The United States makes no secret of the view that It views European health and environmental standards as “trade barriers”. This goes beyond EU measures to limit chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef, which the US tried to dismantle through the World Trade Organisation and during TTIP negotiations. Indeed, the US Trade Representative`s (USTR) 2016 report on barriers to foreign trade lists, among other things, EU rules on chemical safety (REACH), nutrition labelling, hormones in food, GMOs, milk quality and meat safety, as measures that it considers in whole or in part as trade restrictions that it wants to “demolish”. This is part of the wider US opposition to the application of the precautionary principle in Europe in its approach to protecting health and the environment. This agenda would be at the forefront of any agreement between Britain and the US and would significantly increase British consumers` exposure to health risks in the foods they eat. According to the former US Secretary of Agriculture, such “problems” will be “easier” for the US to solve with Britain than with the EU. TJM is concerned about the possible consequences of a trade deal between Britain and the US: in a recent IPPR poll, 82% of UK citizens said, when asked whether the UK should lower food safety standards to strike a trade deal with the US, that they would prefer to keep food standards as they are. One of the key aspects of TTIP was “regulatory cooperation”, where European and US regulators would cooperate to verify and harmonise EU and US rules. Similar provisions are found in CETA, an EU-Canada trade agreement that establishes a “Regulatory Cooperation Council” to review and propose rules. One of the concerns is that these councils do not have the democratic control granted to public bodies that normally adopt rules.

A second similar concern is that such advice can be strongly influenced by the interests of the private sector, not least because it is composed of trade agents and not experts in areas such as health or the environment. Third, and perhaps most importantly, there are good reasons to separate the rules from the context of a trade agreement. Given that the legal and political objective of a trade agreement is to increase trade, it is likely that attempts at regulatory cooperation will assess the rules exclusively, or at least in the first place, with regard to their contribution to the overall trade level. This is an extremely narrow way of assessing the rules that should be taken into account in determining the extent to which they achieve their social and environmental objectives. The trade agreement between the UK and Israel includes conformity assessment of industrial products. This means that existing agreements with Israel will continue after December 31, 2020. 3) On 2 April 2019, the United Kingdom signed a trade agreement with Iceland and Norway. This agreement was signed in order to maintain the continuity of trade and was part of the preparations for a possible “No Deal” Brexit. It will not enter into force. The UK`s future relationship with these countries is influenced by their relationship with the EU, as they are EEA Member States. We will continue to work with Iceland and Norway to identify the most effective way to maintain and strengthen trade with them beyond the transition period. Modification of the progress made in the agreements with Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia.

Update statistics for all UK trade with countries with which we have signed an agreement using the latest statistics. It is very likely that an agreement between the Uk and the US will contain provisions on public services. The government has explicitly stated its goal of the UK becoming the world leader in trade in services. Similarly, during the negotiations on TTIP (a proposed but unsuccessful trade agreement between the EU and the US), the US insisted that its companies have better access to public service contracts in the UK and a clause to strengthen and guarantee the level of privatisation of the civil service. This could concern sensitive areas such as the provision of NHS services as well as education, transport and prison services….