A few important steps forward: the UK-EU strategic partnership

The current UK Government is focused on delivering economic growth and positioning the UK as an important economic and diplomatic player internationally. The relationship with the EU is probably the most crucial bit in this jigsaw, and the deal struck on Monday, outlined in a “Common Understanding”, indicates the direction of travel: cautiously and selectively rebuilding closer relations with the EU along a number of dimensions, first and foremost on security and defence matters, but also including energy, environmental, and some economic aspects. We will discuss three particular areas that are related to trade in the ‘common understanding’: fisheries and trade in agri-food products, youth mobility, and cooperation on energy markets and carbon emissions, respectively.  We explain why the deal delivers in two out of three areas.  More could have been done, and with firmer commitments.  The document essentially represents a negotiating agenda with mostly aspirational language, whereby the two parties agree to “work towards” certain outcomes and everything has to be finally negotiated.  Yet every journey starts with a single step, and the one taken on Monday is a sensible step in the right direction. Fish and food: Significant departures from Brexit A core, perhaps the main, EU demand [...]

By , , , , |2025-05-21T18:45:18+01:0021 May 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK- EU|0 Comments
Read More

The UK-US ‘geopolitical’ deal: A dangerous precedent for the UK and the world

We are living in a geopolitical world. While states may cloak their actions in legal justifications or economic reasoning, trade has become a tool to assert power, control narratives, and forge alliances. Trade deals are being designed to reduce vulnerabilities, not barriers. The recently announced US-UK deal is not a traditional trade agreement but a ‘geopolitical’ deal strongly reflecting the US’s geopolitical rivalry against China. Lacking the legally binding nature of international agreements, the deal sidesteps legal frameworks and instead stakes its importance on strategic alignment. As such, it signals a broader shift in how the US, which has its global leadership threatened by the rise of China as a superpower, now uses trade policy: not as a matter of market efficiency or legal commitments, but as an instrument of geopolitical influence and national security. Furthermore, the deal clearly shows the second Trump administration’s strong intention to force trade partners to collude with the US to squeeze China from global supply chains. Securitising supply chains At face value, the deal includes a few economic concessions, conditional on fulfilling security-related requirements. For example, the US has agreed to reduce tariffs on British steel, aluminium, and automobiles. In return, the UK will [...]

By , |2025-05-14T09:49:44+01:0014 May 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK - Non EU|0 Comments
Read More

Stroking a bear to get half a sandwich

The UK and the US announced the first bilateral post-Reciprocal Tariffs deal on 8 May, named the 'U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal' (henceforth the US-UK EPD). The document published yesterday draws out the contours of this EPD, alongside some concrete initial proposals for reciprocal preferential market access for selected goods. Notwithstanding the negotiations starting immediately, this arrangement can be called off at any time, simply by the two parties giving each other written notice. Besides its symbolic and diplomatic relevance, what is the value of this emerging deal for the UK? This is not a Free Trade Agreement. At first glance, it looks like a quid-pro-quo “mini-deal” of limited economic relevance that the US strong-armed the UK into accepting under the threat of tariffs. The UK is getting some respite from Trump’s tariffs in the (important) car and the (strategic) steel and aluminium sectors, in exchange for lowering tariffs on some agricultural products such as ethanol and beef, the latter on a reciprocal basis. But a closer reading of the ‘General Terms document’ suggests that it is more than this, and a lot worse. First, as stated on page 1 of the text, the arrangement that the US and the UK [...]

By , , , , |2025-05-09T18:57:18+01:009 May 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Bridge over the River Kwai or Road to Nowhere?

It is not often that there’s a genuinely new idea around in trade policy, but lo and behold, here’s one: a tariff on a service.  US President Trump is considering a 100% charge on films made abroad. Spielberg would call it a close encounter of the third kind. Although the charge would apply in principle to any foreign-made film, it could hit the UK film sector, part of its successful creative industries, particularly hard, turning it into the English Patient if the idea gained traction. But how could it even work? Since services are intangible and non-storable, suppliers and consumers of services somehow need to come together for a service to ‘change hands.’  Internationally, this can happen in a variety of ways. For instance, the service may be delivered digitally via the Internet, as indeed it would be the case for a movie or an architectural blueprint.  The consumer could travel abroad to enjoy a service (e.g. tourism), or firms could set up affiliates abroad to sell their services to local consumers (anyone who hasn’t done their groceries at Lidl or Aldi?).  Lastly, a service supplier who is a natural person, such as a movie director, could travel to another [...]

By |2025-05-07T15:58:32+01:007 May 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

The rise of China in the US backyard amid Trump Tariffs

The uncertainty caused by the trade policy actions undertaken by the Trump administration poses a serious challenge to the world, but particularly to regions that historically relied on the United States both as a commercial and political ally, such as Latin America. The Trump 2.0 regime has levied a baseline 10% tariff on most Latin American countries[1], including those that have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the US, such as Chile (2003), Peru (2009), Colombia (2012), and Panama (2012). The uncertainty surrounding the permanence of such measure (and the potential for further protectionist actions) will encourage these countries to seek and consolidate more secure trade links with like-minded partners, with more predictable trade policies. Such a shift has already been happening. The US has gradually been losing its relevance as the main trading partner for some Latin American countries, particularly those in the south, with one key actor playing a central part in this story: China. China’s penetration in the South American market over this century has been taking place at different levels. Regarding trade, China has Free Trade Agreements in force with Pacific countries like Chile (2006), Peru (2010) and more recently with Ecuador (May 2024). Trade and [...]

By , |2025-05-02T15:32:44+01:002 May 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

A beginner’s guide to tariffs: Why are they harmful?

Trump is using tariffs as his main international economic policy tool and is providing two conflicting narratives on why he is using them. On the one hand, he suggests that raising tariffs is the key to making America wealthy again: the US government will supposedly raise trillions in tariff revenue, manufacturing production and jobs will move back to the US, and the US trade deficit will finally shrink. On the other hand, tariffs are an instrument to bring countries to the table and negotiate a deal.[1] Yet, of the two narratives, only one can stand. To bring back jobs and reduce the deficit, tariffs must be permanent. If they are a negotiating tool, they must be temporary. Leaving behind the motivations for the tariff increases, economists tend to disagree that raising tariffs will make America wealthier. Ever since the first round of tariffs on Canada and Mexico was announced, experts have warned about the negative consequences: prices for US consumers will increase, fewer products will be available, exports will fall, and economic activity (GDP) will contract. And this is just for the US. Since the US is a large market with the power to affect world demand and prices, the [...]

By , |2025-04-25T17:55:06+01:0025 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

The real Donald Trump: A free trader in protectionist clothing or vice versa?

This blog was originally published in 2018. We are republishing now because it is striking how much of its analysis and assessment of President Trump’s approach to trade and tariffs resonates today. Importantly, looking back in this way helps to give a longer run historical perspective on the Trump approach to trade policy, which may also help to shape thinking about the future, and responses to that future. Note from the author: In 2018, I described the tug-of-war between the mercantilist and Reaganite factions of the Republican party as the key to understanding the trade policy fluctuations of Trump's first term. This time around, the mercantilists have clearly won. The explicit tying of Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs to U.S. bilateral trade deficits, along with a baseline ten percent tariff, indicates that trade deals alone are not the goal. Trump wants to end trade deficits, pursue import substitution in manufacturing and bring back a 19th century tax system based on customs revenue. These are disastrous goals in themselves; moreover, nothing America's trading partners can do with their own trade policies can satisfy them. This is why the markets have melted down. Perhaps as the effects take hold in the real economy, Trump [...]

By |2025-04-09T14:53:12+01:009 April 2025|Blog, International Trade, UK - Non EU|0 Comments
Read More

Blinded by the light: The trouble with today’s trade policy

Trade policy is more difficult today that it was three months ago, and significantly more so than five years ago. The former is due to the actions of the new US administration, but the latter is a more complicated story that has dramatically changed trade policy across the world. Over the last 30 years or so trade policymakers have largely focused on efficiency gains - more open markets leading to better productivity and economic growth. This was more or less taken for granted, backed by considerable evidence. The distributional implications and broader concerns beyond economic growth have been seen as beyond the purview of trade policy, perhaps too easily. Once again, trade policy makers and analysts either took for granted that these issues were not so important in the trade context, or if they were, they would be dealt with by other areas of government policy. However, in today’s world even efficiency and equity considerations fail to adequately capture the concerns of trade policy. Unforeseen events – Covid-19, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, extreme weather, and semi foreseen events such as Trump tariffs – have underpinned increasing concerns about economic security, supply chain resilience and national security, and the threats [...]

By |2025-05-02T11:25:34+01:004 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

What’s wrong with the USTR analysis of worldwide protection?

The analysis by the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) that accompanies President Trump’s tariff announcement on 2 April is so profoundly wrong that one might (almost) feel sorry for the USTR staffers tasked with putting academic lipstick on a wayward pig. Their central argument is that one can measure how protectionist a country’s trade policies are by the size of its trade surplus in goods with the United States. Vietnam is judged to be highly protectionist because it exports to the USA much more than it imports. It is a relatively poor developing country with a competitive advantage in low-paying manufactures (such as clothing) which the US largely abandoned decades ago. It also has little appetite for the kinds of goods and services that the US exports. Vietnam’s trade with the US is not the result of protectionism. The EU, which retains a strong manufacturing sector in Germany, and has a significant surplus with the US, is judged to be more protectionist than the UK, whose competitive advantage is stronger in services. The reality is that despite Brexit, there is little difference between the trade policies of the UK and the EU. The USA runs a trade deficit [...]

By |2025-04-04T11:01:30+01:004 April 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs: A problem for some products

You will have read many columns in the past weeks on the wild and unstable tariff-hikes announced by the Trump 2.0 administration. Yet, only a fraction of these announcements was effectively implemented. Here we look at one of them, the steel and aluminium tariffs, and try to gauge their relevance for UK exporters. Let us start by recalling the core elements of the policy. On March 12th the US applied new and higher import tariffs on steel and aluminium products from all countries. These tariffs expand the existing “Section 232” tariff programme on steel and aluminium, first applied in 2018 by the Trump 1.0 administration, in three main ways: all existing exemptions and special arrangements were closed. After the application of Section 232 tariffs in 2018, several countries reached arrangements with the US to be fully or partly exempt from these taxes. The UK benefited from tariff-rate quotas on both steel and aluminium but this arrangement, together with those of several other countries (including, among others, the EU, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Australia) was now terminated. tariffs on aluminium products were increased from 10% to 25% tariffs were expanded to cover several products containing steel and aluminium, i.e. derivatives produced [...]

By , |2025-03-21T13:32:15+00:0021 March 2025|Blog, International Trade|0 Comments
Read More

Our home

University of Sussex Logo

© 2024 UK Trade Policy Observatory

Site by: Phipps Design

Go to Top