US Politics – OxPol
The gap between what the Trump and Biden presidencies are for ‘special relationship‘ between the United States and the United Kingdom has clearly shown how dependent Britain is on White House residents for its relations with the United States. It would be easy for Britain to forget the lessons it learned from working with Trump, who, due to President Biden’s comparative enthusiasm, placed less emphasis on bilateral relations with Britain. However, it is precisely the Trump-era experience that should convince UK policymakers to consider how to protect the UK from White House volatility. US-UK cooperation on areas such as security and defense is never questioned, but the likelihood of a full trade deal, as well as wider economic and political coordination, is currently intertwined with the presidency. However, there are ways for the UK to reduce the risk of its interests being overturned in the US with each presidential election. If UK policymakers increase their commitment to the US as a federal state by assessing sub-national relationships, the UK can ensure more continuity with its goals. In addition, this federalized approach can be transferred beyond the transatlantic engagement.
In addition to agenda items such as climate change or military intervention, Britain must continue to work with the White House regardless of who the President is. However, there is still considerable reason for state governments to collaborate and advance. There are around 89,000 governments in the United States. This structure and the relations between the federal, state and local governments lead to a broad policy. The congress is usually the body that finances national politics and the federal bureaucracy, provides a framework for them and oversees them. However, the implementation and enforcement of policies is often the responsibility of state and local governments. State governments also create primary laws covering most major policy areas. Together, this means that states and municipalities have a prominent role in all policy areas of British interest, such as infrastructure, health, education and the environment.
In economic terms, the case of a federalized approach is clearest. Given the size of the state and city budgets and the extent of their economic autonomy– –Often they set their own tax rates and their own household budgets, and therefore their own household priorities– –The space in which Britain can represent its interests should not be underestimated. States like California and Texas have economies that are larger than most countries. And the UK government website is already showing awareness of the states‘ economical meaning. There are brief analyzes by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Bureau and Department of International Trade on areas such as the economic relations between Great Britain, Texas and Great Britain and Michigan. The former reportedly supported 120,000 Texan jobs in 2017, the UK as Texas‘ seventh largest export market. In Michigan that was 35,000 jobs and exports valued at $ 1.1 billion.
There is evidence that the UK has already used this economic integration, likely facilitated by close cultural ties, to forge cooperation. The UK government and Michigan signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2018 “Share data, hold meetings, workshops, and conferences, share best practices, and develop new programs” in relation to the automotive industry. The unique London draw made possible a sub-national agreement with Chicago on financial services and technology. The London-Chicago deal builds on the fact that London has attracted more Chicago-based companies than any other European city over the past decade. When the agreement was signed, then-Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmanuel, noted “The economic and cultural partnerships between Chicago and London have resulted in unprecedented investment and job creation on both sides.” On the basis of cooperative economic agreements, it will of course be easier for Britain to expand its sphere of influence in the US. Here, too, there are signs of state and city appetite: Britain and Texas have reached an agreement ‘Bio bridge‘ focus on innovation in medicine and life sciences; Tourism agreements exist between Manchester and New York. and Aberdeen and Utah through academic collaboration. Scotland and California have now signed an agreement to work together to cope with the climate emergency.
It is clear that by building a patchwork of sub-national agreements, progress is being made towards meeting the UK’s key objectives– –from financial services and a radical overhaul of the automotive sector to innovations in life sciences– –Britain is better able to isolate itself from unsympathetic or uncooperative presidents. The fact that Boris Johnson‘s GOvernment worked to set up a special working group on economic relations with President Trump, which ultimately was rudderless, aroused no US interest at the highest level, and no longer existed without significant success. This shows how important this approach could be. So it is imperative that the UK does not forget the lessons of Trump just because it receives a warmer reception from President Biden. Instead, this more collaborative environment in Whitehall should inspire enthusiasm to refocus on the US and deepen what already exists subnational Ties while resources are invested– –through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department of International Trade, and likely its security and defense operations– –Expansion of the presence of hard and soft power throughout the US system.
Avoiding a purely centralized government orientation can and should be a blueprint for Britain‘s approach to federal systems around the world. Again, there is evidence that this is already happening. In 2013 the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding with the Brazilian city of Sao Paulo, Education, prison administration, trade, transparency and the environment. London and the Bavarian state are also dependent on economic relationships. But given the size of the current Prime Minister‘s Global Britain’s ambitions, the leadership opportunities that will emerge from the COP27 and G7 presidencies, as well as from the UK‘With the substantial resources of the Special Envoy, the diplomatic service and willing commercial outsiders, there is no need for a state approach to Britain‘International engagement should not be extended beyond federal centers in partners such as Canada, Australia, Germany and Brazil.