So here is my take on Teresa May's speech. I am certainly not going to comment on the thing line by line, but I think I need to write in at least as much detail as anyone else. I will adopt the convention that sections in italics are direct quotations of her speech, not from other posters.

=====

Overall, I agree with Iains' comment that "it does not really take us any further forward". It seemed to me a very fragile thing: a shade more solid than a bubble, but still terribly weak. And it did not seem to be to be particularly directed at Europe. Instead, it was aimed at convincing the UK that the Tories had a united vision, and to that end it warned both the wings of the party not to rock the boat and offered them a few promises.


, it must protect people's jobs and security. People in the UK voted for our country to have a new and different relationship with Europe, but while the means may change our shared goals surely have not - to work together to grow our economies and keep our people safe

The word 'different' leaps out. Not much sense of sunny uplands there. No vision of a Britain bestriding the world. Just 'different'. That is about as low key a promise as you could make. Then "protecting people's jobs". Remember the Government has already voted against including the existing EU worker's rights in the withdrawal bill. So while it is not spelled out, I think this 'protection' is the desire to get trade deals which need workers in the UK. The promise is the search for jobs, not any effort to protect whatever job you have. For example I see no commitment to the working hours limit in that 'protection', nor anything to suggest more protections for zero hours worker.

We must bring our country back together, taking into account the views of everyone who cares about this issue, from both sides of the debate. I think Dave picked out this one. Despite a deep bitterness and sense of division over this topic, we need a sense of perspective. Unlike many countries or our own past, this is a long way from a civil war. Jo Cox aside, this is a blood-free argument. And I think deep down most people recognise a 'muddling-through' aspect to this. Life after Brexit will not be as bleak as some on the remain side think, not will it be the huge success some leavers think. It will be somewhere in between. And eventually we will find a way to get on together. It may be a long time before that is complete - there are still divisions between some towns in the UK that follow the lines of the Viking borders - but we will reach a working arrangement eventually. Though I will not be in the least surprised if there are still occasional 'blame it on Brexit' remarks two or three decades from now.

Successive British governments have worked tirelessly - together with all the parties in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government - to bring about the historic achievement of peace.

This is an achievement that we should all be proud of, and protect. That is why I have consistently put upholding the Belfast Agreement at the heart of the UK's approach.

Our departure from the EU causes very particular challenges for Northern Ireland, and for Ireland. We joined the EU together 45 years ago. It is not surprising that our decision to leave has caused anxiety and a desire for concrete solutions.

We have been clear all along that we don't want to go back to a hard border in Ireland. We have ruled out any physical infrastructure at the border, or any related checks and controls.

But it is not good enough to say, 'We won't introduce a hard border; if the EU forces Ireland to do it, that's down to them'. We chose to leave; we have a responsibility to help find a solution.

But we can't do it on our own. It is for all of us to work together. And the Taoiseach and I agreed when we met recently that our teams and the Commission should now do just that.

This is a bit of mixed bag. There is a repeat of the promise that there will be no infrastructure at the border. That is, no ANPR, no RFID readers, no stopping and inspecting of vehicles. [There was a clarification in the past that the Government regards CCTV as 'physical infrastructure']   There is equally a direct dismissal of the idea that if the EU has a border it has nothing to do with us. Any border, whoever builds it, is an unacceptable border.

However, it remains completely opaque how this can be achieved, merely saying we all need to work together to find a solution. Remember the legal version of the text is only a few weeks away.

My personal guess is that there will be a 'zero infrastructure' border just as there is now and that the Government will accept a form of words that in practice is equivalent to the current EU proposal, but with a sufficient minor tweak to allow them to claim it isn't. For example, I am sure the 'Trusted Trader' scheme will be in there in some form.

Life is going to be different. In certain ways, our access to each other's markets will be less than it is now
Again different, rather than better. And an acceptance that in some ways at least things will be worse. Grown up language.

It also means that the ultimate arbiter of disputes about our future partnership cannot be the court of either party.
An easily missed one, this. Parliament will not be supreme here: we are not as 'in control' as some might like.

And in other areas like workers' rights or the environment, the EU should be confident that we will not engage in a race to the bottom in the standards and protections we set. There is no serious political constituency in the UK which would support this - quite the opposite.
Again, actions speak louder than words. This has been voted against very recently. I will believe it if it forms part of the international treaty. I will have some, but less, confidence if it is part of domestic law. With neither, just empty words I am afraid.

The UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU's. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards will remain substantially similar in the future.
A cake and eat it moment, I think. If the UK decided that its standards were to be at least as high as the EU, and a suitable confirmation scheme was in place, that would be possible. If, however, in any area the UK regulation were not as strict as the EU, the whole system explodes. And this is where the US trade deal with its differing food standards raises its head.

In some cases Parliament might choose to pass an identical law - businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets.

If the Parliament of the day decided not to achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access.


This is a particularly good example of making promises to each side that they think they can live with, but actually leaving the whole thing unresolved. The Remain side are being offered that laws could be identical to the EU, and, via the Withdrawal Bill, that is where they will start. So the Remainers can be happy that we overcome a big hurdle on dealing with the EU. Moreover, it can only be altered by Parliament, so it is protected.

Conversely, the Leavers recognise that as long as the commitment to have the same laws is not part of the treaty, Parliament can change them. And even if the opportunity does not come for 10 or 20 years they have played the waiting game before: in the end they will be able to change it to whatever they want.

I can see the internal desirability of this slight of hand; there is not a cat in hell's change the EU will go along with it, in my opinion.

We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency.

An important recognition that this is the only sensible way of dealing with these topics ...

And, of course, Parliament would remain ultimately sovereign. It could decide not to accept these rules, but with consequences for our membership of the relevant agency and linked market access rights
... but immediately slam the brakes on and reverse.

A generation from now what will be remembered is not the rough and tumble of negotiation but whether we reached an enduring solution cast in the interests of the people we are all here to serve.

So my message to our friends in Europe is clear.

We know what we want. We understand your principles. We have a shared interest in getting this right. So let's get on with it

Wouldn't it have been nicer if she could have said 'what will be remembered is how we reached ..' rather than 'whether'.


=====


So what will happen next? As I say, it seems fragile. Rees-Mogg can certainly say he is comfortable with it because the UK Parliament is in charge (with a few exceptions). If an interviewer is astute enough to question him about how much Parliament can subsequently change he will confirm it can most of any agreement based on this - and the bubble of unity bursts.

By and large, I don't think the EU will see much useful in it, so in a matter of weeks much will be overturned. It is certainly nowhere near a legal text corresponding the December agreements, nor is it an informal explanation of such a text.