Some thoughts on the State aid aspects of Johnson’s speech. gov.uk/government/spe…
First point: he is right that the UK gives less State aid than many EU countries per head: it could within the rules give much more. He is also right that the UK has an excellent record of compliance with the rules. 
This though is much less convincing. If the UK thought that unfairly subsidised Italian cars were entering the UK market, we would almost certainly impose protective tariffs, as we’d be entitled to under WTO rules.
(Our wine industry is probably too small for us to be fussed about subsidised German Gewürztraminer.)
But Johnson is right that in practice we wouldn’t be worried about subsidised Italian cars. But that’s because Italy remains bound by EU State aid rules, on which we could in effect free ride.
When you see that point from the perspective of any EU politician, you see the problem.
Three points on this. First, the position that we won’t free ride and subsidise in a way that harms our neighbours, but aren’t prepared to commit to that, is a hard sell: warm words but no binding commitment is the device of the shyster and the cad throughout the ages.
“Trust us because we are British” is not an easy sell outside this island (even - perhaps especially - on our next door island).
Second, the implicit line “well you can always raise tariffs on any exports that we subsidise” ignores the point that that is second-rate enforcement, compared to the State aid rules: slow and laborious.
Finally, Johnson’s claim that he can’t accept State aid commitments sits ill with the fact that, to a large extent *he has already done precisely that, and in spades*.
It is hard, to put it mildly, to maintain a stance that you can’t do X as a matter of principle when you have just done X: you are in the position of the supposedly convinced vegan who has just been caught tucking into a pork chop.
