Leaders slugged it out in the first debate

This cannot have been for the political content, but for the spectacle of two fighters, who clearly loathe each other, slugging it out in
public.

The name of the game for both was to score points, but at the end it was deemed a no score draw.

The debate laid bare some key realities.

These included the financial fairy-land Corbyn wants and his inability – as has been the case through his political career – to say whether or not he believes in membership of the EU.

Johnson suffered his normal problem of being deemed untrustworthy. He also continued to set unrealistic deadlines for progress on Brexit and a trade deal.

The debate had no winner and in
snap polls most people said they were not thrilled at the prospect of either Corbyn or Johnson as prime minister. Like most elections this is
likely to be more about who loses rather than who wins.

Johnson has certainly not learned the lesson that setting dates is risky.

He failed to deliver on his October 31 Brexit and did not, as promised, die in a ditch for his failure. Instead of macho posturing over deadlines he would earn more respect by saying he will take as long as necessary to get Brexit right.

This is a once in a generation decision and accuracy is more important than speed and political posturing.

If he gave such a commitment it might just help get the ‘not trusted’ burden off his back – although his track record in journalism, politics and with wives and mistresses leaves him with a mountain to climb to earn trust.

Forget the politics and the rhetoric and a good Brexit deal will be based around a good trade deal with the EU-27. That is more important
than any other trade deal the government talks about, including one with the United States. Ironically this is about securing what we already have as an EU member, in the shape of access to the single market without tariffs or onerous bureaucracy. Getting there sounds a simple challenge and again key players in the government are peddling the myth than the EU will do a deal at any price.

It will not, and the evidence is weak for the claim that the EU needs us more than we need them. The reality is that we need each other for trade, and for the UK that is more important than pipe dream global trade deals that may or may not happen. Until the election is over we will not know who the UK players will be in the negotiation. However we know who will be on the EU side of the fence and they represent formidable adversaries.

As such they are already playing what might be described as a good cop/bad cop act. The EU players are the soon to be trade commissioner, Phil Hogan, and the new head of trade in Brussels, Sabine Weyand. Neither will be a push over, and neither will be bluffed by threats of a no trade deal outcome into giving in too early or too easily. Hogan recently suggested it should be possible to get negotiations moving by March, with a deal by the end of 2020. That was the good cop act, but that outcome was based on the UK effectively accepting all that the EU wants.

That would be full compliance with EU rules and tight restrictions on third country trade deals that might allow products into the EU without full compliance. Interestingly Hogan said that he believed UK consumers would expect the government to comply with EU rules on food standards and the environment, on the basis that no-one would want to see standards lowered. Weyand was very much the bad cop when she spoke at a meeting of business leaders in Brussels.

She, like Hogan, believes Brexit is a mistake but is adamant that a trade deal by the end of 2020 is not achievable. 

She said she thought what would be on offer by then would be a bare-bones deal to keep things ticking over while negotiations continue, or no trade deal. This contradicts Johnson claims that a deal in eleven months will be easy. Even the ever bullish Johnson has to know, having lived and worked in Brussels, that trade deals years not months.