Exiled Canadian

My implication was that post the end of FoM the % of the electorate seeking further distance between the UK and EU would be reduced to a (vocal) minority.

Agreed - but my suspicion is that stopping FoM was the key driver of many Leave voters. With that gone its mostly trade with a bit of fish - not too many votes in either in a GE (in my uneducated view anyway).

Fair point - but I suspect that it was the closest possible deal to membership without FoM.

After the press started threatening the French with our navy I was wondering how long it would be before they decided to take aim at the Germans. We should have a sweepstake for the first one to spot mention of "Dunkirk", "their finest hour" or Spitfires.

Rff would have been existing "Soft Brexit" vs "No deal." As the ERG spotted Mays deal was BRINO until the backstop conditions were fulfilled.

I recall us discussing at the time how May's deal was the least unattractive of the likely options on the table at the time (I don't think a second ref was feasible until the UK had legally left the EU).

The "Irish backstop" effectively locked in a soft Brexit until the unicorns worked out how to have a border in Ireland without having a border. In some respects it was a massive triumph of "Sir Humpreyism" an apparently temporary permanent arrangement. On this analysisi I don't think that May would have had to pesent a trade deal before the next election. There would have been no pressure on anyone to conclude the talks.

A Country of 65m was always going to get shafted by a free trade area of 500m in any negotiation - it was bloody obvious as you say. Then we choose not to extend the transition and risk a no deal in the teeth of Covid, absolute genius, our weak hand got even worse. I thought I'd seen that some form of arbitration mechanism had been proposed. Quite possibly I was mistaken as I don't know where to go looking for a link.

The MP for Shewsbury and our trade envoy to Mongolia (I kid you not) is not in the government. That fact alone is proof that things could always get worse.

Firstly the UK is already a Sovereign nation so I have no idea what Johnson is waffling about. I think that there is a clear path to a deal now. On FTP UK is currently fully aligned and so with a decent arbitration mechanism and the UK retaining the right to take its ball home at a later date if it's not happy I can't why that issue can't be resolved. Fish is just a sideshow. I suspect both sides are bigging it up with a view to extracting maximum value for trading it away at the death. Holding the status quo won't actually make anyone worse off. The more difficult calculus is UK politics. Johnson will face a backlash whatever happens. Is it better for him to upset the ERG and re-energise Farage or face the economic music of no deal? The former could see him face a leadership challenge and also risk a split of the Tory vote at the next election as Farage and co will do their best to keep the Brexit issue alive. The latter shores up his right flank but also risks his being held responsible for the mother of all recessions when the full impact of Covid combines with a no deal Brexit. I suspect he'll plump for no deal and gamble that the economy will be in recovery mode in four years time. Boris always chooses what's best for Boris.

Interesting to speculate though. My suspicion is that a combination of Farage and the ERG screaming "betrayal" would have resulted in her removal and/or a split in the Conservative Party.

Possibly - but that would surely cause problems inthe Cabinet. Sunak is ex Goldman Sachs and would understand what was being thrown away for one. The Tory failthful in the stockbroker belt would also take a dim view I suspect.

If the UK is negotiating rationally (a significant assumption I know) then surely the UK is "bigging up" the fish issue to get maximum value for it when we finally throw it on the table. That would be a pretty classic negotiating tactic - take an issue that you're prepared to compromise on, make it look like it's a massive issue ("this would be poilitcal suicide for the PM") then trade it away at the last minute for the stuff you really want to get the deal over the line.

Nothing like living in a surveillance state at all then!

I'd agree. They've actually made the negotiating position worse. There must be a loss of trust on the EU side and it's pretty clear that the Dems in the US took a dim view (which is more leverage for the EU given the likely need for Dem support for any UK/US trade deal). Off course the Cons will probably get a bump in the polls on the basis that they "stood up for Britain" (a claim that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory analysis). That's probably all they were after.