🔗 Share this article

Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have expressed alarm that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with the US administration are "built on sand." This follows revelations that a so-called "milestone" deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any underlying contract beyond limited headline terms published in government press releases.

A Deal Without Detail

The deal on drug tariffs, described as a "landmark" achievement, is still an "agreement in principle" without detailed provisions. Critics have noted that the official announcements from the UK and US governments describe the deal in markedly contrasting terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a unique achievement, 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 promised concessions to raise drug prices in return for nothing more than a assurance from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade expert. "It is documented he has a tendency for not following through on agreements."

Wider Concerns Amidst a Suspended Agreement

Anxieties have been heightened by Washington's action to pause the major technology agreement, which was previously described as "a generational step-change" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a insufficient movement from the UK on reducing other tariffs as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have still not been formally signed off by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "We have been informed that that the US has failed to approve the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

Behind the scenes, ministers have admitted unease that the government's deals with Washington are flimsy and unreliable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another framed the situation as the "prevailing condition" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "additional layers of volatility and unpredictability."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, remarked: "Perhaps most shocking than the US approach is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Officials have downplayed the risk of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source suggested the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, desiring stability on imports and pricing, making it of tangible value than the paused tech deal.

Officials acknowledge that unpredictability is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they argue that the UK has secured concrete outcomes for businesses, such as lower steel tariffs compared to other nations. "Our achievement of 25% steel tariffs, which is more favorable than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.

However, delays have surfaced in implementing the initial US-UK accord. Promised quotas on beef exports have yet to be finalized, and the assurance to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has is still pending, with tariffs fixed at 25%.

As negotiations continue, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "constructive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.