UK is failing to capitalise on Brexit, says top Trump trade official
Yes — this is a very significant criticism, and in my view it exposes one of the central contradictions of Brexit.
The remark comes from Jamieson Greer, President Trump’s senior trade negotiator. His basic argument is that Britain has left the EU politically but is not fully exploiting the commercial freedom that Brexit theoretically gave it.
What is he actually saying?
In blunt terms:
Britain chose to leave Brussels — but is still choosing Brussels’ rules over Washington’s.
The US is frustrated because the UK is moving towards closer regulatory alignment with the EU, particularly over food and agricultural standards.
That makes a deeper UK-US trade agreement much more difficult.
For example, the UK is pursuing arrangements that would reduce friction in food trade with Europe by aligning with EU sanitary and food standards. But those standards can prevent or restrict some American agricultural products from entering Britain.
The fundamental Brexit problem
Brexit offered Britain a theoretical choice:
Option A 🇪🇺 — Stay closely aligned with Europe
Advantages:
Easier trade with Britain’s nearest and largest market.
Fewer border checks and regulatory barriers.
Better for manufacturers and exporters.
Easier supply chains.
Disadvantage:
Britain has less freedom to make radically different regulatory arrangements with countries such as America.
Option B 🇺🇸🌎 — Use Brexit to become a genuinely independent global trading nation
Advantages:
More freedom to negotiate different trade agreements.
Potentially closer US relationship.
Ability to recognise American standards.
More flexibility over tariffs and regulation.
Disadvantage:
Creates more divergence from the EU.
Makes European trade more complicated.
The problem is that Britain is trying to have both.
And that is extremely difficult.
Why Greer says Britain is wasting Brexit
The irony is obvious.
Britain accepted:
the economic disruption of leaving the EU;
new customs barriers;
additional bureaucracy;
reduced access to the Single Market;
…but is now moving towards re-aligning with European regulations anyway.
So the American argument is:
“If Britain is going to follow Brussels’ rules, why did it leave?”
That is politically provocative, but economically it is a perfectly understandable question.
The original Brexit vision was explicitly that Britain would become a more globally oriented trading nation, able to strike agreements independently around the world.
However — the Americans have their own agenda
This is important.
I wouldn’t simply accept the Trump administration’s argument at face value.
America doesn’t necessarily want Britain to be “free”.
America wants Britain to be more commercially open to America.
Those are not necessarily the same thing.
The US would like Britain to accept more:
American agricultural products;
American regulatory standards;
lower UK tariffs;
greater access for US companies.
Britain, meanwhile, has to consider whether accepting American standards would make exporting food into Europe more difficult.
So this isn’t simply:
🇺🇸 America = free trade
versus
🇪🇺 Europe = protectionism
It’s a competition between two enormous regulatory and economic systems, both wanting Britain to align more closely with them.
My view: Britain has made the worst possible strategic mistake
Britain should have decided what Brexit was actually for.
Instead, we appear to have spent years oscillating between two positions.
The sensible strategy would have been:
🇪🇺 Maintain maximum practical access to European markets
while simultaneously
🌎 using regulatory independence selectively in areas where Britain has genuine competitive advantages.
For example:
Areas Britain could potentially exploit more aggressively:
Financial services
Artificial intelligence
Biotechnology
Life sciences
Fintech
Digital trade
Professional services
International arbitration and legal services
Green technology
Defence technology
Advanced manufacturing
The UK government itself acknowledges that proximity matters enormously in trade: the EU remains Britain’s largest trading market, and increased barriers since Brexit have created difficulties for businesses.
So completely abandoning European alignment would probably be economically foolish.
But equally, simply recreating EU alignment without membership risks giving Britain the disadvantages of Brexit without extracting many of its advantages.
The really important question for you, Lee
Given our previous discussions about Britain’s economy, investment and Andy Burnham’s likely direction, I think this story raises a much bigger question:
Is Britain now drifting towards becoming economically tied to Europe, but politically outside it?
That could potentially be the worst long-term outcome:
❌ Less influence in Brussels
❌ More trade friction than EU members
❌ Limited freedom to exploit regulatory independence
❌ A weaker US trade relationship
That is the danger Greer is really pointing to.
My own view is that Britain needs a much clearer national economic strategy rather than continually swinging between Global Britain and Closer Europe.
I can also break down exactly what Britain could do over the next 5 years to genuinely capitalise on Brexit without damaging its crucial trade relationship with Europe.
Alert me to major UK-US or UK-EU trade developments
yes what can Britain do……
Absolutely. This is the question Britain should have answered immediately after Brexit:
How do we use independence where it gives us an advantage, while remaining closely connected to Europe where geography makes that unavoidable?
My answer would be: Britain should stop trying to choose between America and Europe and instead become the world’s most commercially useful bridge between the two.
My 10-point plan for Britain
1. Stop copying EU rules automatically — but don’t diverge for the sake of it
This is the crucial point.
Britain should adopt a simple test:
Does having a different rule create a measurable economic advantage for Britain?
If no, align with Europe where necessary.
If yes, diverge.
The mistake would be either extreme:
❌ Copy every Brussels regulation automatically.
❌ Change regulations simply to prove that Brexit happened.
The Government’s own trade strategy recognises that the EU remains Britain’s largest trading market, with UK-EU trade worth £813 billion in 2024.
So Europe has to remain Britain’s commercial foundation.
2. Create a genuine UK-US economic partnership 🇬🇧🤝🇺🇸
This is where I think Jamieson Greer has a legitimate point.
Britain should say to America:
We will not necessarily adopt American agricultural standards — but there are dozens of other areas where we can do major business.
The UK should pursue deeper agreements covering:
Artificial intelligence
Technology
Financial services
Pharmaceuticals
Biotechnology
Defence technology
Space
Quantum computing
Digital trade
Professional services
The UK Government itself says it wants a wider US agreement and is pursuing a technology partnership between two countries with major AI and technology sectors.
In other words:
Don’t sacrifice British farming to get a US trade deal.
Instead:
Sell Britain as America’s preferred technology and financial partner in Europe.
3. Make London the world’s financial crossroads 💷
This is potentially Britain’s greatest Brexit opportunity.
Britain has something France and Germany struggle to replicate:
The City of London.
Britain should aggressively develop London as the world’s leading centre for:
International finance
AI finance
Fintech
Green finance
Insurance
Reinsurance
International bonds
Private equity
Infrastructure finance
Wealth management
Islamic finance
Arbitration
But here is the important bit:
Britain should become more competitive, not less regulated.
That means smarter regulation, not a financial Wild West.
The objective should be:
“The safest major financial centre that is also the easiest place in the world to do serious international business.”
4. Become Europe’s AI and technology powerhouse 🤖
This could be Britain’s biggest opportunity of all.
Britain has:
excellent universities;
world-class AI research;
London;
Cambridge;
Oxford;
a huge financial technology industry;
the English language;
close links with America.
The UK is in an unusually strong position to act as the bridge between American technology and European markets.
The Government is explicitly identifying AI as one of its major growth opportunities.
I would go much further:
Create AI Free Enterprise Zones.
Companies locating there would get:
accelerated planning permission;
rapid grid connections;
tax incentives for investment;
simplified regulation;
government-backed infrastructure;
fast-track visas for highly skilled scientists.
5. Fix Britain’s biggest self-inflicted wound: planning 🏗️
Frankly, Britain could negotiate 50 trade agreements and still fail to grow properly if it cannot build anything.
We desperately need:
Houses
Factories
Data centres
Nuclear power stations
Electricity infrastructure
Roads
Rail improvements
This is one of Britain’s greatest competitive weaknesses.
If an American, Japanese or British company wants to invest £2 billion in a factory, it should not take 10 years to get permission.
My rule would be:
Major strategic investment: decision within 12 months.
Yes or no.
Not endless consultation.
Not years of legal challenges.
6. Become an energy superpower ⚡
This is absolutely essential.
Britain cannot compete internationally with:
expensive electricity;
unstable energy supplies;
dependence on imported gas.
Britain needs an all-of-the-above strategy:
Nuclear ☢️
Small modular reactors and large nuclear stations.
North Sea 🌊
Continue sensible oil and gas production during the transition.
Offshore wind 💨
Britain has enormous natural advantages.
Grid infrastructure 🔌
Massively accelerate connections.
Energy storage 🔋
Develop batteries and long-duration storage.
Cheap, reliable energy would make Britain enormously more attractive for:
manufacturers;
AI data centres;
chemical companies;
biotech;
advanced engineering.
7. Build a serious British industrial strategy 🏭
Not the old-fashioned:
“Government owns everything.”
But a strategic approach like America, China, France and South Korea increasingly use.
Britain should identify perhaps six strategic industries:
Sector Why Britain?
🤖 AI Universities + technology
🧬 Biotechnology Cambridge/Oxford ecosystem
💷 Financial technology London
🛡️ Defence Existing expertise
⚛️ Nuclear Energy security
🚀 Space & satellites Growing capability
Then concentrate:
investment;
skills;
infrastructure;
procurement;
tax incentives
around those areas.
8. Use Brexit freedom to create better trade agreements 🌍
Britain should stop obsessing about one gigantic trade deal.
Instead, negotiate sector-by-sector agreements.
🇺🇸 America
Technology, finance, defence, pharmaceuticals.
🇪🇺 Europe
Food, manufacturing, electricity, chemicals.
🇮🇳 India
Services, technology, investment.
🇯🇵 Japan
Technology, investment, manufacturing.
🇦🇺 Australia
Resources, technology, services.
Gulf countries
Finance, infrastructure, investment.
The Government’s current strategy explicitly describes the need for a pragmatic approach across the EU, US and other major economies rather than relying on one trading relationship.
That is exactly right.
9. Protect British industry from unfair competition 🇬🇧
Here is where Brexit could genuinely provide flexibility.
Britain should remain a free-trading country.
But free trade does not mean being naïve.
If another country:
subsidises its industries massively;
dumps products below cost;
manipulates markets;
steals technology;
Britain should act.
Particularly in strategic industries such as:
steel;
batteries;
semiconductors;
defence;
critical minerals.
Britain should not simply become:
“The cheapest place to dump surplus Chinese production.”
That is not free trade.
That can be industrial destruction.
10. The most important thing: Britain needs a 20-year strategy
This, in my opinion, is Britain’s biggest weakness.
Every government arrives and changes everything.
Business hates uncertainty.
We need political agreement on the major national objectives:
Britain’s 20-year priorities:
🏠 Build houses.
⚡ Produce cheap energy.
🤖 Become an AI leader.
🧬 Dominate biotechnology.
💷 Protect London’s financial leadership.
🏭 Rebuild strategic manufacturing.
🌍 Trade with everyone.
🇪🇺 Remain commercially close to Europe.
🇺🇸 Build the strongest possible relationship with America.
🎓 Develop the world’s best skills and universities.
My preferred Brexit strategy in one sentence
“European access, American capital and technology, and global markets.”
That is what I think Britain should have been aiming for.
We should not be asking:
🇪🇺 Europe or 🇺🇸 America?
We should be asking:
How can Britain make itself indispensable to both?
But there is one enormous obstacle…
And I think this is where you and I may strongly agree.
Does Britain currently have the political leadership capable of doing this?
Because this plan requires politicians willing to make some very difficult decisions:
reform planning;
confront vested interests;
build infrastructure;
reform welfare and skills;
maintain fiscal discipline;
make long-term investments;
sometimes upset voters.
That is much harder than simply announcing another trade deal.
And the current argument between Europe and America risks becoming another distraction from Britain’s real problem:
Britain has enormous assets — but is extraordinarily poor at converting them into sustained economic growth.