BoJo has suggested a bridge between the UK and France (HERE) because he thinks it's ridiculous that two big economies are only connected by a single rail line. Having campaigned to put ourselves outside the EU's trade barriers he now wants to build a bridge across the Channel.
On Radio 4 this morning there was a discussion with a former president of the Institute of Civil Engineers, talking about the technical feasibility of building a bridge across The Channel. Of course it may be feasible ( they said it was) but they didn't address the paradox that the objective of such a bridge is to increase trade. Yet we have just voted to reduce it through Brexit and the raising of non tariff and possibly even tariff barriers.
This is apart from the costs and practicality of building a bridge. No doubt it is possible, but why do it if the result is a queue on each side while paperwork is checked? And remember, this is the world's busiest shipping lane with huge tankers passing through on a daily basis. The cost of a bridge would presumably make the cost of HS2 look like small change, would represent a danger to shipping and be a tempting terrorist target.
If a bridge is a practical, physical, if costly and risky construction to increase trade it would be far better to eliminate Brexit, which Christophe Bondy, senior legal counsel to the Canadian government in the CETA talks, said is the blowing up of the metaphorical bridge we have spent 45 years building (HERE).
And it wouldn't cost anything at all. It would save money. Eyes will be rolling in Brussels at all this.
