Why was the meeting held?

It is most workers’ worst nightmare: not content with seeing them every day at the office, the boss summons them for an awayday, far from home. Worse than that, she then schedules an eight-hour meeting, with dinner thrown in.

But Theresa May’s gamble of getting her ministerial troops away from the Westminster hothouse appears to have achieved its most basic objective – persuading the key players to sign up to a Brexit negotiating stance without any of them flouncing out.

What do we know about what was agreed?

Brexiters were quick out of the blocks to claim victory: “Divergence was the victor,” one said afterwards. Another minister said David Davis’s Vienna speech, in which the Brexit secretary suggested Britain would take control of its own regulations, though they may not change that much from the EU ones, was an “extensive hint” of what was agreed.

The phrase both sides used to describe the outcome was “ambitious managed divergence”. Weary journalists fear this may become the new “deep and special partnership” for the weekly game of PMQs bingo.

So we’ll still have red tape, but it will be our red tape?

Essentially, yes: the Davis school of thought, shared largely by Michael Gove, the environment secretary and a leading figure in the leave campaign, is that the clinching argument for Brexit is sovereignty. The vision of a future farming policy set out by Gove in recent days, for example, doesn’t smack of deregulation: but of a different approach to suit Britain’s particular circumstances.

In other sectors, such as the car industry, Britain would happily sign up to EU standards, and hope Brussels will continue to allow automotive parts to travel unchecked across the European supply chains. On services, meanwhile, where borders tend to be more fluid, the UK would hope to set its own standards.

This approach appears to be what May was driving at when, during her “Brexit means Brexit” period, she frequently suggested membership of the customs union was “not a binary question”.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, who was sent out to explain what had been agreed despite not having been at Chequers, said: “What we are saying is that we want to agree frictionless trade, by agreement between two sovereign bodies, the UK and the European Union.”

That sounds a bit flimsy, do we have much detail?

Not yet: we’ll know more next week when May gives a speech setting out her position. The reaction of both camps will be crucial.

Is there any wriggle room on membership of a customs union?



Apparently not. Asked whether there was any possibility of the government coming round to the idea, Hunt said simply: “No”. May will hope to convince pro-remain colleagues that her solution addresses most of their concerns. Signed up are Philip Hammond, the chancellor, and Amber Rudd, the home secretary, both of whom favour a close relationship with the EU.

Why has so much focus been on resolving internal Tory party tensions?

There is a deep historical divide in the Conservative party between free traders and protectionists, going back to the schism over the Corn laws and beyond, and another, not always coterminous split between “citizens of nowhere” and “little Englanders”. Brexit presents Tory MPs with an acute version of both divisions that cannot be ducked.

Overlay that with the cross-cutting leadership ambitions of a good number of the cabinet, who know full well that May cannot fight another general election and want to style themselves as the standard bearer for the party’s pro-Brexit membership, and you have a toxic mix.

What happens next?

A pressing priority for the government is to agree on the details of a transition deal. A leaked negotiating text (pdf) published on Wednesday morning suggested there were few major differences between the UK and EU. Those that remain, including the rights of EU27 citizens who arrive in the UK during the transition period, and the slight difference between the two sides on when that period should end, look highly likely to be resolved in the EU’s favour.

What could go wrong?

Quite a lot. EU experts say “managed divergence” is unlikely to survive contact with Brussels – whose overriding political aim is to protect the integrity of the customs union and single market – though it’s possible that may not become clear until negotiations on the final deal begin in earnest. In the interim, ministers are on a charm offensive, with Davis flying to Lisbon on Friday morning, in the hope of convincing EU capitals to be more pragmatic.

Perhaps a bigger short-term headache is the parliamentary arithmetic. Rebel Tories are determined to force a vote on a customs union. An amendment to the forthcoming trade bill tabled by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry and supported by Labour backbenchers, is gathering support. If Jeremy Corbyn whipped his MPs to back it, it could defeat May and send her Brexit inner cabinet back to the drawing board – or worse, back to Chequers.