Breathless accounts of brilliant negotiating are oddly unaccompanied by statements of UK wins.

Twice the PM has signed up to deals he previously said no PM could sign up for. The level of self-deception in turning these into triumphs is off the scale.
A wise man has suggested that Johnson's self delusions are good for the UK in the way he folds under EU pressure but denies it - that this actually delivers the best result.
But it doesn't do much for the country's politcal debate to have such delusions at the heart of the most important economic relationship. And they don't have such delusions in Belfast.
Perhaps it is the way of UK politics that no leader can be seen to be pro-EU, that the UK must be seen to be bigger than the EU, even though the UK is obviously smaller and needs the EU for trade.
On current precedent the UK will continue to lean towards the EU in practice but deny it in principle. All the EU has to do is threaten us with tariffs, and after bluster, here will come the concession.
And obviously you are going to struggle to win a negotiation when your public position is totally at odds with reality, and your actual position. But you can win the media.
Still going to be very hard to rebuild international business confidence in a UK unable to give a straight answer about relations with the EU.
As for a US trade deal, anyone want to trust the Prime Minister's word that UK farmers will be protected? Do you think the US will be impressed if he threatens to walk away?
The fracturing of UK politics into the comic book version of heroes and villains, and the real one of trade-offs and choices. But the first is more fun, and the PM plays it well. The second one is dull by comparison.
The challenges for the future. For the PM, keep politics away from the real world. For Labour, either the opposite, or get better at story telling. For business, identify how to navigate the gap between their real world and Johnson's fictional one.
The high drama phase of Brexit is over. Boris Johnson and the EU won. Many books will now be written about why and how. Now for the dull grind of implementation. There might be different winners and losers. /end

More from David Henig

So many stories of new barriers to trade between UK and EU, but you might be thinking at some point these will run out. The government is certainly hoping so. Well they may slow down, but trade relations and regulations are not static, and changes will lead to further problems.

The likelihood of continued trade problems for a £650 bn trade relationship is why there should be a huge cross-government effort led by the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade to put in place the necessary resources to seek best results.

There isn't.

So the UK's relationship with the EU currently consists of two not particularly good deals and no consistent effort to manage current problems or prevent future ones. Joint committees are a second order problem to putting in place the right internal structures.

But that's been the consistent UK problem in relations with the EU since 2016. Lack of focus on getting the right internal structures, people, asks, strategy, too much attention on being tough and a single leader.

News just in. This doesn't necessarily mean the right structure being put into UK-EU relations. I suspect Frost's main role is to ensure no renegotiations with the EU.

Also, wonder what this says about the PM's trust in Michael Gove?

More from Brexit

A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.

The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.


Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.

It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.

In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.

But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.

You May Also Like