Thread by @BrigidLaffan

Thread on EU too defensive claim from @anandMenon1 & @jillongovt in #Brexit negs. EU27 had something to defend & continues to have. What. 1. The share polity, Union. 2. Collective achievements-SM & shared policies. 3. Quality of membership. @BrigidLaffan

2. U.K. a was champion of outouts/opt ins. Had bespoke membership but that was not enough to keep UK in. Post ref-U.K. never set out a clear landing zone for post membership relationship that had worked through the trade-offs. @BrigidLaffan

3. U.K. set down redlines on SM, CU & Court that narrowed the possible deal that EU could agree without undermining its core principles & balance of rights & obligations which is critical to future of EU. @BrigidLaffan

4. When looking at U.K. asks-#Chequers -not reasonable or doable. Frosts asks for ‘practical arrangements’. Rules of origin-non U.K. content even if under 50% should be treated as U.K. is that reasonable? No. @BrigidLaffan

5. Cabotage-special treatment while outside EU rules driving on European roads-not reasonable. I could go on. U.K. failure to be honest about ask-Canada whereas this was just framing not accurate. @BrigidLaffan

6. U.K. wanted a series of separate agreements with no overarching governance regime & minimal compliance requirements. Reasonable-no. @BrigidLaffan

Those in U.K. claiming EU too defensive fail to acknowledge that EU willing to have as close as possible a relationship with U.K. subject to U.K. preferences on rules/governance. U.K. wants to diverge, not EU. @BrigidLaffan

7. EU stance is not driven by Barnier but the settled will of EU27-EU has been consistent & clear from the beginning. @BrigidLaffan

8. I understand that from a UK perspective, the best outcome is holding on to as much of the benefits of membership while being on the outside & maintaining as much access to SM as possible. If there is a deal it will be bespoke but very thin because of choices made in London.