US Vice-President JD Vance said there was a “good chance” a trade deal could be reached with the UK, suggesting it would be easier to land than with other European countries due to “a much more reciprocal relationship”.
UK business and trade minister Sarah Jones welcomed Vance’s comments and said talks to secure a deal with the US were ongoing, but declined to provide a timeline on their progress.
“Nobody wants tariffs. No one wants a tariff war. We want to secure a deal with the US,” she added.
The real question about positive comments by Vice-President JD Vance and Jones about a UK-US trade deal, is what they actually mean by the term “deal”.
Just after Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s visit to the White House in February, it was rather telling that the UK delegation referred to what was being negotiated as an “economic deal”.
This was meant to show that this “deal” was not about an extensive free trade agreement, covering nearly all goods.
In Trump’s first term, negotiations between the UK and US progressed fairly well up until the point controversial issues about medicine pricing and food standards emerged.
Trump’s team told me back then that they were waiting to see how close the UK would remain to European Union rules after Brexit.
This time around, the “deal” seems to have been about science, technology and artificial intelligence cooperation in return for avoiding tariffs.
The US has wanted to talk about the UK’s “tech tax” on mainly US digital companies, and has raised issues about the Online Safety Act.
However, there is a big problem now.
The US has now levied a 10% tax on UK imports as part of what it called its “reciprocal tariffs”.
But there is no general problem with this trading relationship. In fact, the UK buys more from the US than the other way around.
The mood music from Washington is that this 10% tariff is not for negotiation with anyone. That is the baseline tariff that has been levied on nearly all of America’s trading partners.
Making an exception for one country would simply invite significant trade diversion.
But the UK is in a different position than other nations.
Most countries had faced higher tariffs – as illustrated on Donald Trump’s big board – such as on electronics manufacturers in East Asia and they want to keep the levy at the 10% rate.
The net result is that the UK may not have much to negotiate here, and yet is being treated very harshly, given there is no US trade deficit.
Factor in the exemptions for electronics which benefit the likes of China and the fact that cars, a major industry for Britain, are being tariffed at 25% and the UK side has much to complain about.
Another issue is that all this is being done at the same time as the post-Brexit reset negotiations are being outlined ahead of the UK-EU summit next month.
The word is that the UK and EU would like to secure an ambitious deal which aligns closely on export rules. The aim of this reset would be to rid food and farm exports of most red tape.
The US has taken an interest in this in the past. Could the US make it part of their negotiation?
In addition, many US officials have mentioned a desire for allies to join it in containing China.
The US might also try to force a choice on the UK here, or at least encourage action to keep out diverted Chinese goods.
All this would fly in the face of the UK government’s entire sell to the world that Britain could be the “most connected economy in the world” with strong links into European goods markets, US technology and the east Asia market, including China.
There is a final factor here, which is very intriguing.
Given last week’s chaos in financial markets including for US government debt, it is now the case that the US needs these deals, especially the easy pickings with its closest allies.
The UK has more leverage than it did a month ago. The PM may not want to use it but the US cannot afford to make the UK stall or walk away.
