Just as he is threatening to exit the single market without a deal Boris Johnson seems to have discovered its benefits. In an amazing interview on his way to the G7 in Biarritz he says that the America he is desperate to do a trade deal with is - wait for it, protectionist. Free trading Brexiteers like Priti Patel have been claiming for years it is the EU which is a protectionist racket.
Speaking to reporters our newly informed prime minister said:
"I think there is a massive opportunity for Britain but we must understand that it's not all going to be plain sailing," he said, adding that there were "very considerable barriers in the United States to British businesses which are not widely and readily understood".
He gave examples:
"UK-made shower trays were 'allegedly too low' to be sold in the US, while wallpapers, pillows and other fabrics have to be fire tested again upon arrival in the US. The PM also cited the continued block on exporting British beef to the US and Melton Mowbray pork pies.
"Looking to services, Mr Johnson said:'If you want to sell insurance in the UK you only need to speak to two regulators. If you want to sell insurance in the US you have to speak to 50 regulators and the same point can be made about architects and many other professions'."
What our idiot PM is discovering is that the USA is not a single market at all but 50 fiercely independent states over which even president Trump holds little sway. Johnson wants the Americans to "compromise and open up their approach because currently there are too many restrictions". Good luck with that one.
I assume he would like the USA to harmonise standards for goods, services and professional qualifications across all 50 states - but this would require something exactly like the EU and he is adamantly opposed to that (or is he? Nobody knows do they?). I assume his alternative solution is the same as the one for the Irish backstop - a mixture of bluster, hope and a magic wand.
The BBC cover the interview HERE.
None of this should have been a revelation to him. I know people like Sir Ivan Rogers have been saying these things for years both inside and outside government. I quote Sir Ivan's words from a speech at Liverpool University in December last year:
"For all the imperfections of the Single Market, services trade between Member States is, in many sectors, freer than it is between the federal states of the US, or the states in Canada. The US Government is unable, even if it were willing, to deliver on commitments in many areas in international negotiations, just as it cannot bind its states on government procurement, on which many federal states are as protectionist as it gets".
Johnson has made it a red line issue that the NHS is not open for private US competition - but what is this, even if you agree with it, if it's not protectionism? And as the former UKREP to the EU also pointed out "Protectionism is always someone else’s sin, of course".
The BBC looked at the relative protectionist position of the EU in May 2018 and found EU tariffs were actually quite moderate - but higher than the USA. The trade-weighted average figure for applied tariffs by the EU was 3%. That's higher than the US (2.3%) and Japan (2.1%), but lower than Australia (4%) or Canada (but only just at 3.1%). However, as Johnson and many Brexiteers are finding out it is the non-tariff barriers that cause far more friction to trade.
A Canadian newspaper also reports on the comments Johnson made and seems a bit bemused by them:
"Prime Minister Boris Johnson used a pre-G7 summit phone call to U.S. President Donald Trump to demand he lower trade barriers and open up parts of the U.S. economy to British firms, citing a wide range of markets from cars to cauliflowers"
If any country in the world knows how hard it is to negotiate a trade deal with the USA, it's Canada. The idea that Trump is going to 'lower trade barriers' without the UK lowering ours around agriculture and the NHS is for the birds.
Reports that he will withhold £30 billion from the divorce bill if we do not get a trade deal when we leave the EU are also not calculated to improve relations. As far as I know the EU have always made clear the £39 billion is for past commitments and is not related in any way to a future trade deal. Johnson's own Attorney General has made this clear in the House of Commons and the EU will not even open trade talks unless that is firmly accepted.
Perhaps the first month in No 10 has put a different gloss on Brexit for Johnson. The problems continue to mount.
