So the Government has modelled an imaginary scenario based on the Chequers proposals that the EU has rejected. The figures, which then show it isn't that different to remain, are therefore of little use... assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… 
I'll look at this in more detail later, but the results seem to be in line with the usual assumptions, that more barriers = less trade and a GDP hit. No great surprises there
On services, I'm sure there is a good explanation for why the Chequers proposals have less barriers than EEA, and are markedly different from an FTA, as we were supposed to have regulatory independence. This must be questionable
There are other documents out today. This is from what looks like a glossy brochure for the deal. There is a reason no other country has this deal - it isn't deliverable - basically it is the benefits of a Customs Union and an independent trade policy assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
This would be closer to being accurate if it substituted the word 'may' for the word 'will'
At first sight the security partnership document looks more accurate assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Finally for serious geeks (@Annaisaac @ChrisGiles_ ) the underlying economic analysis. Interesting point here, the Chequers modelling includes new FTAs as well as a virtual Customs Union with the EU assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
I'm sorry to use this word, but the Government's approach in the bulk of these documents is fraudulent. They have taken a preferred but unrealistic scenario and said that *will* be or *is* the deal. This should not be acceptable in any way /end for now
I missed this earlier. Frankly this just sums up that the analysis as a whole is scandalous.
And yet all those new trade agreements deliver just 0.2% GDP uplift, which is frankly rather odd-sounding, trade deals don't always deliver huge amounts, but has to be more than this if you did all these countries
