London- Britain has been able to persuade US President Donald Trump to conclude the first trade agreement that he expected since it imposed customs duties on its global imports, and at a time when the details of the agreement have not yet been revealed, the British are afraid of the economic and political price that their country’s government will pay for the conclusion of that deal.
Britain advanced the ranks of countries seeking to sign trade agreements with the United States to alleviate the burdens of the trade war that Trump blew up, as British negotiators managed to extract a complete exemption from customs duties on the steel sector, and reduce customs tariffs on the auto sector from 27.5 to 10% only.
The announcement of the agreement was directly reflected on the indicators of the American and European trading markets that met the agreement comfortably, especially with Trump’s announcement of the start of new trade negotiations with China.
The Financial Times described the agreement as a reassuring reference to investors regarding the seriousness of the US President in negotiating with countries wishing to reduce US customs duties.
The fees are ongoing and protectionist policies remain
Despite this progress, it appears that the American president does not intend to abandon his protective policies, as the British Labor Party government has failed to persuade US officials to cancel customs tariffs on the rest of the British imports, which amounted to 10%.
The British government confirmed that it will continue to negotiate with the United States to reduce fees on “important sectors”, indicating that current exemptions are only a partial step within a broader ambition.
The Financial Times saw that the American celebration of “special relations” with Britain was not translated into a wide exemption from customs duties, reflecting the Trump administration’s adherence to imposed protectionist policies to remain, although it provides a narrow negotiating margin.
The agreement also remains without Britain’s ambition since its exit from the European Union, which has been hoping that a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States will be replaced by some of its privileges that it lost in the European market.
Internal and feared criticism of the opposite
In turn, British Trade Minister Jonathan Reynolds said that the conclusion of the agreement with the United States was an urgent task for his government in order to maintain thousands of jobs that have become threatened by American customs duties.
However, the move did not pass without criticism from inside Britain, as the leader of the Conservative Party, Kimi Badenok, said that British Prime Minister Kiir Starmer is only in a rush to sign the agreements, without being concerned with good negotiations on their details.
Badenok stressed that her party refused to make the concessions accepted by Starmer in order to conclude a free trade agreement with Washington while he was in power.
He also signed the agreement with the United States the controversy over the political and economic compensation submitted by the British government to obtain these tax exemptions, especially in light of the Usman of the British Prime Minister signing the agreement to achieve political and electoral gains.
The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, Edward Donathan, called for the full details of the agreement to the British Parliament and subject to discussion and vote before entering into force.
Agricultural and technical concessions
On the other hand, the British government has granted American farmers access to the British market by reducing customs tariffs on their products, amid increasing fears of changing the strict food standards that Britain has always held, especially with regard to imported food products.
It also agreed to remove customs duties at 1.4 billion liters of American ethanol, in a move that sparked controversy over the environmental and industrial impact.
In addition, Britain has pledged to negotiate with American technology companies on the digital services tax that American negotiators demand to cancel.
While Washington sees that the tax represents a burden on its giant companies, some British officials warn of the repercussions of a similar step on the country’s tax resources, its digital sovereignty and its ability to monitor these active companies strongly in the British market.
An economic gain without an integrated vision
For his part, Thomas Sampson, a professor of international trade at the London College of Economics and Political Science (LSE), believes that the British government achieved an important breakthrough by securing this agreement with the United States, and was able to prevent catastrophic losses on extremely important sectors of the British economy, such as steel and car industry.
But Sampson considered in an interview with Al -Jazeera Net that the British government, despite its impulsion to sign a number of commercial agreements in order to improve economic performance and enhance growth, does not have a comprehensive and integrated vision of the commercial policy that it intends to adopt.
He added that Britain holds these agreements under the pressure of need and necessity, not within the framework of a long -term plan that rehabilitates the country as an attractive market for investment.
Sampson added that Britain – in the language of numbers – is only a marginal commercial partner for the United States, which seeks through the trade agreement with London to open the door for the most important deals that you want to conclude with major economic powers that occupy their priorities, such as China and the European Union.
Traditional partnership in a new era
The United States is one of the most important strategic partners of Britain, with a historical relations between the defense, politics and economy.
But these relations have entered a new turn since President Trump came to power, as it seemed more willing to abandon his country’s obligations inside NATO, which Britain is one of his most prominent pillars.
Trump is working to push for an agreement with Russia that ends the war in Ukraine despite British concerns that this would weaken European national security.
And weeks ago, during his first visit to the White House, the British Prime Minister tried to manage his relationship with Trump with great caution, stressing that he does not intend to comply between historical connections with the American ally and partnership with European neighbors who seek to restore the ranks with them in anticipation of any American withdrawal from the Western alliance.
David Hanig, director of the British Trade Policy Program at the European Institute of Political Economy (ECIBE) believes that the success achieved by Britain by extracting an early agreement with the United States should not hide the fragility of that relationship, especially in light of Trump’s ability to change his political positions and behaviors at any moment.
The researcher insists that “Trump’s commercial doctrine” is like his political faith based on the logic of “the deal and the instant profit” without any real commitment to long -term strategic partnerships even with traditional allies such as London.
But – in return – believes that political and economic realism imposes support for the approach that Starmer follows by signing agreements with the United States, India or other partners, to help reduce burdens on the British economy, without waiting for the maturity of the ideal geopolitical moment to conclude major deals.
