Beyond the stated belief in the fundamental benefits of trade, the details of what this means for the UK are lacking.  The EU's trade policy communication is 22 pages with an 18 page annex.  The UK's is one page describing basic elements such as the need, post-Brexit, for trade legislation.  As Chatham House, the independent think tank, pointed-out in a briefing paper in September 2016, 'The UK will need to negotiate more than 100 new trade agreements if it leaves the EU customs union'.  It seems the UK is unable to do little more than chase this one goal in order to have a stable post-Brexit trade stance.

In this environment, the louder voices count.  As the linked article in the Financial Times of 28 June 2022 notes, the UK steel sector has managed to extract a government promise to continue steel tariffs to protect itself. The new and independent Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) recommended not continuing the tariffs.  The government changed the process and asked the TRA to reconsider the subject by addressing different questions.  Given the criticism raised by the farming lobby at the time of the UK / Australia Free Trade Agreement, that sector apparently has less influence over the UK government.

Should government act according to those that have the loudest voice?  Perhaps it was ever thus.  If so, then government need not have any principles to implement its trade policy.  Trade regulation by government (politics), rather than valid reasoning based on evidence within a rules-based system will, however, eventually fall foul of world trade rules.