Let's say that the Brexiters have their wildest dreams fulfilled, and the UK gets trade deals with Japan, the US, Australia and New Zealand.
What does that actually *mean*?
Well, we can turn to the UK Government's own estimates...
Remember, these come from the UK Government's negotiating strategy documents. In other words, they're dolled up to present a possible deal in the best light, like an estate agent puffing up a property's prospects.
And yet, combined, all 4 trade deals add up to almost nothing!
Why?
Because trade deals aren't the biggest impediment when we're talking about trade with FAR AWAY places. They're useful to have, but the main issue doesn't change.
You have to have stuff worth sticking on a ship for 4-6 weeks. We don't make that sort of thing that much.
Inland border checks are going to be off the scale bonkers. A failure of implementation only a Tory government could dream up.
1) Enter the UK. 2) Drive 22 miles to get checked. 3) If found dodgy, drive 22 miles back and meekly leave the UK.
Gaping holes ripe for exploitation.
Why does it matter? The article helpfully explains:
"The EU carries out strict controls on all goods coming into the bloc, but exerts a lower degree of control on goods transiting, for example from outside the EU to the UK." archive.ph/2024.04.27-071…
And what happens when the checks at the inland border take several hours and the drivers run out of legal driving time that day? Are there huge lorry parks in the area where they can stop and rest for the legally required amount of time, while their loads wilt or rot in the back?
The Tories have published their new definition of extremism. It includes 3 components.
It is well worth reading the full definition of each of the components (reproduced later in this thread) because they're extremely sweeping. gov.uk/government/pub…
Wonder how advocating to leave the ECHR (and indeed agitating to hold a referendum on doing so) squares with this?
After all, doing so would unquestionably strip us of numerous legal protections.
"And we have secured the most comprehensive deal that the EU has ever agreed to in its history."
Er, no. That would be their EU membership offering.
Our own trade deal with them is a mouse fart in a hurricane by comparison.
Let's take a random lie as an example: "Within the EU, the UK would not have been able to cut VAT on the installations of solar panels, heat pumps and insulation to zero"
In case you missed it, today we've had the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Express all soiling themselves with glee at a report showing that trade since Brexit has been going well.
Only snag is, the report (by murky Tufton Street outfit the IEA) was quite literally a pack of lies...
How did they pull their stupid stunt off? Quite simply.
1) They compared two different types of data (inflation-adjusted for the pre-Brexit period, unadjusted for the post-Brexit period) to draw false conclusions.
2) They got Kemi Badenoch to swallow the lot and talk about it.
Here's more info about the holes in the original IEA report the size of the Grand Canyon...