Key Takeaways
- US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer criticised the UK for continuing to follow EU rules, saying it hinders a broader US‑UK trade agreement.
- Prime Minister Andy Burnham argues that Brexit has left the UK without a clear economic vision and advocates closer cooperation with the EU.
- The May 2025 US‑UK trade deal lowered tariffs on British luxury cars, steel, aluminium and opened the UK market to more US agricultural goods, while preserving UK food‑standards safeguards.
- To avoid US tariffs on medicines, the UK agreed to pay higher prices for certain drugs.
- An EU‑UK summit expected before year‑end will test whether London can balance EU alignment with greater liberalisation toward US standards.
Introduction & Context
The relationship between the United Kingdom and its two major trading partners – the United States and the European Union – has entered a delicate phase following Brexit. In early April 2026, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer visited London and voiced concerns that the British government’s continued deference to EU regulations is obstructing efforts to expand the trade accord struck with the Trump administration in May 2025. Simultaneously, Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who succeeded Keir Starmer, is seeking to redefine Britain’s post‑Brexit stance by advocating stronger ties with the EU while also pursuing greater openness to US market standards. The ensuing dialogue highlights the competing pressures of maintaining regulatory alignment with Europe, liberalising trade with America, and addressing domestic economic disappointments attributed to Brexit.
Greer’s Critique of the UK’s EU Alignment
During his interview with the Financial Times, Greer bluntly stated that the UK is not exploiting the “freedom” granted by its departure from the European Union. He recounted telling British officials, “Hey, you’re free of the EU. Why don’t you liberalise a little bit, accept goods made to American standards, accept agricultural goods made to American standards?” The reply he received – that London must wait and see what the EU says about any such moves – struck him as problematic. Greer argued that this hesitation creates a barrier for US exporters seeking easier access to the British market and complicates the implementation of the existing US‑UK trade deal. His remarks underscore Washington’s frustration with what it perceives as the UK’s reluctance to fully diverge from EU norms, even as it pursues a bilateral agreement with the United States.
Implications for the US‑UK Trade Deal
Greer’s comments raise questions about the durability and future expansion of the May 2025 US‑UK trade agreement. That accord, negotiated under the Trump administration, delivered concrete benefits: reduced US tariffs on British luxury cars, steel, and aluminium, and commitments from the UK to increase imports of US agricultural products such as ethanol and beef. However, the deal’s success hinges on the UK’s willingness to adjust its regulatory framework to accommodate US‑standard goods. If British ministers continue to defer to EU positions on issues like food safety and product standards, the US may view the agreement as only partially realised, potentially limiting further concessions or prompting a reevaluation of the deal’s scope. Conversely, a more liberal stance could unlock additional market access for American producers and strengthen the strategic partnership between Washington and London.
Burnham’s Vision for Post‑Brexit EU Cooperation
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has positioned himself as a proponent of rekindling closer cooperation with the European Union. In his first parliamentary address as premier, he acknowledged that Brexit has left many citizens feeling “fed up with the [lack of] vision” and argued that the UK must work more closely with its European neighbours to revive economic dynamism. Burnham’s approach contrasts with the more sceptical stance of some Brexit hardliners, advocating instead for a pragmatic reset that retains the benefits of EU single‑market alignment in areas such as regulation, research collaboration, and cross‑border services. He suggested that a renewed UK‑EU dialogue could mitigate some of the growth stagnation attributed to Brexit while preserving the sovereign ability to diverge where advantageous.
Economic Impact of Brexit According to Burnham
Burnham explicitly linked Brexit to the UK’s sluggish economic performance, asserting that the decision to leave the EU has contributed to weaker growth rates relative to pre‑referendum trends. He cited reduced investment, labour‑market frictions, and trade barriers as factors dampening productivity. By highlighting these shortcomings, Burnham sought to build a political case for recalibrating Britain’s post‑Brexit strategy – not by reversing the referendum outcome, but by mitigating its adverse effects through enhanced cooperation with the EU and selective liberalisation with other partners, notably the United States. His rhetoric aims to reassure businesses and voters that the government recognises the economic challenges and is actively pursuing solutions.
Details of the US‑UK Trade Deal (May 2025)
The trade agreement announced by former President Donald Trump and then‑Prime Minister Keir Starmer in May 2025 centred on reciprocal tariff reductions. The United States agreed to lower duties on British luxury automobiles, steel, and aluminium – sectors where the UK holds competitive advantages. In return, the UK pledged to increase imports of specific US agricultural commodities, notably ethanol and beef, while committing to maintain its existing food‑safety standards. The deal also included provisions to address non‑tariff barriers, such as customs procedures and regulatory cooperation, to facilitate smoother transatlantic commerce. Both sides framed the arrangement as a win‑win: boosting American exports to the UK and providing British manufacturers with improved access to the US market.
Concerns Over Food Standards and Agricultural Imports
A central point of contention surrounding the US‑UK deal has been the potential impact on British food‑safety standards. Critics, including consumer‑advocacy groups and certain factions within Parliament, warned that allowing greater quantities of US beef and poultry could lead to the introduction of products treated with hormones or chlorine washes – practices prohibited under EU and UK law. The UK government responded by insisting that any expansion of US agricultural imports would be accompanied by rigorous inspection regimes and that existing standards would not be diluted. Nonetheless, the debate illustrates the tension between pursuing liberalised trade and safeguarding domestic regulatory regimes that enjoy broad public support.
Medicines Tariff Avoidance Agreement
To shield the UK’s pharmaceutical sector from prospective US tariffs, London reached a separate arrangement committing to pay higher prices for certain prescription drugs. This concession aims to offset the revenue loss that US manufacturers might experience if tariffs were imposed on UK‑bound medicines. By agreeing to premium pricing, the UK seeks to maintain uninterrupted access to essential medications while avoiding a trade dispute that could disrupt supply chains. The deal reflects the broader strategy of using targeted financial compromises to mitigate tariff risks without altering underlying regulatory frameworks.
Outlook: Upcoming EU‑UK Summit and Future Prospects
An EU‑UK summit scheduled before the end of 2026 will serve as a critical litmus test for the competing priorities outlined by Greer and Burnham. The summit will likely address outstanding issues such as regulatory alignment, fisheries, and the Northern Ireland Protocol, while also providing a platform to discuss how the UK might balance EU commitments with greater openness to US standards. Should the British government demonstrate a willingness to selectively liberalise in areas where EU rules are less restrictive, it could assuage US concerns and pave the way for an expanded trade deal. Conversely, continued deference to EU positions may sustain Washington’s frustration and limit the scope of future transatlantic agreements. The outcome will shape not only UK‑US economic relations but also Britain’s broader post‑Brexit identity in the global trading system.