This doesn't match what the EU has said. Again, maybe it will be right and a deal on fish will unlock a UK EU deal. Or maybe it is wrong but the UK side has decided fish is the most explicable reason for no deal. We simply don't know, and have to be a bit sceptical.
If the UK side are understating the difficulties of level playing field and governance in EU talks, thinking them on the verge of resolution because the EU will back down, that would be a repeat of something we have seen in these talks several times before.
Right, I promised what is a 'thin' FTA and why is the UK-EU not 'thin'. Here it is, not exactly @Usherwood class of picture, but will have to do for now. First, a very rough classification of Free Trade Agreements. Reduce tariffs, go a bit further than WTO is the summary.
Thus for example a UK-US FTA is likely to be mostly in the middle box. Not much extra market access from the US. Then we call it ambitious.
But with the EU? Most likely, from what we know, across the standard and enhanced boxes.
Final, most important point. Free Trade Agreements are nothing like a Customs Union or Single Market in terms of eliminating barriers to trade, however ambitious. That's why so many countries have chosen to go further. The UK is unusual in choosing to increase trade barriers.
In other news it appears the Prime Minister has yet to make a choice between a deal and not. Don't worry PM, only tens of thousands of jobs riding on it... in.reuters.com/article/britai…
To be clear, no deal won't be 'accidental'. It will be either because the Prime Minister couldn't make up his mind whether to go for a deal that would cause problems in his party or no deal, or because he chooses no-deal. A deal is there if he wants it.
Withrespect (or not) to the Labour Party's decision making processes, backing an EU FTA should be one of the easiest decisions they will make.
Far harder to decide if they are prepared to propose to challenge the government's approach to "sovereignty" theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
Why is an EU deal so easy to back - because having no trade deal with neighbours is so obviously nonsensical, something that practically every country in the world has recognised. That should also cover a no-deal policy. But will Labour go further? theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Part of the UK government's trade policy is to have the closest relations with majority white English speaking countries however far away. There are reasons - to take on the EU's regulatory power, join a new club. But most countries prefer deeper relations close to home.
As Charles has previously noted, I don't share the optimism he expresses here! Some technical progress doesn't I think make up for serious political and philosophical difficulties - on both sides. A big jump to a deal both parties can sell - achievable but very difficult.
The other part of the Brexit jigsaw. Same broad issue, technically achievable (though hard), politically extremely delicate particularly on the UK side. And mid-December completion is cutting things extremely fine.
"Next week" has been the key week for Brexit talks for several weeks now.
If there was an agreement struck towards the end of next week there would be <20 working days for legal scrub, translation, discussion, ratification, implementation.
Still this @ShonaMurray_ and it looks like the EU are happy to facilitate UK indecision such that both sides can be blamed by business with insufficient time to prepare.
There are many reasons in a negotiation, at this stage, you may want an urgent meeting. Let us say the UK offered the EU a final deal, same fish for a transitional period, no further on Level Playing Field. The EU say no. Need to clear with Member States?
That's just an illustration though, we don't know, until one of the well placed folk gets to find out what's happening. But it does feel like, finally, the next few days will see a deal / no deal decision point on UK-EU talks.