trump sees it. His agenda is essentially to demolish the world trading system as it has existed since 1945, with its rules-based (rules that have generally favoured the US) multilateralist approach. The tariff war aims to obliterate a system that, whatever its unfairnesses and failings (and they undoubtedly both exist), has also underpinned the growth of world trade and prosperity for decades. In its place, he seeks a world trade order based on might is right, as represented by the US.This is not an argument for Britain refusing every sort of free trade agreement with the US today. There remains a genuine case for a limited one, if it can be negotiated. But freer trade with the US has to be seen for what it is – and also for what it is not. For Britain, a free trade agreement with Trump’s US can only be fundamentally defensive. It should be seen as a way of protecting British trade interests. It is not the key to unlocking UK prosperity. In other words, it would be tactical not strategic.The US is never going to be the biggest driver of Britain’s elusive economic growth. That was true even when a trade deal wasbeing toutedunder Boris Johnson as the most high-profile opportunity created by Brexit. Freer trade with the US, even with Trump’s US, undoubtedly matters for some exporters, includingthe British car industry. But any wider gains were never going to be substantial – mere fractions of a single percentage point over a decade, at best. And that pales by comparison with freer trade with Europe.Keir Starmerconstantly arguesthat Britain does not have to choose between the US and Europe. What this claim misses, however, is that for Britain to make any positive choice involving Europe, even a modest one, is seen by many in Washington today as an active choice against the US. Trump’s aim in Europe is to weaken and, if possible,destroy the EU. Both he and Vance have been close to explicit about this and abouttheir hostility to Europe.By the same yardstick, Trump also wants to pull the UK out of the EU’s orbit in whatever way he can. So any effort by Starmer to reset UK relations with the EU, even the relatively modest reset that Starmer envisages, therefore risks being seen as a hostile act by Trump’s Washington. Brexiters will also do whatever they can to encourage the White House, which may explain the Daily Telegraph’s claim on Wednesday that Starmer is on theverge of an EU alignmentover food and veterinary rules.In other circumstances, that might perhaps be enough to deter Starmer. It certainly worries his chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, with his focus on Labour “leaver” voters. Yet the price Starmer would pay would be huge – the trade reset with Europe, which is seen as one of the keys with which the government hopes tounlock economic growth. Starmer and Rachel Reeves have always insisted that growth, and a fairer distribution of its proceeds, is their central objective. If that remains true, then something will have to give. It may have to be the US deal. To govern is to choose.Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
Can we stop pretending a trade deal with Trump will be a gamechanger for the UK. It won’t | Martin Kettle
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Skepticism Grows Over Potential UK-US Trade Deal Under Trump Administration"
The Guardian
7.5
TruthLens AI Summary
The notion of a UK trade deal with the United States, particularly under the leadership of Donald Trump, is met with skepticism despite the appealing idea of a 'deal.' Historical context and current geopolitical dynamics suggest that such an agreement may not yield the significant benefits that proponents hope for. Concerns have long been raised about the compatibility of differing standards in critical sectors like pharmaceuticals, food products, and digital regulation. Recently, Vice President JD Vance's comments about the need for the UK to repeal certain hate speech laws as a precondition for negotiations further illustrate the harsh realities of trade discussions with the Trump administration. This indicates a transactional approach where the US sees deals as a means of exerting power rather than mutual benefit, raising alarms over the potential for the UK to become a 'loser' in the negotiations.
Looking beyond the immediate implications, the historical parallels drawn between Trump's trade strategies and past British policies under figures like Joseph Chamberlain highlight a cyclical misunderstanding of trade dynamics. Chamberlain's push for tariffs and bilateral deals ultimately failed, and similar risks loom for the UK today. Trump's agenda appears intent on dismantling the post-World War II trading system that has facilitated global economic growth, replacing it with a might-is-right philosophy. While there may be limited opportunities for beneficial trade agreements with the US, the broader implications suggest that the UK’s economic growth will not primarily hinge on these deals. Instead, the focus should shift to fostering stronger ties with Europe, where the potential for substantial economic growth remains more viable. UK leaders must navigate these complex trade relationships carefully, recognizing that any alignment with Europe could be perceived negatively by the US, complicating the already delicate balance of international relations.
TruthLens AI Analysis
Martin Kettle’s article critically examines the potential UK-US trade deal under a possible second Trump administration, challenging the notion that such an agreement would be transformative for Britain. The piece highlights historical tensions, regulatory differences, and recent comments by US Vice-President JD Vance, who linked a deal to the repeal of UK hate speech laws protecting LGBTQ+ communities. This framing suggests skepticism toward the deal’s feasibility and benefits, while underscoring the geopolitical and ideological conditions attached.
Context and Purpose of the Article
The article aims to temper expectations about the UK-US trade deal’s impact, arguing that longstanding disagreements—such as divergent standards on pharmaceuticals, food, and digital regulation—remain unresolved. By citing Vance’s controversial demands, Kettle implies that the US may leverage trade negotiations to impose ideological concessions, framing the deal as a potential tool for political coercion rather than mutual economic gain. This aligns with broader post-Brexit anxieties about Britain’s bargaining power.
Target Audience and Perceived Bias
The piece likely resonates with liberal-leaning readers wary of Trump’s transactional diplomacy and Brexit’s economic fallout. It critiques the UK government’s optimism about trade deals as solutions to post-EU challenges, appealing to those skeptical of nationalist agendas. The Guardian’s center-left editorial stance further contextualizes its critical tone toward Trump and Brexit.
Manipulation and Reliability
While the article presents factual tensions (e.g., US-Japan tariffs, Vance’s statements), its selective emphasis on contentious issues could exaggerate the deal’s risks. The lack of counterarguments—such as potential economic benefits for specific UK sectors—suggests a persuasive intent. However, its reliance on verified reports (e.g., Vance’s comments) lends credibility. The manipulative element lies in its framing: portraying the deal as inevitably unfavorable without exploring scenarios where the UK might negotiate compromises.
Economic and Political Implications
If public perception shifts against the deal, pressure could mount on UK leaders to reject unequal terms, straining transatlantic relations. Sectors like agriculture (facing US competition) or tech (seeking regulatory alignment) may rally for or against negotiations. The article indirectly warns of sovereignty erosion, a sensitive post-Brexit issue.
Global Power Dynamics
The piece touches on US unilateralism under Trump, using trade as leverage to export domestic values—a trend affecting allies like Japan. This aligns with current debates about democratic backsliding and US leadership, making it timely amid 2024 election speculation.
AI and Narrative Influence
While the analytical depth suggests human authorship, AI tools might have aided data aggregation (e.g., US-Japan tariffs). No overt AI-generated propaganda is evident, though the argument’s structure—emphasizing risks over opportunities—could subtly align with anti-Trump narratives, consistent with platforms like The Guardian.
Conclusion on Trustworthiness
The article is moderately reliable, grounding claims in reported facts but exhibiting bias in omission. Its value lies in spotlighting negotiation pitfalls, though readers should seek complementary perspectives to assess the deal’s full scope.