Bartels said it was not clear if the move would affect the U.S. relationship. “It is possible that the U.S. is less concerned now about the MPIA than it was,” he said. “But even if this is not the case, the U.K. must now have decided that trade relations with the U.S. are sufficiently stable for it to be able to sign up to the MPIA anyway.”
“There is an alternative explanation,” Bartels added, “which is that this was a ‘reset’ deal-breaker for the EU, and the U.K. chose the EU over the U.S. But that seems less likely.”
Priorities elsewhere
But Simon Lester, President of WorldTradeLaw.net and a fellow at the Baker Institute, cautioned against reading too much into the U.K.’s decision, which he describes as a “commonsense way forward so that it can take full advantage of WTO dispute settlement.”
“It is possible that some people in Brussels and Washington may try to read into it a broader statement related to U.K. alliances and alignment,” he added.
“I think it is probably a mistake to view it this way, though, as the impact of the U.K.’s decision to join the MPIA is fairly narrow, and is much more limited than, say, the substantive trade deal that the U.K. government recently signed with the Trump administration.”
A senior consultant familiar with the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s stance on WTO matters said: “Their position is that they’re immune to pressure at the moment on restoring the appellate body. Until China, the EU and India come forward with meaningful WTO reform, proposals are not going to move.”
The consultant, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, added: “While they won’t love the U.K. announcement, they’ve got bigger issues on their plate — not least all the bilateral deals which are meant to be done in the next two weeks.”