Landmines in the exit agreement

The Brexit cheerleaders tell us that we will be better off without any sort of deal with the EU. A deal with the EU will certainly mean restrictions on other possible trade deals, so they claim no deal is in fact "better" than a deal. Ignoring the fact that we will need to have an agreement with the EU if our airlines want to land there (this is technically referred to as a 'deal'), they are still glossing over some very serious gotchas.

One of them is the US. This was promised as one of the first deals we would do post-Brexit. Sadly for the no-dealers there are conditions. The US commerce secretary, Mr Ross, wants us to lower car import duties, chuck our food safety laws out (to allow chlorinate chicken and genetically modified food in), and keep our passporting rights for financial services. Clearly the first two will be simple to achieve in the low regulation capitalist paradise of post-Brexit Britain, but the last will require... a trade deal with the EU!

Mr Ross said, "Assuming the scoping exercise turns out to be fruitful, and further assuming that there are no big landmines in the exit agreement... then it shouldn't take terribly long."

That is a lot of assumptions, especially when he clarified 'landmines': "To the degree that it turns out that there is a change [to passporting rights] that could become a real barrier in services."

How long would an trade agreement with the US take? Well, if we keep passporting rights then US banks based here would put great pressure onto the US negotiators, but if we don't then we will just be another small market for cars and food. And please don't say 'special relationship' - Mr Trump has been very clear about ensuring deals favour the US. The US will be very happy to wait for us to become desperate for a deal - any deal.

Still, given that a 'no deal' Brexit means losing our main export market then, as Mr Ross said, they won''t have to wait terribly long.