Have been turning this over all day. It makes sense, but only if you neglect where it leaves you.
1/
1/
This has two parts: internal and external
2/
2/
Internally, you might well be able to lay blame at EU's feet, but it doesn't change that you're still in a rubbish situation, and one that you claim not to have wanted.
3/
3/
Therefore you now have to still get on with building a situation that you do want, which will almost certainly involve an agreement of some kind
And there's no good reason to think EU would have softened its stance
4/
And there's no good reason to think EU would have softened its stance
4/
Either you managed to drop them in it (so they'll be even more cautious), or (much more likely) they'll argue you've been a shit (and they'll still be more cautious)
In both cases, you're stuck
5/
In both cases, you're stuck
5/
Externally (to UK-EU), collapse of this process does not help UK getting new deals with third countries, esp. those that haven't bought your line (ie, all of them)
6/
6/
This point was well made on current episode of @tconnellyRTE Brexit Republic podcast: it's not at all a good look to be failing to follow through on your international commitments, esp. if you want to take on more of those commitments with others
7/
podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6…
7/
podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6…
So yes, HMG might well see scope to set this up for a crash, but that's at best a passing 'win', which doesn't even lock in the outcome
8/
8/
As an aside, I'd also note the absence of planning for either no-deal or even the limited FTA which makes it even harder to defend the sincerity of your actions
9/
9/
All of which takes me to a more parsimonious explanation: No.10 is making this up as they go along
#CockUpNotConspiracy
/end
#CockUpNotConspiracy
/end
