Supporters of Britain’s rupture from the European Union have struggled to quantify benefits from Brexit, but when Donald Trump unveiled his schedule of global tariffs they finally had a number. It was the difference between the 20% levy imposed on all continental exports and the 10% baseline figure payable on British goods.
Sadly for the Brexiters, the gap closed a week later when Mr Trump aborted his plans. What the tariff schedules will look like at the end of the 90-day “pause” is no more predictable than any other feature of current US policy. There is no obvious concession from the UK government that might induce the White House to lower its 25% barrier against car exports, and the 10% rate on everything else looks non-negotiable.
Meanwhile, talks with the EU about closer cooperation continue apace. The government hopes to have a framework agreement in place in time for a summit in London on 19 May. The primary focus is security, but that is intended to be a precursor to closer trade cooperation.
As an indication of accelerating rapprochement, Rachel Reeves attended a meeting of EU finance ministers in Warsaw on Friday. The chancellor supports plans for a pan-European defence procurement fund and wants Britain to be included. There are hurdles still to be overcome but also strong will on both sides to make it happen, which is a measure of how much more constructive diplomacy has become under Labour. No Tory chancellor would have sought such a dialogue.Regime change in Westminster made a closer EU-UK relationship possible, then Mr Trump’s rampage of destruction through the norms of transatlantic security and global trade made it urgent.
Recognition of a mutual strategic interest and a more constructive disposition are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a deal. The Brexit withdrawal treaty and subsequent trade and cooperation agreement were deliberately shaped by Boris Johnson’s government to impede reintegration on any level. Irreversible divergence was the whole point. There is not a great appetite in Brussels to revisit terms of divorce that damaged British businesses and interests more than the EU. The goodwill earned by Sir Keir Starmer’s diplomatic advances has been hampered by his insistence on operating within red lines drawn by domestic electoral imperative more than any long-term economic rationale.
European leaders understand that democratic politicians must defer to public opinion. But the prime minister’s reluctance ever to challenge the fallacious premises of Brexit, even after winning a landslide victory last year, raises doubts about the true scale of his ambition when it comes to the EU reset. That misgiving is boosted whenever British ministers talk enthusiastically about their dealings with Mr Trump, who doesn’t hide his hostility to the European project. Sir Keir insists it is not a binary choice, but it will become one as soon as concessions to the White House threaten to destroy trust in Brussels or further impede access to the single market.
The claim that Britain can be equidistant between Europe and the US may feel like keeping options open in Downing Street, but in Brussels it looks like a reversion to typical British Eurosceptic ambivalence, which bleeds trust from the negotiations. The prime minister faces a stark strategic dilemma, and his options get worse the longer he defers the choice.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
