23rd September 2021
Once upon a time a Brummie solicitor and pundit averred that a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States was ‘in the bag’.
So that's trade deals with both the US & Oz in the bag. Remoaners must be hating this.
— Lord Digby Jones (@Digbylj) July 11, 2017
That Brummie solicitor and pundit was not me – though I did have fun with this boast in a Financial Times piece.
Jones was not the only figure to assume that a post-Brexit trade deal with the United States would be easy.
Almost all Brexiters who had an opinion on the matter assumed that such a trade deal would be a given.
And one such Brexiter was the now prime minister Boris Johnson.
But now he denies he ever said it.
Here, this short video should be watched in full.
‘I've always thought that a free trade deal with the U.S. would be difficult’ Boris Johnson pic.twitter.com/o7TvTvJv3f
— Phantom Power (@PhantomPower14) September 22, 2021
*
Shameless stuff.
Oceania has always been cautious about a trade deal with Eastasia https://t.co/c77GVzO9E9
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) September 22, 2021
*
There are at least two issues here.
The first was the readiness of Brexiters to assume international free trade deals were easy – that they would naturally follow from Brexit with the United Kingdom having a fully independent trade policy.
This sentiment may be derived from cod-historical notions about Victorian Britain – where it is imagined that the likes of Richard Cobden would pop across the channel to negotiate a free trade deal and still be home for tea.
In the mundane world of 2021 – as opposed to the giddy biscuit-tin world of nostalgic reenactments – new trade deals are rarely quick or easy, and often may not be worth having at all.
*
The second is that the prime minister knows he can say things that contradict what he said before and that few, if anyone, will care.
And this is despite the internet making it easier to expose such lies and other discrepancies.
In 2007 Al Gore predicted that the internet would make politics more honest. Untruths would be instantly exposed & voters would see the evidence for themselves
The fact-checking happened, but seems to impose no political cost. Understanding why is a major challenge for democracy https://t.co/HuM4BIvMiN
— Robert Saunders (@redhistorian) September 23, 2021
Other than for the sake of it as a public good, there is no real point in setting out the falsehoods.
This is one thing that George Orwell perhaps did not correctly anticipate in Nineteen Eighty-four – there would be no need to employ the likes of Winston Smith to go back and change the historical record, as it would make no difference as to whether people believed new false claims.
The future instead turned out to be President Trump and others waving away such inconvenient truths as ‘fake news’.
For as this blog has said many times: exposing lies is not enough when people do not mind the lies.
So we are now in a bubble of faux-historical sentimentality and hyper-partisanship, where the truth of the historical record makes no difference.
You may think the bubble cannot carry on, but yet it does.
It is the paradox of our age: it has never been easier to expose a falsehood, yet the falsehoods continue to have purchase.
And from this many of our current problems in law and policy follow.
**
Please do support this liberal constitutionalist blog about law and policy – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.
If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent commentary – both for you and others – you can support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
Each post takes time and opportunity cost.
***
You can opt for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
****
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.
As I understand it, Sir Digby Marritt Jones is not really one of us.
Baron Jones of Mergers and Acquisitions, sorry, of Birmingham, of Alvechurch and of Bromsgrove in the County of Worcestershire, may only lay claim to be a Brummie, because there was no room in a maternity hospital in Worcestershire when his mother was about to give birth.
As a Brummie, born and bred, who entered this world in a maternity home on Heathfield Road in Handsworth, courtesy of a Mom (and Dad) from Kingstanding, I feel disinclined to count him amongst our number.
And, any way, he now resides in Guernsey.
In March 2020, he moved there permanently and now serves as Chairman of the Guernsey Policy and Economics Group.
Shortly thereafter, on 31st August 2020, he retired from the House of Lords.
Jones has always seemed to me to be a small man. Although, admittedly, one very proficient in self promotion, who threw a large shadow on the backscene. A Norma Desmond in reverse, in fact.
The advent of the Internet has not seemingly made it harder for folk like Jones (or an IEA Herbert) from presenting themselves as having more substance than in reality they actually possess.
As Douglas Adams observed:
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
Yet still the Jones thrive in the era of the information superhighway.
Any road, the Baron hath now folded up his tent, silently stolen away from Paradise, never calling us Mom.
I hope the biscuit tin analogy is original because it’s glorious.
But (serious point) what’s interesting to me now is that pro/anti Brexit (whether or not it’s anti *this* Brexit or a Brexit in general) happens in 2 barely connected dimensions. Because Brexit was only ever a feeling. Just like the nostalgic biscuit tin lid.
That’s why they don’t care about the silly promises. Our ire over such things only validates their good feeling that Brexit is ‘delivered’.
Dear David,
Down here in Portugal we have a saying:
«Lies are short-legged, but they run like hell!»
Greetings & salutations,
Fernando
To be fair to Mr Johnson, in the clips played he doesn’t say a deal would be easy, merely that he has heard that we would be first in line.
He likely did say it elsewhere and certainly didn’t correct those that were saying it.
I don’t understand what you are saying, Mike.
The question that follows from this post is what can be done about what is going on. What about a billboard advertising campaign, a la Led by Donkeys, directly countering the lies and calling them out?
The clips used don’t support the assertion that Johnson said a trade deal would be easy. Johnson is a consummate liar, but it doesn’t help using clips that don’t substantiate the allegation. A campaign by Led by Donkeys would be great.
According tp Johnson, it was a different President who promised us a ‘great deal’ – Donald Trump, whose dedication to truth is legendary and who was certain to remain in office until a great deal was achieved.
The parody of rational argument is remarkable.
Fortunately, (on balance, I think) the leader of the opposition is rather good with evidence of falsehoods. I suspect Labour is holding fire on Brexit, partly since they think “their” people voted for it and don’t wish to antagonise them, and partly because it is not yet clear to all just what a cock-up Brexit is and how clueless Johnson and his merry band of Brexiteers were. When the time is right, Starmer will use the ammuniton (on hopes) he is ammassing and sink Johnson and his rotten cabal just prior to the election.
I’ve a suspicion that Starmer might be firing blanks else he wouldn’t have written a mighty 12,000 tome with not a policy in it.
Is this the successor to Michael Foot’s famous longest suicide note in history?
Dr Mike C: ”When the time is right, Starmer will use the ammuniton (on hopes) he is ammassing and sink Johnson and his rotten cabal just prior to the election”.
Don’t forget that Starmer was one of the many who lied that the 2016 Referendum was binding. That was despite the historical evidence that Parliament had legislated for an advisory Referendum. A consequence of that lie is that Theresa May was given the power to decide whether the UK should leave the EU. Her decision was based on the same lie.
It ought to be easy for schools to convey the immorality of deceiving an audience entitled to honesty. When I was at school, the job of teaching morality was given to those most noted for making stuff up (religionists). I understand that schools are still expected to facilitate collective worship. PM Johnson has promoted ‘faith’ in Brexit, and it does not seem to be something that will be easily shed just prior to an election.
He did not.
He said there was “a duty to respect it’s outcome”, which is very different:
https://labourlist.org/2017/02/keir-starmer-it-is-our-duty-to-respect-he-outcome-of-the-referendum-but-we-remain-a-european-country-with-shared-values/
He was actually explicit, in the same speech – if rather terse – about the result not being binding:
He goes on to contextualise this point by arguing that the result was nevertheless too significant to bypass, but he never “lied” about its legal status and authority.
From Keir Starmer’s speech in the House of Commons during the debate on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill:-
”We lost the referendum. Yes, the result was close. Yes, there were lies and half-truths—none worse than the false promise of an extra £350 million a week for the NHS. Yes, technically the referendum is not legally binding. But the result was not technical; it was deeply political, and politically the notion that the referendum was merely a consultation exercise to inform Parliament holds no water. When I was imploring people up and down the country to vote in the referendum and to vote to remain, I told them that their vote really mattered and that a decision was going to be made. I was not inviting them to express a view.”
So, political pressure overrides legislation?
Parliament legislated for an advisory Referendum. The Government put out an official pamphlet saying that it would be binding (“The Government will implement what you decide”.) That misrepresentation of the nature of the Referendum was strengthened by Starmer up and down the country and in Parliament.
To admit that the Referendum was not legally binding, but then to argue that the law is overridden by false claims that it was binding is, in my view, to lie.
The result of the actual Referendum should be respected, not of an imaginary one.
Labour’s people, as you describe them, did not vote for it.
It has been estimated that in no seat in 2016, did a majority of those who voted Labour at the 2015 General Election, vote Leave.
And the stout Yeomanry of the Home Counties are not known for voting Labour.
I was struck by “exposing lies is not enough when people do not mind the lies.”
We might think that the lies have been exposed, but my taxi driver today was totally unaware.
When I acquainted him with some facts around Johnson’s performance, his response was ‘wow!, I never knew that’. His source of news is fleeting and, I suspect, mostly the BBC.
It’s derelict of us to expose the lies once and step back, expecting the voters to appreciate their significance. We have to keep pushing. Constantly.
I’m undecided as to whether consider the man and his acolytes fools or rascals. But on second thought I think I’ll opt for fools; as rascals, if only for necessity, need to be intelligent, perhaps in their own way.
Had the Camerons, Mays, Bojos and their respective bunch been slightly reasoning people they’d have concocted something less stupid and behaved accordingly. Regrettably, the point is that one stupid is one stupid, two stupids are two stupids but three thousand stupids (as I suspect the last three governments sum up to) are a historical force. One that can lie so brazenly on the forthcoming fantastic free trade deal with the US and yet go unnoticed with the general public.
What is missing in this article is that it doesn’t consider the difference in the attitude to a UK FTA by the Trump and Biden administrations, which is obviously outside Johnson’s control. So an FTA would have been easy with an enthusiastic Trump administration, but there has since been a change in the administration and negotiations have come to a halt. We must also consider the pandemic too with countries now focused on economic recovery first before looking to sign up to new FTAs.
In reality support from Trump wouldn’t have made any difference to whether a trade deal would be forthcoming or not. US trade deals are in the purview of Congress. Nancy Pelosi made it clear then and now that if there was any indication of disruption to the GFA, Johnson & the UK could go whistle. Nothing has changed in that respect & given Frost’s ongoing war of attrition & self-harm with the EU, nothing will.
I feel that some of your posters are rather splitting hairs when they said that Johnson didn’t promise the trade deals would be easy. Johnson himself is being disingenuous. My own understanding of the UK being first in the queue would be that the will was there on both sides to do a deal. Such a deal is going to be easier than ones where the goodwill of one side is lukewarm. This is the situation now and hence Johnson is back pedalling.
Being inside the EU was being inside a comfortable protection racket. You paid your dues and you kept your shop windows intact. Exactly why Leave got such a hold is still a mystery, rather like a joke that went too far. Possibly to advantage some of the very rich among us, but largely it seems a damp squib.
I had at one time considered writing a book “How to tell Lies”. Not that hard to figure out the usual game plans but hard to illustrate with interesting examples and yet remain outside of prison or bankruptcy. What is clear is that lies are deeply embedded in our cultural, social, legal, spiritual, administrative and commercial lives. They are everywhere and we need some degree of lying in order to make systems work and life bearable. Truth is a horrible and awkward bedfellow only to be taken in small doses – quietly and in private.
So when a politician who is good at the game we all need comes along, why we all vote him/her. Such a politician supports and enhances the comfortable system that surrounds us all. But one player in this game cannot be fooled, Mother Nature, who seems to be giving us hints that our lying ways may have to change – just a little bit.