Johnson is still in the phase of shaking everything he can out of the “magic money tree” his party so frequently told us didn’t exist, and projecting a hard Brexit, all with a view to staging a general election that will see off Farage’s latest political vehicle. This is a continuation of Cameron’s plot with the referendum that got us into this mess - because, whatever else, the important thing is that the Tory party hangs on to office.
It all depends on when he times his run in relation to the crash-out date, October 31. Go before, against the big bad EU not giving him everything on a plate (but with Farage’s lot saying he’s not genuinely trying) or go after (with the risk of adverse consequences of crashing out starting to hit in the run-up to polling day)?
How is losing the free trade we have already with the rest of the EU going to be profitable?
The Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Council, the Bank of England and the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer all said ‘no deal’ would be an economic disaster.
It takes years to set up trade deals - and when you have a clown like Johnson in charge, our prospects are dismal.
I had only a vague idea of who Boris Johnson really was. I mean, I know who he is, but not what kind of person. I keep hearing that he’s another Trump - a low intelligence populist rabble rouser. So I did a little research on him, and I’m not seeing it.
Apparently he went to Eton, where he was considered a bit of a prodigy. Then Oxford, where he graduated with second class honors. He speaks Greek and Latin fluently. His politics are said to be more David Cameron style center-right orthodoxy, other than Brexit.
So what am I missing? Sure, he has goofy hair and a penchant for theatrics, but I’m not seeing the dumb drooling Trump clone.
That’s kind of what I’m saying : he’s no Trump. Trump is an idiot, Johnson is only pretending to be one. A relatable one, sort of lazy, sort of improvising, ha ha, you know hows it is, herp derp. It’s all for show of course, but it is effective. The only thing is, I don’t know what it’s effective towards. Trump is transparent, he’s just a canker on democracy, a pustulent boil oozing “more money for me and the people who give me money ; fuck you”.
BJ (heh.) seems diffenrent, in that he doesn’t seem to be gorging himself on any particular trough. It really seems like he’s being a cunt for the sake of ‘being a cunt is easier than not being that’.
You can’t unilaterally create a trade deal, and the terms for trading without a deal are pretty onerous. What you are proposing is an end to free trade areas and trading solely under WTO rules, which would be devastating to the economy.
You don’t need a trade deal to unilaterally drop all barriers to trade. Those countries with the highest levels of trade freedom are not in mammoth free trade blocs. There are better ways to pursue free trade. See Hong Kong, Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, etc. Of course I will not deny there would be a slight hiccup along the way.
You can argue the merits or otherwise of Brexit all you want - but this has been done to death in other threads already - the OP isn’t asking about the ins and outs of Brexit as such, more they are interested in Boris and his approach to the issue and an evaluation of how it is perceived to be going.
Unilaterally dropping barriers to trade means that importers suddenly have it better, but industries that rely on exports, or even the domestic competitors to those imports, have it much worse until the situation sorts itself out, by which time some or many of those companies will have gone out of business, with all of the attendant economic disruptions that causes. If the net benefit to importers doesn’t outweigh the net losses elsewhere, the “quite a bit by itself” you tout equals economic hardships if not outright recession. What leads you to conclude the net outcome will be positive?
It seems possible that Boris’s push for hard/No Deal Brexit is in the knowledge that this will be rejected by parliament, forcing a General Election. As that would amount to a second referendum (but this time along distinct party lines) Boris and Cummings might hope to win a majority and finally push Brexit through (they roused a sufficient rabble last time around).
I can’t be bothered going through them all but New Zealand is party to quite a lot of trade agreements, as are Singapore, Hong Kong and Chile. Oh look, that’s all of them!
It’s not usually worth responding to badly-informed fundamentalist libertarians.
EU member states can’t pursue free trade agreements unilaterally, but they do so collectively - and with considerable success. As an EU member state, the UK is party to the largest network of free trade agreements that the world has ever seen, negotiated collectively through the EU. By brexiting, they leave that network, and have to start building their own network, from scratch, and from a much weaker bargaining position than they enjoyed as members of the EU. A much, much weaker bargaining position, if they leave the EU with no deal.
Did I say eschew trade deals? Is Johnson fixing to eschew trade deals? No what I said was that it is possible to successfully pursue free trade outside of a large trade bloc. In fact, the best free trade countries are not in a large trade bloc.
Well, I dunno how true this is. Here’s a list of countries ranked by their average tariff rates, which is a pretty good indicator of how good a “free trade country” they are. The four freest include Switzerland, which is in the Single Market, and Singapore, which is in the ASEAN Free Trade Area and so operates the Common Effective Preferential Tariff Scheme. Just behind those four we have a group including Norway and Iceland, both in the EEA. The EU countries come just behind that group, and they are ahead of - as in, they have lower average tariff barriers than - New Zealand and Chile.
In short, of the four countries that you mention, Hong Kong would appear to be the only one that (a) is more of a free trade country than the EU member states, and (b) is not in a trade bloc of any kind.
It’s not just the activists, which is a big part of their dilemma. Even as most Labour constituencies voted to leave, most Labour voters voted to remain.
Boris isn’t dumb, and can string sentences together. He’s also arrogant, raised from birth to think he’s special, and a serial adulterer. He is, even by the standards of politicians, in love with the sound of his own voice. He’s very definitely populist, and if he’s not specifically saying “Make Britain Great Again” a big part of his pitch to the country is vague exhortations to believe in ourselves coupled with sweeping declarations that everyone pointing out problems that can’t be solved just by positive feelings is a naysayer talking down Britain.
His education would suggest that he’s capable of grasping detail, but a regular feature of his career as journalist, London Mayor and Foreign Secretary is that, like Trump, he blurts out what he wants to be true rather than what is. See for example, his recent speech in which he claimed that fish smokers on the Isle of Man were being put to unneccessary costs by EU rules requiring them to put a chemical cool pack in their postal kipper deliveries. It went down very well with the audience. It just turns out that: the Isle of Man isn’t in the EU; even if it were the EU doesn’t have such a rule; but the UK does. (Also, it’s probably quite a *good *idea to keep fish cool in transit, when you think about it.) Disregarding the truth for a crowd-pleasing speech that falls apart on further investigation is reasonably Trump adjacent behaviour and it’s this tendency to say whatever will get him applause and power that’s the main point of comparison between him and Trump.