The problem with any leader's trade-deal skiting (or proxy skiting by third parties) is that, without long term investment, a better trade position is only achievable by selling more of the same primary produce as we've always done, which means more quarrying of the natural environment- whether that be agricultural 'improvement' by ploughing up of old pasture & unsustainable irrigation, pushing the limits of fishing quota or literal quarrying of minerals. None of this addresses our declining capacity to add value to the primary goods we already produce or to retain enough domestic production for our own utility and to create security for our own people.

International trade is formally endorsed by the Ricardian theory of 'comparative advantage', which does have qualified merit, provided the parties are actual free agents. However, in the modern world, the corollaries of 'free' trade agreements are dire. The permanent rules that 'protect' foreign investors also limit the capacity of future governments to regulate the domestic economy in the public interest: that is a large part of the reason for their popularity with the political class, and both the reason for and result of the adherence of all major parties to the Neoliberal consensus. Then there are the special interests of the 'financial markets': commodity traders, currency traders and bond dealers.

Genuine free trade includes the freedom to say 'no' at the point when trade damages the domestic economy. Further 'deals' at this stage are desperate acts of 'nailing the flag to the mast of a sinking ship' to demonstrate loyalty to a dying hegemony.