Thread by @Usherwood

The full text of the UK's position: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Some quick thoughts:

1/

This is a more obviously political document than the EU's mandate: there's a lot of posture in here

(NB there's plenty of politics in the EU doc, just dressed up much drier language)

2/

At the same time, whoever did the drafting left plenty of big spaces for wiggle-room, e.g. on LPF and even on the role of the CJEU

3/

UK doc feels very much driven by EU agenda: the structure is a reflection of the EU position, rather than a radical counter-position.

Yes, UK wants multiple agreements, but language doesn't preclude a single approach

4/

There's enough here to be getting on with, but still v.unclear whether HMG is serious about plug-pulling in June: it's a vague test, plus they still want an orderly exit, so hardly slamming the door

5/

June check also works against the hitherto-used model of back-loading progress: might mean some concessions coming early on, which in turn might make a 2020 agreement more likely

But that's a punt at this stage

6/

Final thought: if this might be going belly-up in June, you might expect the ramping-up of contingency work now (esp for infrastructure needs at borders). Failure to do that will speak to either a lack of planning or someone playing chicken a bit too literally

7/

tl;dr this allows negotiations to start, and maybe even to end, but it's going to come with a lot of blather

/end

Actually, one more thing: it's an 'approach' not a 'mandate', so that gives HMG much more scope to move away from it than the EU has (or wants)