What is the government's plan for Brexit?

The British government is expected to publish a White Paper on Thursday outlining plans for the country's future relations with the EU after Brexit.

It is based on Theresa May's agreement with government ministers last week, which has already prompted two senior cabinet members to resign.

A final version of the Brexit withdrawal agreement is to be approved by the European Council in October.

The future trade rules between the United Kingdom and the European Union must also be the subject of an agreement

. Indeed, the Checkers agreement is the first step in the next phase of the Brexit negotiations. But what does all this mean and what does the United Kingdom propose?

Has the United Kingdom relaxed its position on Brexit?

Yes, he decided to ask the EU for access to the single market for all goods, including food and beverages.

To do this, the UK and the EU "would maintain a common regulation for all products, including agri-food, with the UK making an initial choice to commit to treaty to constantly harmonize the EU rules ".

This basically means that we are in agreement to accept all the rules and regulations of the EU regarding goods: from apricot to Zimmer frames.

The UK said Parliament would be able to block any new EU regulation that it would oppose, "recognizing that this would have consequences".

This is very similar to what Norway is doing. However, the "consequences" of the deadlock of the EU rules are so severe that the Oslo government almost never blocks them.

In addition, this proposal does not mention services, which account for 80% of the UK economy and that the UK exports very well throughout the EU.

But would we be free to reduce bureaucracy, regulation and attract foreign companies to the UK by reducing the EU?

Maybe not, because Checkers' agreement also proposes "the UK would pledge to enforce a help and establish cooperative arrangements between regulators on the competition."

To the Brexiters and many others, that sounds a lot like a promise not to undermine the EU.

The UK's dream of becoming Singapore's of Europe – an island of free trade, low regulation and low tax rates that companies are fleeing into the EU, seems incompatible with this commitment.

Are we leaving the European Court of Justice?

This is not so clear. The United Kingdom speaks of "joint committee" and "common reference procedure".

She acknowledges the role of the CJE "as an interpreter of EU rules", but insists that "the court of one party can not resolve disputes between both".

It sounds like a bit of fudge and many will think that the EU will insist that the ECJ have more influence than that. After all, the UK has already agreed to abide by EU laws on the single market property – and currently they are overseen by the ECJ.

Does all this mean a smooth border with the EU?

Leaving aside the issue of the Irish border (a big problem, but leave aside for the moment), the UK still talks about collecting EU tariffs for them and using new technologies to "remove the need for customs controls and controls between the United Kingdom and the EU as it is a combined customs territory".

This is a question that unites the most ultra-Brexite and the most Europhile Bureaucrate of Brussels: they do not think it can be done.

They say it involves technology that does not work and large amounts of paperwork. It would also be a green light for fraudsters, smugglers and spivs.

Can we still cut our own free trade agreements with the rest of the world?

In theory, yes, but only if this new customs arrangement with the EU works, what most experts think it will not happen.

And whatever it may be, this agreement to stick to the EU rules on goods makes it much more difficult to negotiate a free trade agreement.

Trade experts are already saying that years spent negotiating with the British government would seem like a very unattractive option for many other countries and probably a waste of time.

Could the United Kingdom control immigration and prevent the free movement of European nationals in the United Kingdom?

Yes, the agreement states that the United Kingdom "will end the free movement, allowing the United Kingdom to control the number of persons".

However, it is almost immediately said that any agreement with the EU "will include a mobility framework so that citizens of the UK and the EU can continue to visit the territories of others. and to apply for study and work ".

This seems to be free movement, so it is unclear how much immigration will be stopped, if any.

So, why was that unacceptable for Brexiters such as Boris Johnson and David Davis?

Make your choice, really. It could remain in the single market for goods, accept EU rules, force the UK to conclude new trade agreements and reduce red tape, play a role for the ECJ, not put an end to free movement of persons or continue in Brussels.

Most likely, it was all of the above, as well as knowing that it is only a bargaining position and the beginning of a process that necessarily involves new concessions.

If they do not think that the Checkers agreement is acceptable, what will they do with the final agreement?