There are persistent misunderstandings about what & #39;Canada-style& #39; means. For the UK, at first blush, the stress is on & #39;Canada& #39;, though in fact the UK ask goes well beyond CETA so that& #39;s disingenuous. 1/5 https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1317060469392289793">https://twitter.com/SkyNews/s...

Whereas for EU the stress is on & #39;style& #39; i.e. that this would be in the category of an FTA relationship, rather than SM membership (that& #39;s what the Barnier staircase meant). But Canada is geographically distant, does far less trade with the EU and is far less integrated. 2/5

In short, UK isn& #39;t really like Canada (history, geography, economy). And, anyway, there are all the non-trade things. So, actually, both UK & EU accept their deal can& #39;t just be CETA. 3/5

So when BJ complains that EU won& #39;t give a Canada deal "even though" UK has been an EU member for 45 years (as if that gave some kind of entitlement), it misses the point that such a deal is impossible *because* UK has been a member for 45 years. 4/5

And of course the differences between & #39;Canada& #39; and & #39;Canada-style& #39; have been flagged up by the EU since 2017, and BJ accepted them in the PD, so his complaint is nonsense anyway. 5/5