🔗 Share this article

Government ministers and leading parliamentarians have raised concerns that the United Kingdom's negotiated accords with Washington are "built on sand." This follows revelations that a recently announced deal on pharmaceutical tariffs, which commits to zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS paying more, lacks any formal legal text beyond vague headline terms published in government press releases.

An Agreement in Principle Only

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, promoted as a "landmark" achievement, remains an "broad understanding" without formal ratification. Observers point out that the press releases from the UK and US governments frame the deal in divergent terms. The British version focuses on securing "duty-free access" as a singular success, while the American announcement dwells on the expectation for the NHS to pay higher prices for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has agreed to terms to raise drug prices in return for only a pledge from President Trump," commented David Henig, a trade expert. "It is documented he has a record of not keeping promises."

Broader Instability and a Paused Tech Deal

Anxieties have been intensified by Washington's recent decision to put on ice the high-value digital accord, which was previously called "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US cited a insufficient movement from the UK on lowering trade barriers as the reason for the pause.

Furthermore, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an May trade agreement have not been formally ratified by the US, despite a looming January deadline. "Our understanding is that the US has not finalized the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Uncertainty Among Officials

Behind the scenes, ministers have voiced worries that the government's deals with Washington are flimsy and unreliable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "resting on shaky ground," while another characterized the situation as the "new normal" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, chair of the health select committee, argued: "Perhaps most shocking than Trump's temper tantrums is the UK government's naive belief that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is too precious to be gambled with."

A Mixed Picture of Success and Setback

Government figures have downplayed the possibility of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source indicated the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been advocating for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it more concrete than the paused tech deal.

Officials acknowledge that instability is a feature of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they argue that the UK has obtained tangible results for businesses, such as preferential tariff rates 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, problems have arisen in enacting the May tariff agreement. Promised quotas on beef exports have yet to be finalized, and the commitment to "eliminate duties on UK metals" has is still pending, with tariffs staying at 25%.

Looking ahead, the two sides have scheduled to restart talks on the paused tech prosperity deal in January, following what were described as "very positive" meetings between UK and US officials in Washington.