We cannot just draw a line around these islands and go back to a time past. In 1973 when Britain voted to join what was then the EEC, the email had only just been invented and the Internet wasn't even conceived. In 1992, the Single Market was established and the Internet went commercial. From the mid-1990s, low-cost flights came in and little bags of salad leaves became the norm in our supermarkets. Since then, business has changed to an inter-connected model, underpinned by electronic communications and laws designed to support cross-border trade. Standards matter, not just within State borders, but across borders. The rupture from the Single Market created by Brexit in any form will have massive consequences for industries, both manufacturing and services, that have based their business model on the EU legal framework.

This article - part 1 of 2 - explores the how withdrawing from the EU Single Market will result in a dual-compliance regime. It draws on EU Preparedness Notifications and UK government 'no deal' notices, as well as announcements, media reports and statements from a range of British-based businesses.

How does an obscure article in the Lisbon Treaty obfuscate Britain's efforts to formulate a post-Brexit relationship with the European Union? And what does this have to do with dead parrots?

It was Margaret Thatcher who famously replayed Monty Python's 'dead parrot' sketch at the Tory party conference 28 years ago in 1990. This week, as the Conservative Party gathered in Birmingham for its annual get-together, it would seem a dead parrot is once again at the centre of the debate.

The British government's White Paper for a new UK -EU partnership edges its way around the strict red lines of a hard Brexit in order to address the complaints of business and keep jobs in this country. It does look rather like a bespoke form of trade agreement. But in trying to frame the proposal such that it could be accepted by the deeply divided Conservative Party, the paper seems to please no-one. So how should we read it?

This post considers whether the White Paper addresses the concerns of British businesses. It suggests that the 'common rulebook' may be a problematic metaphor in an inter-connected 21st century business world.

Galileo, a niche satellite technology programme, has escalated to the top of the Brexit political agenda as Britain and the EU wrangle over access to it. There is a thrilling tension as the two have become locked in an inter-governmental conflict overhung by industrial threats, against a backdrop of science-fiction-like technologies. Galileo symbolises the power of space communications for economic and security policy. And now the EU has signalled a red light to Britain's key demand for full access to a next-generation encrypted service.

This analysis considers the EU's new space programme proposals against Britains demands for inclusion in Galileo's secure PRS service. It draws on the EU Proposal for a Regulation establishing the space programme and the British government's Technical Note: UK Participation in Galileo, with additional input from the just-released EU slides on space-related activities.

A European satellite project unexpectedly finds itself at the uncomfortable end of the divorce wrangles between Britain and the EU. It illustrates the direct and tangible consequences of the government's solid red lines, which put contracts and industry growth at risk. What is really at stake? This article draws on evidence given by the space industry to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, and examines the Co-operation Agreements of Norway and Switzerland on Satellite Navigation Programmes. It views them through the prism of the draft UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement.

*Update 24 April 2018 - the Financial Times is now reporting an 'escalating row' between London and Brussels over Galileo.*

<<On the publication of the draft of the entire EU Withdrawal Agreement, this article investigates the Transition chapter and how far Britain's influence could be written out from the very start. The analysis is based on the text published by the EU, and the British negotiators text which has been circulating online.>>

Will Britain become isolated and not influential, to paraphrase Sir John Major's words from his speech today? There is one aspect of Britain's proposed Transition out of the European Union that risks being overlooked. Britain - its government, businesses and individuals such as academics, NGOs and researchers - could be excluded from EU decision-making bodies, agencies and expert groups from 29 March 2019 during the Transition period. As others have already said, Britain risks becoming a rule-taker, but this goes further. It means Britain stands to lose influence not only in law making and central banking, but regulatory and standards bodies, scientific and security agencies, and a plethora of smaller groups that input to policy-making.

Brexit means that Britain risks losing access to two vital EU satellite programmes. They deliver key communications technologies to power Mrs May's vision for a 4th industrial revolution. It's a failure to join the policy dots. Has the government lost the signal?

The European Parliament is not at the negotiating table, yet it does have ways of leveraging influence over the Brexit negotiations. Why does its position matter? Especially now that the British Parliament has narrowly won the right to vote on the final Brexit deal.

Parma ham, Cognac and Roquefort cheese could become caught up in a political side-show in the Brexit talks following a European Commission position paper on intellectual property rights (IPR). The issue relates to Geographical Indications, which are specific rights pertaining to these and other food and wine products, and a demand from the EU for new British legislation. The timing of the demand - in a position paper on IP rights - is curious, and it has exposed an unexpected sensitivity in the Brexit negotiations. Why you might ask, does this matter at all?