//We had the goal, we knew we wanted to simply leave EU control, we knew we wanted to retain good trading relationships like some other non-EU nations have, preferably better, and stay on good relationships, continue to participate in projects and security arrangements. //
This is not consistent with what Leave campaigners or later the government have said over the past three years, OG. Between them they've alternatively suggested Norway option, Canada +, CPTPP, default WTO (if they're mad), a trade agreement with the US (some were even talking about joining NAFTA at the very moment Trump was dismembering it), or most recently Chequers. These are all fundamentally different trade arrangements. The UK's stated red lines seemed originally to rule several of these out - but later the government just fudged them and made them pink lines instead. To call it mixed messages would be the understatement of the century. There has never been a clear goal coming from London for how we want to end up - because this has never been about trade or even the national interest, it's been about preserving the internal unity of the Conservative party. The government has just lurched, it seems, from one internal crisis to another. Internal party politics more than anything else has determined the govt's behaviour in the negotiations. Not a clear strategy for the UK's trade.