The UK negotiating position and posture in the EU FTA actually makes perfect sense from the government's perspective.
But I'm still not sure it's the right one.
Postulate one:
The government actually believes its own version of the Withdrawal Agreement negotiation story.
May was never serious about No-Deal, but Johnson forced EU concessions because he'd do it.
Like any political force, the primary objective of the government is to retain their majority in Parliament and survive the next election.
That's not a criticism by the way. Having the world's most virtuous policies helps no one if you're stuck in opposition.
A) EU requests are unreasonable.
B) UK tried its best to be fair
C) No-Deal is fine.
D) Any hardship is patriotic suffering in the face of EU regulatory colonialism.
If they're right and the EU buckles, they get the FTA they want and return as heroes.
If they're wrong, the groundwork is in to politically rebrand failure as justified resistance to EU extortion.
The EU's negotiating mandate doesn't read like it was drafted by German automakers terrified of losing access to "Treasure Island".
To increase public support for walking away from the table, the government must constantly talk these down.
That could have consequences both practical and real.
The UK's posture may be building up its No-Deal resolve, but it is simultaneously undermining the trust the EU needs to feel comfortable backing off.
I am however skeptical of the former and concerned about the lives that may be ruined, even if that does not threaten the Tory majority.