A critical look at the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy
The UK has now released its new Critical Minerals Strategy which outlines the prospective domestic and international policy actions that the UK Government will take, or will consider, in its pursuit of critical minerals security. By doing so, the UK joins a host of regions (the United States, EU, Canada, Australia, Japan, African countries) that have emphasised the central role of critical minerals in their trade policies, foreign policies, and green industrial strategies. These regions also published their respective strategic approaches to critical minerals recently.
There is a powerful narrative in developed economies regarding the indispensability of critical minerals for national and economic security, seeking to strengthen supply chains and make them more resilient by reducing ‘import dependence’ imports and diversifying international sourcing. Concern over Chinese, near-monopolistic involvement in critical minerals supply chains, which could be weaponised, provides the main geopolitical context for most of these actions.
At the same time, mineral-rich countries, which range from those in the developing world (including African and Southeast Asian countries) to Australia and Canada, are looking to leverage their mineral wealth to secure their own mineral-led industrial futures while exploring the right policy mix to […]
How to deliver a UK-EU “re-set” that works
Debates about deepening UK-EU relations, including in the current ‘re-set’ negotiations, often focus on what will the UK gain versus what it must concede. Yet, what constitutes a win or a loss for the UK is complex – and if Brexit has taught us anything, it’s that people have diverse, and sometimes polarized, views. This is why an effective re-set of UK-EU relations requires thinking about an aspect of negotiations that is often overlooked, or viewed as a technical consideration: how the UK implements the re-set domestically. More specifically, the UK needs to address the democratic deficit in UK treaty-making, and establish bespoke arrangements on EU regulatory alignment, now and in the future. The surest way to future-proof a closer relationship with the EU is to create a sense that the UK public, and particularly those affected by regulation, have a say in this decision.
The importance of domestic implementation
Despite its renowned tradition of direct democracy, Switzerland aligns its regulations with the EU across numerous sectors. For example, it recently concluded an EU-Swiss Common Food Safety Area, in which it agreed to align with EU food law across a wide range of areas. At first glance, this decision may […]
In memory: Jim Rollo
We are deeply saddened to hear of the death, after a long illness, on 25th September of our dear friend and colleague Professor Jim Rollo, a hugely distinguished expert on international economics and European Studies.
He was a founder member of the UKTPO and its first Deputy Director in 2016.
He joined Sussex University in 1999 after a non-university career starting in the Ministry of Agriculture and going on to be Director of the International Economics Research Programme at Chatham House 1989 – 1993 and Chief Economic Adviser at the Foreign Office.
He joined the University of Sussex to be the co-director of the Sussex European Institute where he led a Chevening Fellowship programme for highflyers from across non-EU Europe who wanted to study European Issues, many of them from Poland. He was Editor of the Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMS) from 2003 to 2010 and helped found the InterAnalysis consultancy in 2009 and led training courses across Africa and Asia.
He was much respected and loved for his erudition, his wit and his deep economic insights. He was an immensely kind and thoughtful, as well as being charming and funny. Everyone who met Jim remembers him fondly. He was also a highly […]
The EU–US Trade Deal: A $750 billion commitment caught between supply security and climate strategy
On 27 July 2025, the European Union (EU) announced a trade deal with the United States (US), averting a potential 30% tariff escalation.[1] Failure to conclude negotiations risked a transatlantic economic relationship valued at $2 trillion annually, which is nearly 6% of global trade in goods and services.[2] In addition to tariffs, there is also agreement on EU purchases of energy products, and to work together on economic security, access to critical energy and investment facilitation. This blog examines some of the implications of this announcement, reflecting how it could shift the EU’s key trade relationships in energy and influence its progress toward achieving climate goals.
The terms of the deal
The deal sets a 15% base tariff on most EU exports to the US, effectively halving the previously threatened tariff rate. The agreed 15% baseline tariff is understood to be applied on an inclusive basis and not as an additive layer to pre-existing rates. Both sides appear to have agreed on zero-for-zero tariffs for a number of strategic products. This includes all aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generics, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, natural resources, and critical raw materials. Officials also confirmed that […]
Chasing Windmills: Trump’s Brazil tariffs and the Latin American ‘backyard illusion’
On 30 July, President Trump issued an executive order raising tariffs on Brazilian goods by 40%, totalling 50% when added to the 10% baseline announced in April. Invoking emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the National Emergencies Act (NEA), the justification wasn’t an economic threat, but Brazil’s domestic legal actions, particularly Supreme Court measures against the spread of misinformation in social media platforms and the trial of former president Jair Bolsonaro, accused of undermining Brazilian democracy. This represents economic coercion, violating the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, and WTO rules. The blog focuses on how these trade tariffs are a tool to achieve geopolitical goals in the pursuit of hegemonic leadership.
The executive order targeting Brazil breaches US obligations in the GATT: Article II:1(b), which binds it to agreed maximum tariff rates, and Article I:1 (most-favoured-nation treatment), which requires equal treatment of all WTO members. It doesn’t meet the requirements of a national security exception under Article XXI as interpreted by WTO jurisprudence. The measure also breaches Article 23 of the DSU, which prohibits unilateral trade retaliation. More than violating such commitments, the US administration […]
The Long Game beyond tariffs
The global economy faces a roller-coaster ride every time Mr. Trump is in the White House. Last time, a focus on controlling China’s growing economic power meant that the rest of the world narrowly escaped the wrath of the United States executive, with some tariffs on some sectors. This time around, things are quite starkly different: it is difficult to even know who constitutes a friend or a foe. All trading partners are now threatened with high horizontal tariffs in the name of “reciprocity”. Adding to this list of unknowns is the uncertainty around non-tariff policies, the uncertain implementation of non-binding deals, and the nature of an elusive collective response.
First, tariff and non-tariff policies.
Trump appears focused on tariffs, using import tariff threats to secure various trade concessions and other commitments. Unsurprisingly, the prevailing vexation of the rest of the world is regarding the higher tariffs on their exports to the US. There will certainly be losers both in the US and its trading partners, due to the shocks of tariff hikes. The hope is for a predictable and stable trading environment to be restored soon. However, while we worry about tariff hikes and policy uncertainty, we should not be blindsided […]
Trump’s trade deals: It’s not 1931, yet.
The overall impact of Trump’s actions may only represent a modest shock to the rest of the world, primarily because the US budget and trade balances are likely to widen due to the fiscal stance, which will boost US demand relative to output. However, there could be significantly different relative impacts on other countries. Ultimately, the final outcome will depend on whether the rest of the world magnifies or dampens these effects.
The spate of recent “trade deals” done by the US does not stabilise the world trade system; rather, it creates ongoing uncertainty. It’s not like 1931 when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs dramatically increased tariffs on all suppliers across the board simultaneously as US aggregate demand was collapsing, sending a huge macro-economic shock across the world. The US was the world’s biggest importer, and other countries worsened the situation by raising protectionist barriers against one another, e.g. the UK Tariff Act of 1932. Even though the new Trump tariffs are nearly as high as those of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, the US accounts for only about 15% of world imports. At the same time, Trump is cutting taxes (on the rich) in a manner that is very likely to increase the […]
A few important steps forward: the UK-EU strategic partnership
The current UK Government is focused on delivering economic growth and positioning the UK as an important economic and diplomatic player internationally. The relationship with the EU is probably the most crucial bit in this jigsaw, and the deal struck on Monday, outlined in a “Common Understanding”, indicates the direction of travel: cautiously and selectively rebuilding closer relations with the EU along a number of dimensions, first and foremost on security and defence matters, but also including energy, environmental, and some economic aspects.
We will discuss three particular areas that are related to trade in the ‘common understanding’: fisheries and trade in agri-food products, youth mobility, and cooperation on energy markets and carbon emissions, respectively. We explain why the deal delivers in two out of three areas. More could have been done, and with firmer commitments. The document essentially represents a negotiating agenda with mostly aspirational language, whereby the two parties agree to “work towards” certain outcomes and everything has to be finally negotiated. Yet every journey starts with a single step, and the one taken on Monday is a sensible step in the right direction.
Fish and food: Significant departures from Brexit
A core, perhaps the main, EU demand […]
The UK-US ‘geopolitical’ deal: A dangerous precedent for the UK and the world
We are living in a geopolitical world. While states may cloak their actions in legal justifications or economic reasoning, trade has become a tool to assert power, control narratives, and forge alliances. Trade deals are being designed to reduce vulnerabilities, not barriers.
The recently announced US-UK deal is not a traditional trade agreement but a ‘geopolitical’ deal strongly reflecting the US’s geopolitical rivalry against China. Lacking the legally binding nature of international agreements, the deal sidesteps legal frameworks and instead stakes its importance on strategic alignment. As such, it signals a broader shift in how the US, which has its global leadership threatened by the rise of China as a superpower, now uses trade policy: not as a matter of market efficiency or legal commitments, but as an instrument of geopolitical influence and national security. Furthermore, the deal clearly shows the second Trump administration’s strong intention to force trade partners to collude with the US to squeeze China from global supply chains.
Securitising supply chains
At face value, the deal includes a few economic concessions, conditional on fulfilling security-related requirements. For example, the US has agreed to reduce tariffs on British steel, aluminium, and automobiles. In return, the UK will […]
Stroking a bear to get half a sandwich
The UK and the US announced the first bilateral post-Reciprocal Tariffs deal on 8 May, named the ‘U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal’ (henceforth the US-UK EPD). The document published yesterday draws out the contours of this EPD, alongside some concrete initial proposals for reciprocal preferential market access for selected goods. Notwithstanding the negotiations starting immediately, this arrangement can be called off at any time, simply by the two parties giving each other written notice. Besides its symbolic and diplomatic relevance, what is the value of this emerging deal for the UK?
This is not a Free Trade Agreement. At first glance, it looks like a quid-pro-quo “mini-deal” of limited economic relevance that the US strong-armed the UK into accepting under the threat of tariffs. The UK is getting some respite from Trump’s tariffs in the (important) car and the (strategic) steel and aluminium sectors, in exchange for lowering tariffs on some agricultural products such as ethanol and beef, the latter on a reciprocal basis. But a closer reading of the ‘General Terms document’ suggests that it is more than this, and a lot worse.
First, as stated on page 1 of the text, the arrangement that the US and the UK reached […]
