The whole paper is negotiating objectives, Nigel. We know that means that these are what will be sought but it accepts they may not all be achieved.

All the commentary I have read on this says it is very much an 'America First' stance. Which is exactly what you would expect: of course the US is putting together the objectives it thinks are in its interests - why would it not, in any circumstances, never mind under an 'America First' administration. So there are lots of phrases that must be read at a deeper level than just the obvious meaning:

Eliminate practices that unfairly decrease U.S. market access opportunities or distort agricultural markets to the detriment of the United States, including:
? Non-tariff barriers that discriminate against U.S. agricultural goods; and
? Restrictive rules in the administration of tariff rate quotas.

Those are things like making the UK accept GM foods, whether it wishes to or not, and no labelling that lets the consumer know. This is stressed elsewhere

Establish new and enforceable rules to eliminate unjustified trade restrictions or unjustified commercial requirements (including unjustified labeling) that affect new technologies.



It is obvious that in principle we can decide not to accept these terms, but once again, the question boils down to are you prepared to "no deal" to maintain your position? So far, the impression I get, Nigel, is that in principle you are prepared to trade anything if the price is right,