The Labor government is on the run of commercial transactions. After signing a free trade agreement with India, the United Kingdom has concluded a pact with the United States to remove certain prices on British car and aerospace exports, and finally a new agreement with the EU was also signed. As these transactions are politically, Adam Butlin Written, their economic return will remain quite limited, mainly due to the absence of a significant service agreement.
Did you enjoy this post? Register for our bulletin And receive a weekly overview of all our articles.
In recent weeks, the British government has announced a series of so-called “historic” agreements with India, the United States and, more recently, the European Union. The media and political commentators quickly praised these developments as major breakthroughs which point out the emergence of Great Britain as a global commercial nation after its departure from the EU. However, a more in-depth examination reveals that if these transactions can generate specific gains in the sector and open the way to future collaboration, their overall economic impact is likely to be at the best progressive, which raises questions about their substantial value beyond political symbolism and strategic signaling.
More than five years after Brexit, the United Kingdom continues to negotiate much more with the EU (45%) than with the United States (12%) or India (2%).
Prices on key sectors such as steel and oil remain intact, largely due to Indian resistance to the proposed carbon tax of the United Kingdom, reflecting wider challenges in the alignment of environmental policies within trade agreements.
The trade agreement in India
THE UK free trade contract (ALE) has been in negotiations since 2021, following an extended period of diplomatic engagement aimed at deepening economic ties with one of the fastest economies. After more than a dozen series of intensive talks, the two countries have agreed to several prices. In particular, on the side of India, the previous prices on the spirits will be divided by two, and the prices on the cars will drop highly from 100% to 10%, although subject to a quota system. The United Kingdom has also eliminated prices on a range of goods, including textiles, machines, jewelry and certain foods. Nevertheless, prices on key sectors such as steel and oil remain intact, largely due to the Indian resistance to the Carbon border tax proposed by the United KingdomReflecting wider challenges in the alignment of environmental policies within trade agreements.
India, currently the fifth world economy and projected to become the third largest by 2028, represents an attractive long -term partner. Modeling by the Department of Affairs and Trade suggests that the FTA will provide 4.8 billion pounds of additional production sterling by 2040, which is equivalent to 0.1% of the UK’s GDP. On the other hand, a complete agreement on goods and services with the EU, is estimated To increase GDP by around 2.2%, highlighting the deep economic meaning of the closest trading partner closest to the United Kingdom.
The “pact” of American exchanges
In the meantime, the Trade pact between the United Kingdom and the United StatesAlthough welcome news in certain export sectors are not a complete free trade agreement. Instead, the agreement reduces prices on British car exports, from 27.5% to 10% for up to 100,000 vehicles per year, as well as price relief for British steel and aerospace exports. In exchange, the United Kingdom has agreed to priced reliefs on certain American ethanol and reciprocal access to the market for beef exports.
For highly exposed sectors, such as advanced manufacturing or pharmaceutical products, where alternative sources can be limited or high switching costs, even modest prices can have disproportionate effects.
Despite these sectoral victories, a uniform price of 10% remains in place in the majority of British exports to the United States. This is significant because the United Kingdom is deeply anchored in world supply chains and focused on the United States, which means that prices, even on a narrow range of goods, can considerably influence the costs of entries and the behavior of the company. For highly exposed sectors, such as advanced manufacturing or pharmaceutical products, where alternative sources can be limited or high switching costs, even modest prices can have disproportionate effects.
Source: ONS (2024)
EU’s “common understanding”
More than five years later in Brexit, the United Kingdom continues to negotiate much more with the EU (45%) than with the United States (12%) or India (2%), according to the United States 2024 data. It is then clear that neither India nor the United States will move the fundamental importance of the EU for British trade in the medium term. This sustainable dependence is not an accident. Geographical proximity facilitates the lower transport costs and shorter delivery times, while decades of integration of the supply chain have forged British and European companies in a complex and mutually dependent network. These factors clearly emphasize why the EU remains the dominant economic partner of the United Kingdom despite the political momentum to diversify trade relations in the post-Brexit era.
A notable omission of the above transactions is any substantial progress on the reduction of obstacles to the trade in services, the backbone of British exports.
It should be good news that the United Kingdom has just signed a new Treat with the EU. However, unlike closely targeted agreements with India and the United States, this last agreement, although wide, includes largely ambitious statements of intention. The most substantial provision is the understanding that both parties will work towards a veterinary agreement to reduce non -tariff obstacles on agricultural exports to the block, which Economists at Aston University The estimate could increase British food exports by more than 20%. In exchange, the United Kingdom has agreed to guarantee EU access to fishing waters until 2038, a sector which represents less than a tenth of one percent of GDP. The remaining arrangements on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, defense collaboration, program trading programs and joining it Erasmus + and Europol are all non -binding commitments to “work at” a future agreement which is likely to involve months, even years of complex negotiations.
A bad deal for services
A notable omission of the above transactions is any substantial progress on the reduction of obstacles to the trade in services, the backbone of British exports. The United Kingdom is the second exporter of services to the world and services represent more than two-thirds of British exports by added value. However, US and EU agreements lack substantial provisions concerning the mobility of labor, regulatory equivalence and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the vital areas for the growth of the United Kingdom Services sector. The UK-Indian agreement can offer limited opportunities, such as access to British legal and advice on the India public procurement market. However, systemic obstacles remain due to India’s commitment to digital sovereignty, in addition to a strong preference for national regulatory frameworks on foreign equivalence, complicates the liberalization of significant services. Without a rigorous commitment to these fronts, the full potential of the United Kingdom in the world services will remain largely unable to.
Soursce: Ons (2024)
In the current state of things, these agreements offer a lot of political capital but limited economic yields.
Future challenges for British trade
Although these recent commercial transactions can offer short-term economic and political gains, they do not do much to mitigate the risks associated with a more divided global trade system. To navigate this landscape, the United Kingdom needs an urgent need for a coherent commercial strategy that reflects its comparative advantage in services, exploits existing relations with the main trade partners such as the EU, and is part of the internal challenges of productivity, investment and regional inequality.
In trade, as in diplomacy, symbolism is important. But for households and businesses containing chronic underinvestment, stagnant wages and a cost of living crisis, the substance is much more important. In the current state of things, these agreements offer a lot of political capital but limited economic yields. Their value will ultimately depend on what is coming, which the British government uses them as a springboard to integrate deeply, or simply as accessories in a post-Brexit political story.
Did you enjoy this post? Register for our bulletin And receive a weekly overview of all our articles.
All the articles published on this blog give the opinions of the author, and not of the position of British policy and policy of LSE, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Shutter in Shutterstock
About The Author
