Farage Tells Huge Pack of Lies About Johnson's Brexit Deal


A debate rages over whether Johnson's deal with the EU actually delivers Brexit.

Yesterday, I commented "Nigel Farage says Johnson's deal is Not Brexit. I find that to be a joke."

A reader replied: "Farage made an interesting speech on Monday. He covered 10 points regarding why Johnson's deal is not Brexit."

  1. The UK keeps state aid under the EU rules.
  2. The UK keeps social policy under the EU rules.
  3. The UK keeps regulatory policies under the EU rules.
  4. The UK keeps environmental law under the EU rules.
  5. The UK keeps employment policies under the EU rules.
  6. The UK keeps taxation policies under the EU rules.
  7. The UK keeps fisheries under the EU rules.
  8. The UK is likely prohibited from negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world.
  9. The UK pays 65 Billion for the privilege of all this.
  10. Even if the UK agrees to all this in exchange for a Free Trade Deal, then the EU Court is the judge of any disagreements down the road.

In case you want official Brexit Party statements, please see If you only read one thing about Boris Johnson’s deal,make it this.

The points are mostly the same but in a different order.

Differences Between Johnson's Deal and Theresa May's Deal

Bloomberg explains Differences Between Johnson's Deal and Theresa May's Deal.

Customs Union

This is the big one. Under Johnson’s deal the U.K. will leave the EU’s customs union, allowing it to strike its own trade deals with other countries. Under May’s proposals the country would have stayed in — at least until it had reached a free trade agreement with the EU — preserving trade ties built up over its 46-year membership of the bloc and its predecessors.

Conclusion: Point 8 is a blatant lie.

Level Playing Field on EU Rules

Johnson wants to give himself greater room to diverge from EU rules on, for example, social and environmental standards — something that has already angered Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party’s Brexit spokesman.

May's Deal: The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.

Johnson's Deal: The precise nature of commitments should be commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness of the Parties.

The political statement says "The Parties should in particular maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for competition and state aid control that prevents undue distortion of trade and competition; commit to the principles of good governance in the area of taxation and to the curbing of harmful tax practices; and maintain environmental, social and employment standards at the current high levels provided by the existing common standards."

Bloomberg accurately points out "On the face of it, Johnson’s deal commits the U.K. to a host of new safeguards and trade relationships. However, the political declaration is just that — a statement of intent rather than a binding commitment."

All that crap about trade, governance, taxation, etc., was removed from the binding Withdrawal Agreement to the non-binding political declaration.

Ironically, Labour is upset because it understands Johnson can indeed weaken employment standards, worker protections, etc.

Conclusion: Points 1 through 6 are a pack of lies.

Three Main Differences

The Journal comments on Three Main Differences Between Theresa May's Brexit Deal and Boris Johnson's

THE KEY DIFFERENCES between Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement, and Boris Johnson’s version of it are the alternative arrangement to the Irish backstop, a consent mechanism for the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the level-playing field provision.

The “level-playing field” provision was another sticking point for UK-EU negotiators. It essentially aimed to create a base level of standards for labour rights, the environment, tax and state aid rules.

This is so as to ensure state aid rules aren’t used by either side to boost their own companies; labour rules aren’t lowered in order to increase company profits; or environmental standards aren’t renegned upon in order to become more competitive post-Brexit.

This had been a legally-binding agreement contained in the Withdrawal Agreement – it’s now stated in the Political Declaration.

Reference to a customs union as the baseline for a future trade deal, and UK alignment with EU regulations have also been removed.

Same Conclusion: Points 1-6 are a huge pack of lies.

Frictionless Free Trade

From the Guardian article How is Boris Johnson's Brexit deal different from Theresa May's?

The commitment to frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is restated. “Nothing in the protocol prevents the UK from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK’s internal market”.

The EU and the UK will aim for a zero-tariff deal with unlimited quotas. The entire UK, including Northern Ireland, will be free to sign trade deals.

The line in the political declaration that “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with union rules in relevant areas” in any future trade talks has been ditched.

One source said the removal of this albeit vague promise of being aligned to the EU in future has been the key to unlocking the support of the European Research Group.

The island of Ireland is considering a single market for electricity so homes in Northern Ireland can get their energy from a supplier in Northern Ireland or the republic. There were fears this could be disrupted by Brexit. Under the Johnson deal, the provisions of union law remain so nothing will change.

Point 8 is a blatant lie.


Fishing and financial services are details to be worked out later.

Point 7 is a lie.

Trapped by the European Court of Justice

The problems won’t end with the transition period. Don’t be fooled just because the Political Declaration on future relations is not legally binding. Article 184 of the Withdrawal Agreement requires us to use ‘best endeavours, in good faith’ to negotiate a future deal in line with the PD. Any breach of this duty will see the EU haul Britain before an arbitration panel – half EU appointees, half pro-EU judges from the UK. And the panel must defer to the European court on anything concerning EU Law. If they rule that a UK law goes against the Political Declaration, UK courts will have to overturn that law (WA, Articles 170-175). The Political Declaration is a trap from which there is no plausible escape.

That is the concluding paragraph of the official Brexit Party statement.

Let's tune into the Independent for analysis.

EU law will apply in the transition period

After we leave the EU, we will go into limbo, known in the bill as the implementation period (IP), although everyone calls it the transition period, which lasts until December 2020.

During this period nothing will change, except that the UK will no longer be a member of the EU. The bill makes this explicit: the European Communities Act, which puts the obligations of membership in British law, will continue to apply.

Parliament will have a say over trade deal negotiations

The bill gives parliament control of the negotiating mandate for the long-term trade deal with the EU (the “future relationship” in the jargon). It says ministers may not engage in negotiations unless a statement of objectives has been approved by the House of Commons, and that ministers “must seek to achieve” those objectives.

‘Parliamentary Sovereignty’ Clause

That portion sounds ominous. But Johnson negotiated a pair of escape clauses.

The bill includes a clause that begins: “It is recognised that the parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.” This is persiflage designed to keep the sillier Eurosceptics happy. They do not like the continuing application of EU law during the transition period, or the eight-year phase-out of European Court of Justice jurisdiction over some EU citizenship questions.

Trap Door Clause

The bill gives parliament a say if the UK government decides to ask for an extension. But many MPs are worried that Boris Johnson wouldn’t ask for one, opening a “trapdoor” to a delayed no-deal Brexit if there is no trade deal with the EU in place by the end of 2020.

If Johnson does not like the negotiations, at the end of 2020 he can walk away with No Deal, more accurately, a WTO Deal.

Trap Door to No Deal

CNN reported Labour Says Johnson's Plan is a "Trap Door to No-Deal".

Keir Starmer, the opposition Labour Party’s lead spokesman on Brexit, has been addressing MPs. Much of his speech has focused on the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson.

Starmer also echoes the fear of many Labour lawmakers and some Conservatives – that a no-deal Brexit could happen at the end of the Brexit transition period in December 2020 if a free trade agreement is not concluded with the EU by then.

Johnson’s deal is a “trap door to no-deal,” Starmer said.

Walking Away

Amendments to get rid of the Trap Door failed. In fact, the WA was never approved. If Johnson's deal is approved, it will still contain the Trap Door.

Labour is not the only one worried about the Trap Door. Ken Clarke, an exiled Tory, also expressed concerns over the Trap Door.

Labour and Farage cannot both be right. Advantage goes to Labour.

The UK, can at the end of 2020 simply walk away with a WTO arrangement. Thus, Johnson is in control. He can always walk away if he believes the political declaration is binding.

The Trap Door is in fact what makes the EU likely to negotiate a reasonable deal.

Conclusion: At best, point 10 is a huge distortion of the truth, if not another outright lie.

Exit Settlement

The breakup fee was not in the Withdrawal Agreement by design as explained by the UK Parliament document Brexit: The Financial Settlement.

In the financial settlement (the settlement), the UK and EU have set out how they will settle their outstanding financial obligations to each other, which arise out of the UK’s participation in the EU budget and broader aspects of its EU membership. The media have labelled the issue the ‘exit bill’ or ‘divorce bill’, the EU see it as a matter of ‘settling the accounts’.

The settlement sets out the financial commitments that will be covered, the methodology for calculating the UK’s share and the payment schedule. It forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) negotiated between Theresa May’s government and the EU. No changes were made in the WA negotiated between Boris Johnson’s government and the EU. The WA will become legally binding only once approved by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament.

Definitive figures of the settlement can’t be calculated as it depends on future events, such as future exchange rates and actual EU budgets, but estimates have been produced. The latest estimate is that the settlement could cost the UK around £33 billion, based on an exit date of 31 October 2019. This is lower than the widely cited estimate of £39 billion, which was based on an exit date of 29 March 2019. Delaying Brexit means that the UK makes more payments to the EU as a Member State but fewer through the settlement. The net effect for UK payments to the EU is zero.

The official Brexit blog explains things this way: "The £39bn payment demanded is likely to be just the start, with billions more to follow."

However, Johnson did give a speech stating 65 billion. You can play the video at The Express.

That's a lie.


Nigel Farage says PM's Deal Would be a ‘Disaster’ for Scots.

The article did not say why.

I suggest Scotland would be no better off on a hard Brexit than under Johnson's deal.

In regards to SNP, Farage is right about this: “You cannot be independent if you’re governed from the European court of justice. You cannot be independent if you’re in the EU’s customs union and single market. You cannot be independent if you’re governed by Monsieur Barnier and Mr. Juncker.”


Image placeholder title

If you believe Johnson threw Ireland under the bus, you finally have a strong point.

DUP wanted a veto of the arrangement but the EU could not grant that because DUP in and of itself would effectively have a veto over some EU policies.

But even them Johnson negotiated an exit as explained by Bloomberg.

Unlike May’s deal, which could have left Northern Ireland in the EU customs union indefinitely, Johnson has negotiated an exit route: The Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to vote on whether to go on applying EU rules. But that can’t happen until four years after the transition period finishes — so the end of 2024 at the earliest.

Northern Ireland will be trapped for four years. It is difficult to say precisely what will happen.

Johnson's deal was a red line for DUP. It has 10 of the Northern Ireland seats in the UK parliament. 7 are held by Sinn Féin nationalists, and 1 is independent.

Theresa May got tangled up because she needed DUP votes to stay in power.

Question of Trust

If you believe Johnson will not negotiate sincerely or will cave in to EU demand, I am not going to change your mind.

However, Johnson negotiated the best deal possible with the EU once Theresa May gave away the farm.

At a minimum, Johnson negotiated a deal that has the option of walking away. The EU significantly changed the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration.

This is despite enormous pressure from Remainers and deal advocates.

Had Johnson pressed for No Deal, it is a political certainty that Remainers would have defeated the effort for something far worse than Johnson's deal.

Many Labour MPs regret not having passed some deal, even Theresa May's deal so they could campaign against it.

Instead we have elections Johnson is poised to win.

Pack of Lies

Regardless of what you think Johnson will do, Farage's 10 key points are a huge pack of lies and distortions.

Johnson Farage Alliance?

It is not at all clear that Johnson could unite with Farage to deliver a No Deal Brexit.

There has been so much fearmongering and there are so many Tories who wanted a deal to conclude for sure that a Johnson-Farage lighting rod alliance would carry the day.

The best move for Farage would be to declare victory for his 30-year effort and move on.

He could even ask for or insist on some items in the upcoming negotiations, say fishing rights.

Instead, I suspect the Brexit Party will win zero seats while Farage moans from the sidelines.

WTO Deal On the Table

The Guardian Live reports the prime minister abandoned his pledge to give MPs a vote on whether or not to extend the Brexit transition beyond January 31 , 2020.

"We aren’t extending the implementation period. There is no reason whatsoever why we will not secure a deal by that date. Both the UK and the EU are committed to reaching a trade agreement by that date and that is what we are going to do," said Johnson

The announcement led to claims Boris Johnson was planning to force through a no-deal Brexit.

Johnson committed to giving parliament a vote if they would pass his deal. They refused. That offer is no longer on the table.

Bluff? Who knows. But at a minimum it will give the EU something to think about including a preliminary agreement which the WTO allows.

Well Done!

Lies Aside

I decided to add this addendum.

Despite blatant lies the UK owes Farage a dose of thanks.

Tim Bowling's BrexitCentral article Nigel Farage has misjudged the mood of Brexiteers, which is why I’ve left the Brexit Party for the Tories explains.

Nigel Farage has always been a hero when it comes to Brexit. Unquestionably, the EU referendum would not have happened without him. He is a man of the people who galvanised two parties to electoral success and helped deliver a referendum result few felt possible even on polling day. But we are at a point now where the great hero of Brexit has become the man who might, as Jacob Rees-Mogg says, ‘snatch defeat from the jaws of victory’.

Nigel’s success in the European election thankfully ended the abysmal Theresa May premiership and ushered in the man who should have been elected Conservative leader three years ago – Boris Johnson. Fast forward nearly six months and the situation could not be more different. Conversely we now have a situation where the Brexit Party has ceased being the means of delivering Brexit and morphed into the party that could prevent it ever happening.

When dedicated Brexiteers from the European Research Group such as Mark Francois and Steve Baker (both ‘Spartans’ who consistently voted against the Theresa May Withdrawal Agreement) believe the Boris deal is Brexit, it seems ever more ludicrous that Nigel is continuing to preach about a perfect scenario. There is no such thing. It is high time he accepted this fact. Worse still, the behaviour of the Brexit Party leader is now coming across as petulant sour grapes. Unusually for Nigel, he appears to have totally misjudged the mood of Brexiteers. Most now acknowledge he should only be targeting between 20 and 50 Northern and Welsh Leave seats – and certainly not the full slate of candidates who are rostered to stand. Several of his own MEPs are in open revolt and even some of his general election candidates are standing down in protest. How ironic, then, if the man who championed the Brexit cause for three decades were to be the catalyst in overturning the largest democratic mandate this country has ever witnessed. I urge Nigel to put country before party, do the right thing and stand his troops down. If he does, history will respect him and he will always be our Brexit champion. If not, Brexit could be lost and he will be vilified by the very supporters who were once his political lifeblood.

This deal will deliver Brexit.

Moreover, Johnson could still opt for a WTO Brexit if the EU will not cooperate.

That's an amazing achievement.

Getting 80% of what you want and then pissing in the wind because you do not get the other 20% is not smart politics.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (73)
No. 1-35

" There is no free trade deal with the EU unless..." You omitted this sentence from the above item. This makes what Farage said absolutely true. All 10 points are accurate.



not accurate Bullshit speculation



Besides now conflating Brexit with a free trade agreement with the EU



Points NOT accurate negotiable in the next year - all bullshit



65 billion a made up lie



Johnson can walk away which presumably Farage wants. So what is he bitching about?


Mish, you reach the conclusion that "Point 8 is a blatant lie".

Point 8 says that "The UK is likely prohibited from negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world."

But besides Nigel Farage, it´s Donald Trump that says the same thing very emphatically. Are they BOTH wrong ? Just asking...


Nigel Farage and his Brexit Party votes will mean a yet again "hung Parliament" which will not allow for approval of Bojo´s New EU Treaty.

This means that we shall have NO-deal Brexit on December 31, 2019, as no further extension will be approved by the EU even if the UK asks for it.

Just ask Jean Claude Juncker


Some how, some way, this Brexit thing will be in relatively the same place next year November and probably every year thereafter.


Indeed avidremainer totally gets it. The UK is stuck with all 11 points I wrote, when the UK sits down to negotiate a free trade deal.

BJ's treaty is a version of Hotel EU (aka California).  The UK checked out, but it cannot leave the EU, if the UK tries to get a free trade deal or deal with other countries.


Great article Mish, appreciate your chasing down each of these arguments and going through them one at a time.


@Greggg, I would agree with you, I'll believe Brexit happens when I see it. Remember the Congressional Republicans and Democrats with the Sequester (if they couldn't get a balanced budget they were supposed to do cuts across the board) years ago. When the day came to do the Sequester, what happened. Congress PUNTED. The initial drop date for Brexit was March 29 this year, now we are in November.


Miles and miles and miles of red tape with the potential of WTO at the end; or bite the bullet and WTO now? This is all just typical of the EU bullshit designed to tie the UK in knots forever more that we voted to get away from.


People have become worn down by this and WANT to believe in the BoJo deal without looking too closely. I see this with people I talk with day to day. They can’t be bothered any longer - they just WANT it to be true. They are far more concerned to get on with their lives and run their businesses without having all this hanging over them like a sword of Damocles. I sense a lot of people in the UK are saying ‘If it says Brexit on the tin, that’s good enough for me’. So I think if there is any miscalculation on the part of Farage, its that Brexit just isn’t important enough in people’s lives any longer. That is why there aren’t millions (17.4) on the streets protesting in favour of the leave campaign.


Farage is the person who organised the Brexit and has been campaigning for a Brexit all his life, and now he suddenly "tells a huge pack of lies?"

It's CLEARLY BoJo who is the charlatan and the liar here. (just like Trump!)

Is "Mish Shedlock" just a pseudonym for the Tory Party these days? How much do they pay you to promote BoJo? Or do you get paid by the big US corporations who think they can make a killing on that lousy 'BRINO' deal that BoJo cooked up?


Blah blah blah blah. Book a conference room. Extend and pretend.


Misha, this is so absurdly partisan you are in danger of ruining what was a good blog. Yes, the UK will be able to strike trade deals, but 1. they only come into force once the transition period ends, and the agreement allows the EU to trap the UK into a never-ending transition unless we agree all their terms (it could walk away on the WTO, but won't), and 2. the ability to sign trade deals will be constrained by whatever regulatory alignment the UK agrees with the EU. For example, if regulations are agreed with the EU designed to "capture" the UK car market in perpetuity, the US can agree lower tariffs with the UK, but will have to abide by the regulations the EU imposes. So your point about ability to strike trade deals is not as good as you claim.

On the political declaration: no, this is not just a statement of intent. Because Article 184 of the actual withdrawal agreement requires, legally binds, the UK to negotiate to achieve the goals in the PD with its "best endeavours", and the arbiter of whether the UK is using its best endeavours is the ECJ. For example, the UK cannot simply decide not to hand fisheries over, as it has a legal commitment to use best endeavours to agree "non-discriminatory" access to its waters for EU fleets (the word 'non-discriminatory' is in the PD). The likelihood is that, short of leaving on the no deal in December 2020, Britain can only exit the transition period when it agrees to all of the EU's terms. So your point on the PD is entirely false.

On Northern Ireland: the frictionless nature of trade with GB is undermined by the need to fill in customs declarations (and by the unconstitutional stationing of southern Irish officials in Northern Irish ports with the power to override UK officials in every circumstance). Horror stories will abound about someone in Belfast buying 10 things online from Great Britain and being told the Southern Irish officials believe this could be for export to the RoI and so the EU customs tariff must be paid (with a very cumbersome process to reclaim it).

You say fishing and financial services are to be worked out later. But the whole point is that this is not the deal -- the whole deal emerges in 3 years' time or later -- and will only emerge at all if Britain agrees to all the EU's terms. If we don't use our best endeavours we are in a backstop-like permanent transition period.

We can walk away with no-deal in December 2020 - but will have signed up to pay £39bn we don't owe anyway. In any case, the Conservatives would never walk way with no deal. Have you seen the remainers on the Conservatives benches and how he's restored the whip to some of the Remainer rebels? If his idea of negotiation is to hand over Northern Ireland and £39bn for nothing, you can be sure he will never leave the transition on a no deal. You say the £39bn may be £33bn, but it could be £59bn if the transition period is extended -- or even more if the transition period never ends. You didn't even mention the fact the UK is liable for up to £40bn if the eurozone collapses under a guarantee to the European Central Bank.


That is a good roundup Mish. Mish has put himself out to present this to us, and he leaves room for it to be argued, so no need to accuse him of agenda.

Personally I see that there is room for the WA to be taken in either direction, and I am in no position to say in advance what tory intent is, obviously I am wary. At best a tory majority allows a decent set of agreements to be reached or no deal, at worst it just turns into another way to reach a May deal or similar.

As for Farage, well I haven't figured that out either yet.

So any view by necessity is somewhere speculative, has to be unless tories make a clear pledge on their direction, so making it half speculative. They probably won't, and half speculative is as good as speculative as far as certainty is concerned, but let the discussion continue, it is the only way to build a picture no matter which side of it anyone is....



"the whole deal emerges in 3 years' time or later -- and will only emerge at all if Britain agrees to all the EU's terms."

Just like the EU would NEVER change the WA? Just like the EU would NEVER change the political statement?

And what about the ability to walk away in one year if the EU won't. That results in the WTO arrangement which I assure you the EU does not want

So, it's not 3 years is it? It's 1. At the end of 1 year I expect the EU and UK to agree to a temp deal which the WTO allows - The ECJ will not come into play in a significant way or the UK walks

This negotiation stance is pretty easy for the UK. And I believe it will work.


QUESTION for everyone, specially Mish:

Just WHY do you think the EU Parliament members were oh so happy to joyfully high five with Bojo his own surrender New EU Treaty (not a "deal") ?

Michel Barnier sports the perfect "cat that just ate the canary" look no ?



Bagger is Correct:

Barnier's comments were yesterday (or earlier). Boris gave his response yesterday - "No extension beyond Dec 2020". Seems clear enough to me. Either Barnier gets a move on next year or we leave on WTO terms next December. As Mish describes in above article.

Barnier is playing some sort of game, perhaps hoping for a Labour win. Such talk is north worth discussing.

In the end, I fully expect a temp arrangement without ECJ garbage. The WTO allows favorable trade treatment while a deal is being worked out.

That is the logical conclusion. And BTW such an agreement would meet "best efforts" language.


Brexit is not as big a deal as its made out to be because Britain never joined the currency union. Also given how slow economic growth has been, it will have a negligible effect on the economies of EU and Britain. In fact creating new trade deals will create opportunities for companies in Britain and elsewhere.


You really don’t understand the politics in my opinion. You back-hand Farage as being a true hero for getting Brexit but not understanding how he will kill the whole idea. Sounds elitist to me. “You’re good but not our kind.” Here’s my take: DUP will not like the deal. There goes 10 votes from Johnson. The Libs will get all the remain votes that Labour doesn’t get. In order to have political persuasion, Farage must pick up enough Brexit votes to deny Bojo a majority without those votes. If Farage achieves that then the Brexit THAT HE HAS GIVEN MOST OF HIS ADULT LIFE TO WILL BE ACHIEVED. I encourage him to do this. It’s the only move he can make. And, FWIW, Bojo is a weakling and idiot. But he may get his Tory majority and ignore Farage. My guess is that Farage’s party will surge in the polls and Bojo will be forced to make concessions before the election.


So, after all is said and (not) done in three-years time, maybe Donald Trump will be the only one that was right when he suggested to Theresa May that the best way to approach Brexit was to sue the EU...


Nigel Farage is campaigning hard and thorough in no more and no less than Workington itself before anybody else including TORIES which have supposedly made the W-man their campaign leit motif.



Both articles correct. The first is simple facts of the matter about which there is no dispute. Second is an opinion I agree with. Thanks



" I don't understand how one minute Farage is god's gift to humanity and the next, according to Mish, he is the devil incarnate."

Hello AvidRemainer I never said Farage was god's gift to humanity. I did say he was good for the UK.

He made an excellent contribution to the Brexit campaign.I explained my reasons.

And I never called him the "devil incarnate."

You are making up a ridiculous straw man that has no footing.

There are numerous MPs and others who agree with what I said.

You don't see because you don't want to see. The facts remain.

1: Farage is a Brexit liar

2: Up to this point he was a hero who helped deliver the Referendum

Those points are not mutually exclusive now are they AvidRemianer?

All politicians are liars of course, but Farage is Blatant and detrimental to his own own cause.



BTW it would not surprise me one bit if this is just some posturing scheme and Farage backs down.

But meanwhile, lies are lies.



Oh dear, oh dear here we go again. Can some people not get it into their heads that there are two stages - exit (i.e. get it done) and trade deal (or no deal) to be negotiated? One is a treaty, the other is an aspiration.

Once we are out, assuming there is a good enough majority to drive it through house, all the UK has to do is adopt the negotiating position that May failed to even comprehend existed. We set the base as WTO, we prepare in earnest for it to be implemented it and we stick firmly to the mantra that we are willing to walk away if not satiated.

Cue massive wailing and wringing of hands by former remoaners but who cares? Anyone who's been watching Continental politics can see that Merkel will be toast before long, everything changes then anyway.


Global Economics