With a country divided, and political debate embittered, the Foreign Secretary thought he could bring about reconciliation with an unserious, platitudinous outlet of hot air. He thinks fleshing out what a “liberal Brexit” means is repeating tired and vague phrases like ‘outward looking liberal global future’. Where’s the beef? There is none, only bland, unsatisfying hors d’oeuvre.

Boris offered an olive branch to Remainers, but he’d eaten all the olives. How can a compromise be built by a man who thinks it “intolerable” to comply with EU standards (which must surely be taken as a swipe at the PM’s proposal for alignment in key sectors) but what has this inane buffoonery to offer on the benefits of divergence on food standards?

“And it can be good for carrots too, by the way […] we can take back control of our agricultural policies, and it may be that we can do wonderful things with, you know, our own regulations to, you know…. promote organic carrots”

Boris may well be right to touch on the potential benefits of following our own rules in the financial sector and the industries of tomorrow, but for now we need to stick to immediate concerns. We must, for example, consider the future of the automotive and aerospace industries, and how we conserve the crucial supply chain for food that keeps our supermarket shelves plentiful.

Reportedly, it is Boris who rejects the “middle way” of regulatory alignment on goods. He thinks it is as simple as British exporters meeting EU standards while the rest of the economy operates according to a different regulatory regime. It isn’t. Many UK companies that don’t sell directly into Europe sell to companies that do, therefore they must produce their products to the EU standard.

Crucially, individual exporters meeting the standard isn’t enough, they will still be subject to border checks. Compliance must be certified and demonstrated. This “frictionless” trade lark requires systems in place and joint institutions; this is how a “deep” and “special” partnership with the EU can be created.

For example, is Boris able to explain what “innovation” can be achieved by diverging from EU regulations in the automotive sector? Our car industry relies on a ‘Just In Time’ supply chain and this has to be conserved via convergence in regulation and customs systems, otherwise there will be no British car industry. There is no benefit to divergence here.

EU safety and environmental standards of the automotive industry derive from global standards (global standards Boris is so keen on) produced by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (EU influence is evident in this organisation too). These standards are referenced in the EU’s Free Trade Agreements (FTA), such as the potential agreement with Japan, because trade facilitation is achieved via compliance with these standards

He thought it was amusing to talk about carrots. Is he aware that current standards for fresh fruit and vegetables (the famous cucumber and banana rules) are also produced by UNECE? Or that many other food standards come from Codex Alimentarius Committee? Clearly not, so he shouldn’t pontificate so casually.

It’s not as simple as leaving the EU and being free to follow all our own rules for everything (British rules for British people!) and Boris utterly failed to grapple with the details or the complexities of Brexit, which is one of the reasons he has failed to advance the cause of reconciliation a single millimetre with his speech.

Having merely confounded his unpopularity with the remain side, Boris must wonder if his old powers have deserted him. His reputation seems irreparable and his dreams of leading his Party and country are fading.

Okay, clearly, I was never really expecting details from Boris. He’s a cheerleader and an articulate optimist, and these can be very good qualities. It’s one of the reasons that I (surprising myself) reflected in a recent article that the country might have been better off if Boris and Michael Gove had taken the leadership in 2016.

They would have had to take ownership of the process, face up to major realities and explain the inevitable concessions to their supporters. Boris would have almost certainly delegated the nitty gritty of the process while acting as a figurehead. Sadly, in the reality of 2018 his timing and his tone is off. This vapid speech hasn’t evolved one single step from the referendum stump speeches he made in 2016.

At this point, the details do matter. We are bogged down trying to scope out the future of the UK-EU trading relationship and uncertain people are awaiting clarity. What is really needed right now is reassurance for EU nationals, constructive ideas on the Irish border, a proposal for the future partnership with the EU and substantial ideas on what an open and ‘global’ Britain really means post-Brexit. This requires a level of thoughtfulness and consideration that seemed beyond the Foreign Secretary.

Boris failed to make the case for a liberal Brexit, or even to adequately explain what a liberal Brexit is, and in between shallow rhetoric on a serious subject he thought it appropriate to make a joke about dogging and sex tourism. It was a misstep and, far from rallying anyone new behind the cause, he was a dismal ambassador for Brexit. Now is not the time for superficiality.