The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common

The objective of the UK, based on the negotiations so far, seems to be to take better charge of its domestic affairs and to restrict some aspects of the common market, such as free movement of peoples and undesired labor, while continuing to enjoy other aspects like rights of UK citizens abroad and ease of exports. This is largely unrealistic, but their weak negotiating position means something has to give. In their efforts to avoid economic disruption, they will compromise on some of the more nationalistic goals, but this will gain little goodwill domestically. More likely than not, they will end up with a weak outcome, with little to show for it. A more assertive Britain would be a strategic move, to exchange short-term disruption for long-term gain. The point wouldn't be to walk away from all treaties -- that's counterproductive -- but to demonstrate a position of strength, while the closed-door negotiations continue until broken off by the other party. A "fast Brexit" is advocated by Tillerson, for example, so it's likely the UK can lean on the US to back it up with this approach. An implicit mandate of Brexit is to demonstrate that the UK can not only survive, but thrive on its own, leveraging bilateral agreements that it makes when beneficial for itself. This requires taking initiative; it doesn't take a nationalist to see that the optics of Britain's negotiations have shown anything but.