The Number 10 brief is no alignment, no concessions, no ECJ, and we want exactly the same deal as the EU gave to Canada. Also that the EU offered this then took it away. On this basis no deal (and also probably no deal with the US) and serious economic damage. Let's unpack... 1/
The fair challenge to the EU is that they suggested the exact Canada agreement could be on offer. But as I wrote 8 months ago, it was only ever going to be available accompanied by rigid level playing field rules. The UK chose to ignore this 2/ ecipe.org/blog/isolation…
The EU could retort that Canada / CETA took years to negotiate and does not remove all tariffs. It includes some alignment. There are level playing field clauses. The UK government have set a timescale that doesn't work for this. ec.europa.eu/commission/pre… 3/ 
No concessions we can deal with easily. No concessions = no trade deals. With anyone. In this context note the UK continues to rule out accepting US food, in which case no full US trade deal. Remember than manifesto commitment on FTAs covering 80% of UK trade by 2022? 4/
Similarly we can deal with "Australian style" trade relationship. Not a term anyone in the EU would recognise. It seems like a repackaging of the already discredited "managed no-deal". 5/
Back to Canada, and even a deal to remove all tariffs and quotas will mean border checks for goods traded from Great Britain to the EU and Northern Ireland. Then we have to agree the crucial rules of origin to be eligible for those tariffs. Just take the EU ones? 6/
The Canada deal also includes some measures of regulatory alignment. No alignment is unrealistic as I've noted before. Here's some equivalence on food safety (SPS). 7/
The brief from Number 10 is that the tough talk is aimed at telling the EU that this time we are serious. It tells them no such thing. They see unrealistic generalisations aimed at a domestic audience and expect the PM to fold, otherwise no-deal. 8/
But we're also talking too much about the trade deal and tariffs (border checks are a certainty, as is much reduced access on services). It is likely to be the no ECJ principle that will actually be most damaging to UK-EU trade, ruling out most European programmes 9/
Take Euratom. No ECJ means no participation. What we lose potentially is access to nuclear isotopes for hospitals and access to cutting edge nuclear research. 10/ instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eur…
Then there's the European Medicines Agency and Clinical Trials Directive. No ECJ means far more limited collaboration with other countries in clinical trials and access to medicine. 11/ cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/…
Then there's the Unified Patent Court (if ever implemented), European Chemicals Agency, Aviation Safety, Erasmus, research programmes - the UK will find it difficult to have any meaningful cooperation with any on the basis of Johnson's speech 12/
Back to trade and the pre speech brief talks Japan, Australia, New Zealand rather than the US or EU. For Australia or New Zealand locking in agricultural access is crucial (hello UK lamb farmers). But for Japan? Could tariff free car access be a factor? Hello Sunderland... 13/
The government's cheerleaders tell us that the EU's approach to trade agreements is outdated, and free ports will help for some reason. In reality the EU has more agreements than anyone, and regulatory alignment is crucial in modern trade 14/
We also hear of the possibility of new pro-Brexit think tanks, which makes one wonder, where precisely are those pushing for sensible EU ties? We have the world's largest and most developed single market on our doorstep, the country can't be moved to the Pacific... 15/
Maybe Johnson won't actually say no alignment, no ECJ, no concessions. Most likely these are just words to which he's giving flexible meaning to talk tough to England, though heaven know why bother now. For sure UK diplomats will know the EU will just shrug and roll eyes 16/
Meanwhile tomorrow the EU will publish their negotiating mandate, in which we don't expect too many surprises. Talks will start with the UK in which Johnson's speech will be probed to see exactly what it means. Don't expect too much progress for a few months 17/
In the business community meanwhile expect no-deal plans to intensify, and investment to continue to struggle. Why invest in a country whose government talks in wholly unrealistic ways about the economy and trade? 18/
No alignment, no ECJ, no concessions isn't typical tough talk at the start of negotiations. It is a government unable to break out of four years of unrealistic discussion about what we could achieve outside the EU. It seems another chance is about to be missed. 19/ end
