Comment on the uncensored papers

I heard this interview on "Today": this morning and thought you might be interested.

(Interviewer) Papers released by the Labour Party this week shed some light on the Trade Discussions between US and UK officials.

There were discussions about longer patents for drugs, which could potentially mean higher prices. Proof said the Labour Party, that the NHS was up for sale. [This was] a claim flatly rejected by the government who say it's not on the table.

But one thing the US said was not on the table was anything to do with climate change. A lightning rod they said. So what have we learnt about how a deal might take shape and the role of the environment in that? Sam Lowe (SC) is trade expert and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform and we've also got Molly Scott Cato (MSC) who is the Green Party Speaker on Brexit and Finance, and the MEP for the South West. Good morning to you both.

Sam, if I could ask you first. The US seemed much clearer about what they can and can't negotiate than the UK did. In terms of climate, am I right in thinking that is a legal restriction.

(SC) Well, I think you are right in thinking the US trade representative has to negotiate against a mandate that's been set for it by congress. They have outlined what they want to achieve and what can't be included in the US Trade Agreement. One of the issues that has come up recently is they don't really want them talking about climate change in terms of emissions reduction.

However, one thing I would clarify is that it doesn't mean that a Trade Agreement with the US wouldn't include a chapter on the environment. All US Trade Agreements include an enforceable chapter on the environment laying out different obligations. But it might not mention anything to do with climate change.

(Interviewer) Okay, but is it not correct that they have got a restriction on anything to do with greenhouse gasses? So if we wanted to do the same thing, for the NHS for example, we could pass a domestic law saying that we do not allow you to discuss that.

(SC) Well, that's certainly a possibility on the UK side but one point I would make is that whilst the UK government can say certain things are not on the table, they can't stop the US from putting them there. On certain issues, including drug pricing, on patent extensions, the US will want to talk about them. Whilst it's fine for the UK to say 'no we won't discuss that' at some point if they want an agreement with the US, they will have to say yes to something.

(Interviewer) Okay, Molly Scott Cato from the Green Party. What did you learn from what we saw in the papers on the US approach to climate change and what the UK can and can't do to influence one of the worlds biggest polluters?

(MSC) Well, I think the first thing we learned was that this negotiation has been going on in secret. It's completely wrong that this information comes out via a leak. That's not unique to the British Government, the US negotiators were also hiding this from Congress. I think as citizens we should be asking, 'is this in our benefit if our negotiators will not actually let us know what's going on'.

Of course, we were also concerned about risks to the NHS, both in terms of drug pricing and therefore much greater costs but also of possible opening up of health contracts to US corporations.

On the climate angle, I think it is very disturbing that we see US negotiations explicitly trying to exclude that from the discussion because we know that we are in a very different place from the US. We're calling this the Climate Election. As Green's we need urgent action and that must include all countries of the world. At the EU level, we are trying to introduce a Carbon Border Tax at the border, to say that countries, particularly the US, that don't live up to their climate agreements will have to charge an extra tax on their products and we need to really be using trade to push the US to take action on climate change, not having it excluded from discussions.

(Interviewer) Sam, the idea of doing a US trade deal in parallel with a trade deal with the EU. I think it is what people are proposing we do. Given the fact that we have got until December 2020 to get and EU trade deal done, many people would say that looks just flat out impossible.

(SC) It's certainly difficult, although the nature of Johnson's proposed deal with the EU is to give himself the maximum space to do this agreement with the US but to get it done quickly we have to say "yes" on many of these issues that are currently controversial. My feeling is that whilst it won't be possible to do a fully comprehensive free trade agreement with the US in that time, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw an agreement related to trade announced. So, for example, the UK being excluded from Trump's trade tariffs in return for the UK supporting the US on Huawei or something like that. So an interim proposal that created good headlines. In terms of a comprehensive free trade agreement, yes, that will take a while and it should. It's a big negotiation.

(Interviewer) Molly, what was clear that came from these papers, also, was that the US would much prefer a "No-Deal" Brexit. They said "a No-Deal Brexit and then everything is to play for." What does that tell you? Is that concerning?

(MSC) I think that this is one of the most interesting things, that you can see the US powerfully working with certain political actors in this country and not with others. So we knew already that Liz Truss was operating a sort of free-lance trade policy with the Cato Institute and various right-wing US so-called 'Think Tanks' before she became Trade Secretary and then 'surprisingly', as soon as Johnson becomes PM, then we see Liz Truss actually has responsibility for Trade. We also see the move from Theresa May's deal, where we have this so-called 'level playing field', so that we can stick closely to European standards.

As soon as Johnson came in that was out of the window and we have something much closer to a hard Brexit. So we are starting to see how the Trump/Johnson nexus is actually working for the US in Britain, rather than our Prime Minister representing British interests. I think that is something people should really bear in mind when they go to the polls on the 12 December.

Molly Scott Cato, Sam Lowe, thank you both.

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000btv8