However, by far the best summary of the state of play is this one by RTE's Tony Connelly; Brexit talks: Glimmer of light, or false dawn?
He sets out how David Frost has moved position on state aid, from saying it was none of the EU's business to talking about agreeing "provisions that...shape and condition the subsidy policy on both sides."
But at the same time, Barnier was briefing EU ambassadors and appeared far less optimistic, according to Connelly after speaking to some of those present. While we are grudgingly starting to focus on high level principles, the EU want detail - as I think Frost himself admitted. Brussels apparently wants to be sure there is a strong, independent competition regulator in the UK that will enforce any shared state aid regime, and why not? His source (I assume this is the Irish ambassador to the EU) said:
"If the EU decided the UK was taking measures that affected the level playing field, the EU could autonomously retaliate without going through some cumbersome arbitration process. The retaliation would be fast, swift and large. Each partner would have the same rights, but if the EU was to do it it would probably have a more significant impact."
They also raised other issues which are not yet agreed including LPF. Disagreements have come out about how to ensure Britain does not lower its standards on the environment, labour and social protections, taxation and climate change in order to attract inward investment or gain a trade advantage. This is what the EU call a "ratchet clause", or as some prefer. an "evolution clause".
Von der Leyen said: "We have to work on a mechanism where, over time, when things change there is an alignment." I warrant this will not be easy or quick to work out and agree. Member states have said they will not be happy with a simple promise not to regress, they want a proper mechanism to be available for ensuring over time policies are in broad agreement. There is going to be no free ride for Singapore-on-Thames.
But by far the most important point is on fishing. Numerous reports have come out over the last few weeks about Barnier recognising that his mandate on fish must be changed to give him more flexibility. But if reports from Friday's meeting are anything to go by, the member states are hardening their attitude. Connelly again:
"Going into the negotiations in March, Mr Barnier was given an uncompromising mandate by national capitals: European fleets should largely get the access to British waters as present since such rights went back decades if not centuries.
"With the negotiations now entering the critical phase, Mr Barnier has been probing how far he can coax coastal states towards compromise.
"His message is that we should explore the flexibility within the mandate," says one EU official. "We’re not going to bargain fisheries away. This is not an attempt to throw European fisheries under the bus. It’s to say, what can we do to try and reach an agreement within the mandate."
"However, he has run into trenchant opposition. Ahead of his calls with ministers, national fisheries attachés and Brexit coordinators met in Brussels on Monday and unanimously agreed there should be no wavering from the mandate.
"Member state officials have become concerned that the EU is not making full use of its key leverage: that there can be no overall deal without a fish deal. If a free trade agreement is within touching distance, is the argument, the UK will not sacrifice the deal for an industry which has an annual turnover similar to that of Harrods."
One official said the "unanimous view" was that Barnier should stick to the mandate," and that the EU have the leverage of the free trade agreement, but adding "The leverage only works if the UK wants an FTA."
I thought that last sentence was the key. Johnson, Gove and Frost would not have taken things this far unless they wanted a free trade deal. What the UK is asking for may be thin, a bare-bones deal, not much above WTO rules but make no mistake if we don't get it several industries will be wiped out overnight. We have no FTA with the USA and it looks increasingly likely that the Democrat Biden will win next month and if we abandon the talks, repudiate the WA there will be no American deal anyway at any time.
So, the point made that the EU's leverage only works if the UK want a deal has been true right from the outset and this year, coronavirus and the lack of preparation at our borders means that we we need a deal now even more than we did at the start of the year.
Gove is worried about the union and Sunak about the economy, so in the next few days, a week or two at most the EU's leverage will finally tell. I suppose it's in the nature of all negotiations that sooner or later sheer size wins.
In The National report, Dr Simon Sweeney, senior lecturer in international political economy and business at the University of York, is quoted extensively and he says:
“It is quite clear that No Deal would be a dramatic outcome which would negatively impact on both sides. It is my view it would be far more negative for the UK than for the EU, but it would definitely be a serious outcome for many players in this question, as well as citizens of Europe and the UK.
“What is very curious is that our Prime Minister has said that a No Deal would be a good outcome for the UK. This is a palpable nonsense."
He went on:
“In the end my estimate is there will be a bare-bones agreement, the Prime Minister will come back waving a piece of paper saying what a marvellous achievement it is that we stood by and defended British interests and we have achieved a great outcome for this great country.
“That is the kind of language we can be prepared for, as it is the kind of language that is habitual for this Prime Minister. The real truth is that Britain, the UK, is much damaged and even the integrity of the UK is threatened by what is happening.”
And to confirm the "extension" to the talks on Friday, a Number 10 spokesman confirmed that "informal discussions "would resume in Brussels this week. The pips are beginning to squeak.
Britain's fishermen will no doubt be pleased (!) to read the government's guidance on how to export fish to the EU next year. Phew! What a bureaucratic nightmare that is. If fish exports don't fall dramatically from January whatever the deal turns out to be, I for one will be amazed. It is a minefield of paperwork.
Brexiteers have long complained about EU rules which UK fishermen have to abide by - and still will have to abide by until the government makes changes - but when the fish are exported to the EU they will face all the same rules again but at the border. It is insane.
