The EU Is Putting Boris Johnson in a Dangerous Corner

Boris Johnson's Oct. 15 deadline for a corporate contract came and went, just when too many Brexit moments are telegraphed, which are definitive.

Both the two sides are both negotiating points about this negotiation 's central fact: finding consensus is in all their interests.

This does not mean that a trade arrangement is assured.

As with Theresa May 's deal with the UK.

The challenge to the European Union is that it is playing so good with its side, Prime Minister — which has created a retirement deal that British law-makers have considered so humiliating to swallow.

If Boris Johnson discovers that the political cost of embracing the conditions of Europe is higher than the economic cost of denial, he is left without options.

It is not complicated to offer in England to remove the plug on the talks and acknowledge "no contract."

The legislative backbones of Johnson are purposely packed with dedicated Brexiters, all of whom have supported this choice precisely.

In Northern England, a Brexit stronghold that voted him in December then generated locking problems with his government might also use Johnson's constructive distraction.

He can enjoy recalling the good ancient times.

Far from it, Johnson will also accuse the strong economic price of Brexit for the EU.

Even with a business contract, disruptions would result and additional expenses would not be accounted for by many Britons.

Johnson would therefore cover these risks after entering an arrangement.

And yet the irreversible harm that no agreement will cause upon the UK is acknowledged to Downing Lane.

Any brief nationalistic turmoil.

It was time for Johnson to plan for the trip on Friday, which might sound like, "We're out." But the door stays accessible.

Next week, with the next EU date at the end of October, talks are scheduled to begin.

The classicist Johnson may be prone toward the "doubtful and deliberate" at Pericles; Johnson the biographer in Churchill fully knows that "speak, speak" holds choices.

Since the scale of the agreement that is now achieved is narrow relative with what was previously expected, it is like the gap between zero to one between no contract and one agreement.

Third, the economic losses are greater than the expense of Covid 's management.

Bloomberg Economics's Dan Hanson predicts the shock in the short term to be about 1.5 percent of the annual GDP.

Worse, it would be paid by other expenses.

For eg, not getting a trade arrangement in the Midlands will imply severe tariffs for car-making.

The pandemic and the stricter lockout controls of Johnson have struck this region harder.

It would not be a great opportunity to warn people that they will risk their employment and pay extra for the food and commodities they import.

Johnson might argue that he stood up for Britain's tiny (0.12% economic) and symbolic fishing industries by pulling the plug.

But 80% of the fishing catch in the country is shipped to the EU for the most part.

Fishermen also face costly post-Brexit friction in the form of numerous health and origin certificates in coastal areas.

There are other places to go without a contract.

This shock would cause serious confusion for firms and the confidence of dentists if a tight trade relationship of nearly 50 years were to stop.

At least a stupid business agreement offers a platform for more negotiations and establishes a precedent for compromise rather than acrimony.

As odious as the EU can be, it will be much easier for Johnson to tell 'yes,' not to sell out or embrace the UK as French fishermen.

There will be no Federal subsidy limits.

Both fields of conflict have space for maneuver, and therefore, state assistance appears to be closest to negotiators.

But consensus is the main term.

Most cards are required in the EU; U.K.

A significant exception is the oceans.

But "no contract," even though unequally, will cause harm to either side.

If that is the case, the two parties must continue at any stage in future and the EU must take its share of the responsibility.

The view of the publishing board or Bloomberg LP and its owners is not generally expressed in this column.

The columnist of Bloomberg Opinion is Thérese Raphael.

She was the Wall Street Journal Europe publishing house publisher.

Please visit bloomberg.com for more posts such as this

Subscribe now to the most reliable news channel for companies.

Bloomberg L.P. © 2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Advertisement