My party must give Parliament a say on any UK-US trade deal
US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at The White House, USA, 27 February 2025 (Geopix / Alamy Stock Photo)
4 min read
In all the media discussion about the government’s trade talks with the USA, one issue remains dangerously under-reported: the complete absence of parliamentary accountability – or wider democratic input – into the content and shape of these deals.
Trade agreements are often portrayed as technical exercises, something best left to negotiators who just need to “get the details right” for everyone to benefit. But that narrative is a convenient fiction. Even if a trade deal were solely about reducing tariffs, there would still be winners and losers. And in today’s world, where trade deals have moved far beyond tariffs to dictate regulatory standards, public services, food safety, and environmental protections, the stakes are even higher.
These negotiations affect every aspect of our daily lives – from the kind of food on our shelves to the cost of medicines and the rules governing foreign investment. Yet the people elected to represent us in Parliament are locked out of the process. They are denied the right to debate negotiating objectives, to see the papers, or to have a meaningful vote on the final deal. If they do get a vote at all, their power is limited to delaying a deal for a month – by which point, of course, the agreement may already be in effect.
There has been no public consultation, no published mandate, and reports suggest secrecy has intensified
Nearly nine years since the Brexit vote, this glaring democratic deficit persists. We were promised the return of parliamentary sovereignty, but trade negotiations remain cloaked in secrecy under the royal prerogative, a model virtually unchanged since the 1920s. While we were in the European Union, trade policy faced debate in Brussels, where MEPs steadily gained powers of oversight. But despite calls from civil society groups, academics, and five parliamentary committees, Westminster remains sidelined. The Lords Constitution Committee itself branded our trade scrutiny system “anachronistic and inadequate”.
This is not just a procedural failing – it goes to the heart of what many now call a crisis of democracy. Across western liberal democracies, people feel increasingly shut out of decisions that shape their lives. From calls for public ownership of essential services like water to demands for wealth taxation, citizens feel unheard. The populist right has capitalised on this alienation, tapping into the sentiment that ordinary people lack real influence.
During my Private Members’ Bill on water – where I called for a citizens’ assembly to discuss the future of water services – MPs critical of it argued such assemblies were unnecessary. “Parliament is the people’s assembly,” they told me. Yet here is another glaring example where Parliament is barred from doing its job: holding the executive to account.
The UK’s approach puts us, as one former trade official described, at “the far end of the secrecy spectrum”. Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the UK just 20th – a sobering position for a country that prides itself on good governance. This opacity leaves us out of step with major trading partners, where parliamentary scrutiny is the norm.
Even by these standards, the current trade talks with the US stand out. There has been no public consultation, no published mandate, and reports suggest secrecy has intensified, with some documents now classified “top secret”. MPs have been told there will be no guaranteed vote.
In opposition, my party often championed accountability. But in government, there has been a tendency to fall back on the claim that too much scrutiny makes trade deals impossible. I would argue the opposite. The lack of public engagement breeds distrust, fuels protest movements, and can derail talks entirely – as we saw with the collapse of previous US-UK negotiations.
If a deal is genuinely in the public interest, the government should have the confidence to make its case. Open debate can improve a deal, as Parliament and the public bring forward concerns and insights. Imagine if Boris Johnson had been forced to defend the Australian trade deal – perhaps then he wouldn’t have so readily sacrificed the interests of our farming communities.
Eight years ago, we were told we were taking back control. If we are serious about that promise, trade deals – among the most consequential decisions a government can make – must be subject to full parliamentary accountability. Otherwise, we risk not only bad deals but further eroding the very democratic foundations we claim to uphold.
Clive Lewis is Labour MP for Norwich South
