🔗 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 so-called "milestone" deal on drug pricing, which pledges zero tariffs in exchange for the NHS facing higher prices, lacks any detailed agreement beyond vague headline terms outlined by government press releases.

Lacking Legal Footing

The US-UK pharmaceuticals agreement, promoted as a "generational" achievement, is still an "agreement in principle" without a signed legal text. 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 agreement for the NHS to pay significantly more for new medications.

"We face a genuine possibility that the UK government has promised concessions to increase medicine costs in return for little more than a assurance from President Trump," stated David Henig, a trade expert. "We know he has a record of not keeping promises."

A Pattern of Unreliability

Concerns have been heightened by Washington's move to put on ice the high-value digital accord, which was previously described as "a transformative pact" in the bilateral relationship. The US pointed to a lack of progress from the UK on addressing wider trade issues as the reason for the pause.

Additionally, concessions promised for British farmers as part of an earlier tariff deal have yet to be formally ratified by the US, despite a imminent January deadline. "It is our belief that the US has not yet signed off the reciprocal tariff rate quota," said Tom Bradshaw of the National Farmers' Union.

Private Ministerial Concerns

Behind the scenes, ministers have voiced worries that the government's agreements with the US are unstable and unpredictable. One minister reportedly said the series of agreements as "built on sand," while another described the situation as the "current reality" in the transatlantic relationship, marked by "increased uncertainty and instability."

Layla Moran, a senior MP on the health committee, argued: "What is even more astonishing than the US approach is the UK government's optimistic assumption that his administration is a trustworthy negotiator. The NHS is of vital importance."

Government Downplays Risks, Points to Gains

Officials have sought to reduce the chances of the US reneging on the pharmaceuticals deal. One source noted the US pharmaceutical industry itself had been pushing for the agreement, seeking certainty on imports and pricing, making it less abstract than the paused tech deal.

Officials concede that unpredictability is part and parcel of dealing with the current US leadership. However, they argue that the UK has achieved real benefits for businesses, such as lower steel tariffs compared to other nations. "Securing 25% steel tariffs, which is lower than the rate for the rest of the world, is a solid gain," one official said.

Yet, problems have surfaced in carrying out the initial US-UK accord. Promised reciprocal agricultural allowances have failed to be approved, and the commitment to "reduce steel tariffs to zero" has not been fulfilled, with tariffs fixed at 25%.

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