For all the Brexit noise over the last week, the fundamentals haven't changed much. There are four conditions that have to fall into place for a deal to be done over the next weeks.

Condition 1: The UK has to provide greater clarity on enforcement of level-playing field (1/n)

There's been good progress on LPF in recent weeks. On state aid, the UK has agreed to include a set of reciprocal "treaty-based principles" to guide state-aid regimes on both sides. But there're still two big questions open on LPF, both of which have to do with enforcement. (2/n)

On state aid, there's still an open question around the method for controlling and enforcing subsidy decisions (through a domestic regulator, or dispute settlement?). On envi and labour protection, the non-regression clause isn't settled: the EU demands a 'ratchet clause' (3/n)

which is to ensure that, if UK and EU domestic levels of protection increase in the future, those protections become the new benchmark to be maintained. The EU, and notably FR, is v concerned about the UK undercutting on future climate regs, but the UK resists the ratchet. (4/n)

Condition 2: The EU has to move on fish, starting from recognition that the UK will be an independent coastal state and that quotas can't be the same as today. Fish is just as much of a defensive interest for the UK as LPF is for the EU. It's a mistake to think the UK will (5/n)

compromise on the core principle. No10 has long been frustrated by with the EU's lack of progress on substance here. Last week, when Barnier was refused concessions by the coastal states, No10 lost patience and asked Barnier for a "fundamental change in approach" there. (6/n)

The EU has signaled willingness to offer concessions on UK future access to the single energy market in return for fish. Of course, this isn't worthless, but it isn't seen as a "concession" in London; the view here is this isn't worth undermining UK defensive interests. (7/n)

A compromise on fish will require further movement from MSs. If the Cion can walk MSs from the position that quotas should remain the same as now - and there're promising signals here - there's a middle ground to be found. Most officials I know on both sides recognise this. (8/n)

Condition 3: The UK has to remove the controversial clauses from the Internal Market Bill. The EU has made clear that the FTA, even if agreed, will be ratified after the UK removes those clauses. But the UK will do this only if the FTA addresses the "ambiguities" of the NIP (9/n)

The issue of 'at-risk goods' and the associated tariffs will be largely settled with an FTA. But state aid will still be a problem. There, if the UK commits to a domestic regime in the FTA, expect the UK to ask the EU to revise, or at least clarify the meaning of, Art 10 (10/n)

This isn't going to be straightforward by any means, but the UK isn't going to pull out the Bill without the EU addressing the "ambiguities" through the WA Joint Cttee. Ultimately, however, it depends on the eventual compromise agreed on state aid in the FTA talks. (11/n)

Condition 4: The EU and the UK still have to agree most of the legal text. There's a lot of hot air in the negs, but if you ask officials in London, and indeed in Bxl, what bothers them most, they'll tell you that they might run out of time for agreeing the legal text. (12/n)

Unlike the renegotiation last autumn, this isn't about revisiting and agreeing 20 pages of legal text. It's a wholly new treaty. True, there're precedents to be copy-pasted, and good progress has been made in several negotiating streams (esp on goods, services, transport), (13/n)

but the challenge remains immense: negotiators and lawyers on both sides have to go though line-by-line, and agree, hundreds of pages of text within several weeks. Then, they still have to go through the 'legal scrubbing' process and translation into other languages. (14/n)

There's a grand bargain in sight, but only if all four conditions fall into place by mid-November. Disagreements remain significant and won't be settled by Frost and Barnier touching base every now and then. A deal will require a political intervention on both sides.

(End)

(Sorry for the typos, written in haste and without a morning coffee )