
Boris Johnson had a train-wreck session in front of the Treasury select
committee.
Whenever attempts were made to pin him down, he retreated into waffle
and bluster while pouring out a torrent of delusional aspirations with not the slightest attempt to offer any evidence. He even resorted to shouting down his questioners in a most extraordinary display of bullying.
Snippets are recorded on the Guardian website where we see the foolishness of his pronouncements exposed for all to
see. Central to his pitch was his claim that: "It would not be hard to do a free trade deal with the EU 'very rapidly
indeed'". There need not be any uncertainty, said Mr Johnson. Concern
over the problems of leaving was analogous to scaremongering over the Y2K bug.
The sheer negativity about trading deals, he claimed, is because we've
"become infantilised".
When asked whether he wants access to the Single Market, Mr Johnson stated that
the Single Market was a term that was widely misunderstood. We should "get
out from under that system" where all laws were justiciable by the ECJ. His
view was that we should have free trade with European partners based very
largely on existing arrangements. This was: "A free trade arrangement that
continued to give access to UK goods and services to the European
continent" – without, of course, freedom of movement.
This is the classic delusional stance embraced by Vote Leave, with Johnson suggesting that
"he would not want UK to remain as part of the EU single market"
while still expecting to have full access. As before, he denied that he wanted
a "Canadian deal" and said instead he wanted "a British
deal".
However, Johnson was forced to admit that there is no precedent for EU striking
a free trade deal in less than two years. Press on this, he was unable to name
any country that had struck a trade deal with the EU in less than two years.
Yet, according to Mr Johnson, this was "one of the defects of the
EU", then attacking MP Rachel Reeves for "absolute
scaremongering" and talking "total nonsense". This blustering was
his standard approach to anyone who challenged him.
The questioning hit at the two most pernicious myths perpetrated by the
"leaver" caucus, the first that we can agree a free trade deal within
the two years initially set by Article 50, the second that we can have free
trade access without also conceding free movement of persons.
Both those myths were endorsed by Johnson, and many of his supporters hold
similar views. But in The Times today, which was referred to in the Committee hearing, we saw Pierre
Pettigrew - former Canadian trade minister – state unequivocally that a
Canadian-style deal could not be achieved in that timescale. He was talking in
terms of a decade to settle our international trading arrangements.
What came over from the session, therefore, was that, unless the
"leave" campaign can get used to the idea that we will not be abler
to secure a straight free trade agreement within two years, and that no full
access will be conceded without free movement of persons, the campaign will not
progress.
We must resolve this. It is exactly
this kind of nonsense that will lose the referendum. It is harming our credibility
and making us a laughing stock. There is no time to waste on this.
This session showed that Johnson is not close to conceding a need to
compromise. He retains the delusional view that a deal can be secured in
"very short time", simply on the wholly unsubstantiated assumption
that the EU will do a deal because they need our trade. At one point, he even
quipped that he'd "demolished" all of the questions asked.
But every time he was seriously challenged, he failed to adequately respond.
For instance, earlier in the session. Mr Johnson attempted to defend his claims
about "ludicrous" EU laws, some made in his column of 22 February.
One of his more egregious claims was that that the EU prohibits children under
eight from inflating balloons. This is actually a serious subject, of international concern, but not for Mr Johnson.
He asserts that the EU has promulgated a law prohibiting children from blowing
up balloons.
In fact, EU requirements are restricted to requiring warning labels on packs of balloons, cautioning that
children under eight should be supervised. When Mr Johnson was shown to be
wrong, he attempted to bury the rebuttal in a torrent of sneering prose.
Johnson was also taken apart on his claim about recycling tea bags and also
about EU legislation setting out dimensions of what he called a "Euro
coffin". He was confronted with the charge that there was no EU
legislation on coffins, with controls in fact stemming from the International Convention on the Transport of Corpses.
Yet, when this was presented to him, Johnson simply denied he was wrong.
A great deal of time was spent on a discussion on the safe dimensions of truck
cabs, to reduce risks to cyclists. Johnson claimed that the provision for high
visibility cabs was "blocked by Brussels". Neither the Committee, nor
Mr Johnson, however, were able to overcome their innate ignorance – failing
completely to understand or recognise the role of UNECE.
Both Committee and Johnson also made a total hash of their discussions on the
amount of EU law affecting, not even beginning to get to grips with the subject.
Nevertheless, after more turgid blustering by Johnson, that had him show that
he was completely out of his depth on farming, the Guardian stated that had been "a dismal
morning for Johnson". Overall, it said, "he has not been an effective
witnesses and MPs from all parties have either shredded his claims, or ridiculed
what he has had to say". If Vote Leave are looking for a spokesman with
heavyweight intellectual credibility, it added, "Johnson has ruled himself
out as their candidate".
This is not a man who can credibly represent the "leave" campaign. He
actually represents everything to do with archaic, redundant and blinkered euroscepticism.
The kind of euroscepticism we repudiate and are trying to overcome so a new
movement can be born.