Thread by @jonworth

I know that reading the tea leaves, or waiting for white smoke is more fun (and easier) than policy detail...

... but while we wait for the former, let's have a go at the latter.

And I need your contributions.

A thread...

We know the main areas of disagreement preventing a #Brexit Deal happening - fish, Level Playing Field, and governance.

We don't know much about where the compromise is to be found on each.

So let's have a go.

Before starting on the three areas, a word about the UK approach - Johnson needs to be able to spin a Deal as taking back control of fish, laws and borders.

The last of the three is basically done, it's the first two that matter.

How does "taking back control of fish" then work?

We have heard numbers banded around about the % of the quota fished in UK waters that'd be handed back to the UK - from a Barnier suggestion of 15-18% to a UK suggestion of 80%.

This strikes me as a dead end - because the UK side cannot say it has "taken back control"

The Deal here is to be found in *what type* of fish are fished, and where they go. The idea that what is in UK waters isn't consumed by the Brits has finally gained traction.

So some system where *what* is fished, and where it can go once landed, is setup in a way that reflects the current de facto reality, but while the UK can claim some notional control looks to be where a compromise is to be found.

The Level Playing Field one looks possible to solve as well, if both sides want to do so. This discussion between @AlexanderPHRose & @pmdfoster looks to be a way forward here:

https://twitter.com/AlexanderPHRose/status/1334572302785273863

The UK accepts that the other side might have an ability to punish it for non-alignment, but the EU side then accepts that there will have to be a process of neverending negotiation in this area.

But the way Johnson can sell this one is that there is no overarching need for the UK to be bound by the EU legal system (taking back control of laws!) but in return the EU may be able to retaliate if it has to.

In practice - as @gideonrachman has argued - the determination of the UK to break away in this area may well be more theoretical than real.

Which Johnson - who's never been able to articulate a practical issue with LPF (and Cummings, who has, is gone) - could live with.

"We have freed British businesses from the yoke of regulation*!"

* -terms and conditions apply, but let's ignore those a moment

And then on governance - the work of the Joint Committee seems to be making progress on outstanding issues in the NI Protocol

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1332360492980035588

And Johnson hasn't ever given a damn about Northern Ireland, so anything there won't down a Deal

The UK is going to need to refuse any role for the European Court of Justice. But if there are equivalent systems with a different name, Johnson might just about be able to sell it.

And the offending parts of the IM Bill and Finance Bill are going to need to be dropped Monday to make sure that the UK does not renege on what it has already agreed.

But even Michael Howard understands why the IM Bill is a problem... The Government could survive dropping both.

This latter one is not to be framed as "taking back control", but more that "an Englishman sticks to his word". It of course might not be true, and the EU knows its not true, but you can imagine Johnson saying it.

This then - if Johnson wants to do it - is how he could sell a Deal as a victory, and respect the slogan that has become so central to the UK side of Brexit over the past 18 months.

Unless of course there's some 🐘 I've not seen.

We'll see in the next 72h if he goes for it!

I'd value views of @DavidHenigUK @AnnaJerzewska @usherwood @GeorgePeretzQC @matt_bevington @FabianZuleeg @NvOndarza @chrisgreybrexit @domwalsh13 on this!

/ends