Unlock the publisher's digest free
Roula Khalaf, editor -in -chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
British Chancellor Rachel Reeves rejected key plants from Donald Trump's economic agenda before talks with Scott Bessent, her American counterpart, saying that it is “proud that the United Kingdom has its world and open reputation”.
PiratesWho will discuss on Friday of a possible trade agreement of the United Kingdom with the secretary of the Treasury Bessent, said during the spring meeting of the IMF that she wanted to “strengthen” the position of Great Britain as an open economy.
In a speech Thursday, Reeves said that the world was to adapt to a “new era of world trade” and accepted the determination of the American president to approach what she called the “excessive imbalances in world trade”.
But she said that global stability depended on lower trade barriers and respect for world institutions, none of which has been characteristic of Trump's presidency to date.
“We are in a new era of world trade,” said Reeves. “In this new era, we need a system that ensures workers' safety, business stability and prosperity of national economies.”
“To deliver this, we must do three things: to fight against excessive world commercial imbalances, to reduce obstacles to trade and promote strong multilateral institutions.”
Her comments were before her meeting planned with Bessent, where she will support the case for a trade agreement in the United Kingdom and the United States to reduce high prices On British exports – including 25% of samples from cars and steel.
Wednesday, Reeves in Washington said that Great Britain would seek to reduce import prices from the United States in the context of an agreement, and did not reject a suggestion that the country could reduce its 10% sample On American manufacturing cars at 2.5%.
Greg Hands, former conservative trade minister, said that he had deliberately kept the 10% levy from American cars after Brexit as a negotiation currency in any future commercial negotiation in Washington.
Reeves' comments have focused on the prices that Great Britain imposed on American products, many of which have taken over from the pre-Brexit era when the United Kingdom was part of the EU customs union.
While the United Kingdom has reduced certain prices after leaving the EU, many remain largely in industries where the United States has a vital export interest, including agricultural products – such as meat, dairy and seafood – as well as textiles, chemicals and active ingredients of pharmaceutical products.
For example, British samples from high quality frozen beef United States is set at 12% and contrast with the way Irish meat exporters can send products to Great Britain without a price in the UE-UK trade agreement.
In his last Annual report In the barriers of foreign trade, the US trade representative distinguished certain “high prices” on American exports to the United Kingdom, including 25% for certain fish and seafood products, 10% for cars and trucks, and up to 6.5% for certain mineral or chemical fertilizers.
The former head of the British trade department Allion Renison, now to consulting the SEC Newgate, said that the abolition or reduction of some of these prices would have a “notable impact” for certain American exporters, depending on the availability of quotas and the speed with which the changes of levy have come into force.
However, it has added many British non -pricing and regulatory arrangements – food security standards that prohibit hormone beef with so -called geographic indications that protect against foreign rivals to domestic products such as cheddar cheese or Scottish whiskey – would make it difficult for American industries to fully enjoy the British market.
Renison added that the United Kingdom plans to line up fully with EU food standards in the context of a veterinary agreement envisaged in a post-Brexit resetting of relations between the two parties would also limit access to certain American exporters, although Great Britain can always admit American products under reduced prices that met these requirements.
The United Kingdom said that it would not increase food and agricultural standards to meet the requests of the United States, which has long argued that Great Britain should move away from EU standards which, according to it, were “not scientific” and protectionist.
In the annual report, the US trade representative said that American agricultural exporters “are increasingly concerned” that the United Kingdom will keep the EU approach to regulate agricultural chemicals and pesticides, which, according to him, create restrictions that “do not seem to be based on science.
