Let me help @toadmeister understand why that’s a hopeless answer.
What the U.K. Government wants is set out in the Chequers White Paper. 
That is a long list of “wants”, many of them highly complex and requiring clarification.
What, for example, is meant by “new economic and regulatory arrangements” for financial services to preserve the benefits of integrated market?
What is meant by a new framework for mobility? Do we want arrangements eg to allow U.K. musicians to play gigs in Berlin without paperwork (not available to Canadians)? How is that to work?
Take this about VAT. What is meant by common VAT processes? What parts of EU VAT rules are we wanting to stay in? (All or almost all, if we really want to avoid border formalities - but is the Govt up for that?)
I could go on for a long time. But the basic points are (1) that the Govt wants something well beyond a FTA: so @toadmeister is just wrong to characterise the U.K. position in that way.
And, (2) quite how far it wants to go and what commitments it’s prepared to accept (eg on accepting ECJ rulings on eg VAT issues) are very unclear.
And all that assumes that the Chequers paper is U.K. Govt policy: it is now, but @toadmeister and other Tories want to change it. That necessarily means uncertainty and lack of clarity.
And though the anti-Chequers Tories reject a lot of Chequers, they still want all sorts of “+++”s to a Canada deal. Mutual recognition of standards. Maintenance of health care arrangements for Brits retiring to Spain. Staying in the EU aviation regime. Frictionless trade. Etc.
In fact, much of the wish list in the Chequers White Paper. None of these are in existing FTAs.
And a lot of these objectives are in tension with the expressed wish to diverge to eg US standards or deregulate, and in tension with objections to remaining within the jurisdiction of the ECJ as the ultimate court deciding what the rules mean.
All those unresolved issues and questions amply justify puzzlement about what the U.K. actually wants.
And that puzzlement will remain until the U.K. has an honest debate with itself about trade offs: which can’t be had while so many politicians & commentators still deny the existence of trade-offs and still peddle the line that these issues can be sorted out with a few slogans.
And that’s before I get to the Irish border. Where we say we want (a) to leave the CU and SM (b) to take NI out with GB and (c) to honour our commitments to avoid infrastructure or checks at the NI/Ireland border.
Since you can’t have all three, puzzlement about what we really want is justified. (And if we can have all three, as many ERG-ers say they believe, what’s the problem with agreeing a backstop, compromising on (b), in case they are wrong?) /ends
