Time to dig a little under the hood of the EU negotiating mandate for the future UK partnership agreement. Dull summary - this is the document you'd expect the EU to produce. It tells us of their priorities, and should not be confused with the final deal... 1/ 
First, consider the EU process. The Commission runs the negotiating process. Member States have their most significant input in setting the mandate. Their best chance of getting what they want is to include it in this document. Hence it will be ambitious. 2/
The mandate in particular isn't some kind of punishment for the UK as some suggest. This is the way the EU negotiates with all third countries and particularly neighbours. If another country wants preferential access to the market, here's the structure 3/
The starting point is the Political Declaration, and again that shouldn't be a surprise. Trade deals are frequently prefaced by a joint scoping document, and the PD is the nearest we have to that. 4/
On the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol this is actually a fairly bland statement on implementation. More interesting to me is the last sentence - the all-Ireland services market has shaky legal foundations with the UK outside the EU, and this needs tackling. 5/
Para 10 gives us the overview of EU concerns - trade rules yes, but also level playing field, non-discrimination between EU countries, protection of the single market, and UK now has different status. All well previewed. 6/
Picking up some of the more interesting paragraphs, data adequacy as a precondition for law enforcement and judicial cooperation stood out. Data as much as fish seems likely to be a major problem area. 7/
The goods section is more or less as expected, tariff free, the usual disciplines on non-tariff barriers (SPS and TBT) but it should be noted that para 29 sees the first of three well known EU v US clashes (standards, geographical indications, SPS). 8/
Services also appears mostly in line with usual provisions, but the financial services section could be more interesting as the EU would like voluntary regulatory cooperation but unilateral decisions, which seems nicely skewed in their interest. 9/
Confirmation in para 51 that the EU believes they have already achieved their number one trade agreement target, protection of geographical indications, in the Withdrawal Agreement. They'd like to extend it, but this is low key compared to usual. 10/
One out of sequence, apologies, para 33, the "Elgin Marbles" clause. As weak as you'll find any language in this document. Does not suggest to me this is likely to be a big deal. 11/
Moving on to transport, a para I assume hits UK hauliers very hard if agreed, not allowed to carry loads between member states. EU hauliers should therefore be able to provide UK-EU services more cheaply. Good for Irish hauliers I'd guess. 12/
The by-now well known ask for continued access on the same basis to UK waters. What happens if the UK refuses? Is that the end of negotiations? Big questions here. 13/
On to the famous level playing field provisions. Starting with the UK being asked to maintain EU state aid law. Note though not under ECJ jurisdiction as per the Northern Ireland protocol. I'd guess equivalence might end up being acceptable. 14/
On environment and labour we get non-regression as the key principle, and throw in as much as possible as the detail. Not altogether sure how this gets enforced, but highlighting here that this has extended to food product standards. 15/
Why non regression of food standards? Essentially EU producers are worried that if the UK reduces these they can't compete even at zero tariffs. UK farmers are already complaining about food imported subject to fewer rules in production. It is a big issue... 16/
And as per Peter Foster question this is a problem for a UK-US trade deal. As the EU is well aware. US want changes to UK food laws to allow their produce to be imported. But note this would lead to dispute settlement so UK could still choose US deal 17/
In fact if the US believed in negotiating rather than imposing trade deals this clause I would argue could strengthen the UK's hand. The EU will punish us for a deal with you, so you better make it worth our while. That unfortunately is unlikely... 18/
There's also a 'ratchet' clause on level playing field conditions - once increased they can't be reduced subsequently. Part of me thinks the UK should accept and then constantly raise disputes, a larger part thinks this is not a sensible concept in a trade deal 19/
Final bits now, legal and judicial cooperation not really my area, but found this sentence interesting - withdrawal of cooperation if UK denounces ECHR. 20/
And dispute settlement. Not ECJ as some have alleged (they only give a ruling on EU law as it applies if required) and will probably continue to allege. Financial penalties and possible suspension. This could get messy... 21/
Overall conclusion - with compromises there could be a deal here, if both sides actually want that deal enough. It wouldn't a very good deal without so much on the regulatory side. But mostly, this is just a negotiating position. Tomorrow we get the UK one... 22/
