Problem with this idea that somehow EU hasn't been "strategic". They were (A50 sequencing probs best example of it) & clearly see what's in *their own* interests eg that trade among 27 far greater than bilateral trade with UK. So why would EU protect latter over integrity of SM?
Lots of bemoaning in UK about how EU's approach was flawed. But perhaps UK isn't as important to core EU interests as we'd like to think? Does EU's approach then make more sense? EU wanted to: 1) Protect SM; 2) Protect EU citizens in UK; 3) Protect Irish border; 4) Set example &
reduce risk of precedent. All achieved. Of course UK exit wasn't EU's preferred outcome; but in late 2016/early 2017, when it became clear UK was actually going to leave, EU was very far sighted about defining its own interests & putting in place a process to achieve them ENDS
