If Keir Starmer pulls off a US-UK trade deal, he will achieve what his predecessors could not

Editorial: Although the prospect has seemed far from realistic in the past, JD Vance’s recent remarks suggest it could indeed be possible now

Ever since the result of the Brexit referendum pushed the question towards the top of Britain’s economic agenda, albeit not a constant presence there, a free trade agreement with the United States has become a pressing concern for successive prime ministers. Until now – and in the highly unlikely circumstances of a global trade war unleashed by an increasingly erratic White House – it has rarely been much of a realistic prospect. But things may be stirring.

The continuing warm relationship between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, combined with some recent remarks from the US vice-president, JD Vance, suggest that some sort of trade deal from the most protectionist American government since Herbert Hoover may be in the offing.

Potentially, this is very good news for a British government searching everywhere for anything that will induce the anaemic British economy to grow more vigorously. Forging stronger links with what remains – even under the Trump administration’s mismanagement – the most dynamic economy on earth sounds like a promising project. Yet, a glance at the detail also means the British government should approach the matter with extreme caution.

According to his vice-president, Mr Trump is “working very hard” with the Starmer government and is fuelled by a cocktail of family links (his mother was from Skye), an affection for the House of Windsor, and the affinities felt towards a fellow member of the Anglosphere.

In the case of Sir Keir, the push for closer economic relations is driven by something closer to desperation, as he watches the already miserable prospects for his economy, and thus the investment in public services, which worsen with every update delivered by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

Economically, a mutually advantageous trade deal would not only reverse the harms that the latest Trump tariffs will inflict on the British economy and mitigate Brexit, but also open up new markets – especially in the service sectors the UK excels in, and which seem to trouble Mr Trump much less than traditional manufacturing, where the UK doesn’t usually enjoy much comparative advantage. If skilfully managed, it might not complicate the Brexit “reset” Sir Keir promised but shows little sign of completing.

In the post-Brexit world, in which the UK has taken the self-harming step of erecting trade barriers with its closest and most important trading partner, the EU, an ambitious US-UK economic alliance would not only boost economic growth and prosperity, steering the economy away from recession; it would also be an almost unimaginable political prize for the prime minister himself. He would achieve what eluded all of his immediate Conservative predecessors – and the irony that he, such a passionate Remainer, should have done so need not embarrass him.

If, as is sadly obvious, the UK cannot return to the excellent terms of membership that prevailed before, and only the most modest Brexit reset is a realistic prospect, then the US deal is actually the best prospect available among major economies. After all, Ms Reeves’s recent trade mission to Beijing yielded relatively little, and after the British Steel debacle, a trade treaty with China looks even less likely.

Meanwhile, the free trade agreement with India remains snagged on immigration and visas for Indian postgraduate workers, and Japan has already concluded its UK deal, with UK membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership already secured.

Yet, the suspicion must be that any deal that recommends itself to the “America First” Mr Trump and Mr Vance would not necessarily be advantageous to the British. The list of drawbacks is long. Farmers, already suffering from higher costs, the “tractor tax” on inheritance, and the effects of free trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, would be hard hit by cheaper US meat, poultry and grains.

So, too, would the NHS, which would have to pay more for its drugs and open itself up to American-based sub-contractors.

Given his preference to link trade to other policy areas, Mr Trump might also demand that the UK ramp up defence spending more rapidly, cut taxes on the American tech giants, deregulate artificial intelligence and biotech, scrap hate speech laws, and impose punitive tariffs on China in concert with America.

Consumers might or might not like the option of buying cheap chlorinated chicken; however, if US genetically modified grains enter the British food manufacturing chains, they’d be hard-pressed to avoid these “Frankenfoods”. The White House, purely based on a misunderstanding of how it works, might even insist that US goods and services be exempt from VAT.

So the US trade deal – so sought after post-Brexit – may, in other words, not be as appetising as was once imagined, and could prove so politically toxic as to be unacceptable.

A more limited exercise on new technologies would hold better prospects for the future, without the same threat to the British tradition of universal healthcare and high welfare standards for farm animals – both holding near-religious status.

Besides, if the last few weeks are anything to go by, any trade treaty signed by President Trump might not have much of a shelf life, given how casually he tossed away the trade treaty with Canada and Mexico he negotiated in his first term and his chaotic behaviour since “Liberation Day”.