Why would one want the dubious title of First Foreign Leader To Meet President Trump? It seems like an honour many people in the current environment might actively avoid. But for Theresa May, who we know likes to review the evidence before taking decisions, it was no doubt a carefully cost-effected move to further her interests at home and abroad:
- May wants to demonstrate that Britain has prospects outside the EU. In particular, the government’s ability to negotiate trade deals with large markets at speed. This is important at home, to maintain public support for her brand of hard Brexit, and in negotiations with the EU. If Britain can demonstrate a path to growth that doesn’t involve the continent, member states may have less leverage.
- By demonstrating an alignment with Trump, May maintains the support of MPs who believe that Trump and Brexit are common symptoms of a global rise of populism. A revolution of the people against distant elites. Being a remainer, May is always at pains to demonstrate her enthusiasm for negotiating the UK’s exit from EU.
- May’s interests appear to coincide with Trump’s. He has differentiated himself from Obama by showing support for a trade deal with the UK, and views Brexit as a similar uprising to his own.
While this has the scent of sound reasoning, Trump’s comments during the election campaign are not redolent of someone with whom deal making will be easy, and the travel ban imposed after the trip demonstrates just why it may never come to fruition.
In announcing the ban, Trump has shown his commitment to implementing the policies he espoused on the campaign trail. This commitment to his pledges is difficult for May, as dismantling trade deals was a key aspect of the campaign. He has already left the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), will scrap the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and wishes to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Area.
Defendants argue that this is not representative. That Trump is open to deals with nation states, reserving his ire for the trans-national. But there is another issue here: sovereignty. With some exceptions, trade between the US and UK carries relatively low tariffs meaning a basic deal would change little. The main benefit to be had, and the focus of TTIP, is in unifying regulation. Doing so would allow companies to export without altering products, boosting volumes and increasing efficiency. However, to do so requires standardisation, which means ceding sovereignty. Something Brexiteers and Trumpeters loathe.
There is also no economic incentive for Trump to pursue the deal. Director of the President’s National Trade Council, Peter Navarro, and his Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, wrote a paper before the election called the “Trump Trade Doctrine”. It argues that “Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, decrease the trade deficit, and strengthen the US manufacturing base.” The Office for National Statistics estimates that the US ran a £40bn trade deficit with the UK in 2015. Unless the deal is heavily biased towards the US, Trump’s own rules dictate against it.
Finally, Trump’s personality perhaps precludes enough sustained good will to make a deal. He has already contradicted himself on Iran, Nato, nuclear weapons, Russia, and more. Not to mention domestic policies. Though May was there the day before, she appears not to have been given any notice of the travel ban, and his government has been unclear on whether it will affect UK nationals.
History will judge if it was a mistake for May to placate Trump for the sake a trade deal. In his own words:
“I never get too attached to one deal or one approach. I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first.”