🔗 Share this article

Ministers and senior MPs have issued warnings that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Washington are "lacking a solid foundation." This stems from revelations that a much-touted deal on medicines, which promises zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any underlying contract beyond broad headline terms contained within government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, described as a "generational" achievement, remains an "statement of intent" without formal ratification. Critics have noted that the press releases from the UK and US governments describe the deal in sharply different terms. The British version emphasizes securing "zero per cent tariffs" as a singular success, while the American announcement highlights the expectation for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has agreed to terms to raise drug prices in return for nothing more than a verbal promise from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade policy analyst. "It is documented he has form for not honouring his word."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Concerns have been amplified by Washington's action to suspend the major technology agreement, which was previously described as "a huge leap forward" in the bilateral relationship. The US cited a insufficient movement from the UK on lowering trade barriers as the reason for the pause.

In a separate development, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an May trade agreement have yet to be formally approved by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has not yet signed off the agreed beef export quotas," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Anxiety Behind Closed Doors

Behind the scenes, ministers have admitted unease that the government's US-UK accords are flimsy and unreliable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "resting on shaky ground," while another described the situation as the "prevailing condition" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, stated: "The only thing more surprising than the administration's tactics is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a reliable partner. The NHS is not a bargaining chip."

Official Reassurances and Concrete Outcomes

Ministry sources have attempted to minimize the possibility of the US withdrawing from the pharmaceuticals deal. One source suggested the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been lobbying for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it more concrete than the paused tech deal.

Officials acknowledge that instability is inherent in dealing with the Trump administration. However, they contend that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as reduced duties on automobiles compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a concrete advantage," one official said.

Nevertheless, delays have surfaced in implementing the initial US-UK accord. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have failed to be approved, and the assurance to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has remains unmet, with tariffs fixed at 25%.

As negotiations continue, the two sides have agreed to resume talks on the suspended digital agreement in January, following what were described as "productive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.