Thread by @tconnellyRTE

Where are we at as of 1450 CET?

Talks continuing, could go on for a while longer. One informed source is suggesting that because the fish deal was agreed at the high political level (btn @vonderleyen and @BorisJohnson) it was left to officials to translate it into real numbers

2/ Some reflections from an EU diplomat briefed on the rest of the deal, which appears to be in place:

3/ "There is nothing particularly surprising. It is consistent with what we've been hearing all along. The UK red lines are respected. Our concerns are also respected. Of course we have to see the fine print, but in general there is a robust level playing field."

4/ The LPF mechanism is said to be a "complicated structure" which works both ways.

5/ "It doesn't mean that because you have these structures you necessarily have to use them. The mood at the moment is, do you want to diverge [from EU standards] for the sake of diverging? In reality, most likely, pragmatism will prevail."

6/ Diplomat adds: "The fact that you diverge on the fine detail doesn't mean you necessarily get an advantage. But we are both sovereign. If this sovereignty creates unwanted imbalances, if divergence creates problems, then we have instruments to address it in a way that's fair."

7/ It looks like the LPF mechanism cd have a blend of "autonomous" retaliation (if divergence causes a problem) and a consultation period. It also appears there will be some kind of joint committee, although it won't be called that (to avoid confusion with the WA joint committee)

8/ It will be an overarching political body and will have subcommittees below it to manage different aspects of the treaty.

9/ I also understand that on state aid there will be the possibility for an aggrieved party (ie, an EU or UK company) to go to court if it believes there has been unfair subsidies for a rival, but it will not be called "direct effect".