Regarding timing, I'm thinking 2022 or afterwards for the panic deal with the US.
As you point out, 2019 is pretty much used up.
IMO 2020 will be spent putting out major economic fires, there'll be no capacity for trade negotiations.
True, but it's not just UK, it's USA too. The year 2020 will be hot, there will be Democrat primaries and time and energy of the administration and other high-ranking officials will be consumed to attacking candidates they percieve as a threat. There may well be a contested Republican primary, using up more time and energy attacking that. There will be an election in November, much is riding on that - probably no less than freedom of POTUS, perhaps even the country. House of Representatives will be in no mood to support the president in his endavours either.
Striking a major trade deal in record time under those circumstances would require quantum tunneling.
2021/2022 will be spent trying to strike some kind of deal with the EU - the biggest problem being that the UK doesn't know what it wants but then again it lacks the skilled negotiators to go about getting it. There may be talks in parallel with the US but the firesale won't come about until it becomes clear that the EU are not going to roll over.
There are new elections to be held in UK no later than May of 2022. If Tories manage to get their government through this year, quit the EU without a deal in October and spend most of 2020 putting out fires, they only have about a year to get a deal through. The said deal is a prerequesite for any form of major trade deals around the world, short of unequal treaties with countries liek China. No other country will want to make a trade deal with UK if it risks the ire of the EU, because UK just ripped apart a peace treaty with a EU member state. All of this means there isn't time in "2021/22" to make some kind of a deal with the EU, the said deal must be agreed upon by the end of 2021 and ratified by March 2022 at latest.
If not the Tories risk that greatest of all evils: a Labour government.
If a no deal Brexit crisis occurs, UK has to deal with EU first, while in a crisis and has
no cards left to play.
You're right that a deal with the US will do little or nothing to improve the UK's position. The EU will continue to be the UK's largest trading partner, regardless of the terms, just because of physical proximity. Of course the Breixiteers don't care about any of this because the post-Brexit economic crisis will be a feature, not a bug and/or they really are deluded enough to think that the UK will not only emerge unscathed from a no-deal Brexit, it will actually be in better economic shape.
I'm starting to think Brexiteers view no deal Brexit crisis as a feature, not a bug of Brexit. You see, the main problem will be British imports, because UK is woefully unprepared and will go from next to no checks to major checks. This will stifle imports, but EU is better prepared and will be able to facilitate imports from Britain better.
What you get is stifled consumption in UK, an increase of spending on British products (because others aren't as readily available), while your exports don't suffer nearly as much. It's still dumb to think this would last more than a few weeks, EU has all sorts of tools to remedy the situation. But Brexiteers have been assuming EU will do what they wish it did this entire time, it's not a stretch to think their opinion is unchanged and simply went from "they'll beg us for a deal" to "they'll be like a deer in the headlights". There is logic behind the reasoning, if the premise of ineffective EU was correct there would be grounds to believe that could be true to a sufficient extent to make no deal Brexit an interesting exercise in mercantilism.
The only premise I make is that Brexiteers still believe their own anti-EU propaganda. That's hardly a stretch. Thoughts?
McHrozni
). Trade deals in the USA have a political visibility they've never enjoyed before due to Dump's ineptitude on trade deals around the world. Even if he is no longer president, such deals will take a couple of years. As an example, the "new" NAFTA, which is just a minor tweak to the existing Agreement, has stalled in its movement to passage and it was proposed a year ago. A whole new agreement with the UK is no small kettle of fish any more.
