🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have issued warnings that the United Kingdom's series of deals with Washington are "lacking a solid foundation." This stems from revelations that a recently announced deal on medicines, which commits to zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any underlying contract beyond vague headline terms outlined by government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, promoted as a "significant" achievement, remains an "agreement in principle" without detailed provisions. Critics have noted that the official announcements from the UK and US governments frame the deal in divergent terms. The British version celebrates securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a unique achievement, while the American announcement dwells on the commitment for the NHS to pay higher prices for new medications.

"There is a serious risk that the UK government has made commitments to increase medicine costs in return for only a verbal promise from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "It is documented he has form for not honouring his word."

Wider Concerns Amidst a Suspended Agreement

Concerns have been intensified by Washington's action to pause the £31bn "tech prosperity deal", which was previously described as "a generational step-change" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a failure to advance from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Additionally, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have still not been formally ratified by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not finalized the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

In confidential discussions, ministers have expressed concerns that the government's agreements with the US are lacking substance. One minister was quoted as stating the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another characterized the situation as the "new normal" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, argued: "The only thing more surprising than Trump's temper tantrums is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Ministry sources have downplayed the risk of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, wanting clarity on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials admit that instability is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. 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 more favorable than the rate for the rest of the world, is not flimsy," one official said.

Yet, delays have emerged in implementing the initial US-UK accord. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have failed to be approved, and the pledge to "remove tariffs on British steel and aluminium" has not been fulfilled, with tariffs staying at 25%.

Moving forward, the two sides have planned to recommence talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "constructive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.