Indeed, though i probably am not explaining myself properly- I'm not merely talking about the negotiations, but the structures of the UK that emerges- the issue with the Henry VIII powers is that currently their not just limited to brexit, and apply to changing all sorts of primary (Which usually require Parliamentary approval and a vote) and not merely secondary laws, through using secondary legislation to do so- without any sort of scrutiny from anyone- and that's immediately a long-term structural change. So doing things like radically altering working rights, environmental protections taxes et al at the same time as brexit is happening and that all coming into force regardless of the type of negotiated deal we get (be it hard or soft) is a huge concern- particularly when their are large lobbies of influential MP's who are aiming to do exactly this. Brexit is being used potentially as a piggyback to changing how the UK essentially 'works' without any kind of public or parliamentary say- merely various small factions trying to push forward their 'dream UK utopia'. Its why the Singapore crash-out is not merely a negotiating position/potential consequence- but actually is one being pushed by Moggs and co under brexit, but as a seperate domestic front on the back of brexit-devised legislation.
This is why i'm worried, as of course no doubt if Labour were in alone, they would be talking about a Nordic model with larger socialist elements or some such, and using brexit 'powers' to deliver that without needing to worry about electoral consequences or parliamentary scrutiny. In broader terms i tend to agree with Nye and Wolfgangs current assessments that we're led on all sides for the first time in quite a while by ideologues as opposed to political pragmatists- which is both good and bad, but the trouble is that these ideologically led policy groups will want to radically alter the country from an economic and cultural perspective and are willing to use whatever means they have at their disposal- The 'Legatus' group (Far-right free market, deregualtion libertarianist) has been a key lobby for Conservative policy of late. So brexit in a way here is only half the picture, and half the danger- but is entirely the 'means' (in the government as you rightly say being so secretive) for bringing about these wished for changes by lobbies.
To give a more concise (I hope) example- May...sort of got in at the last GE on a platform of increased regulation, tackling wealth inequality and helping the 'JAMS'- now reality of course as the social mobility commitee disaster shows- none of this is happening. But a Moggs fronted faction of the Tories who are influenced by lobbies like Legatus are using brexit, the negotiations but more importantly the legislative powers the government is trying to take to keep the public and parliament in the dark about as tools to create their own vision which is the complete opposite of this- they do not have any kind of legitimate mandate to do so, but brexit provides the tools to circumvent that potentially- this is why i think its important that Parliament and public are indeed informed, but also are given greater say to counteract such powerful interests(made so by backing, but also how weak May is politically in regard to brexit) by removing the fact that in essence May is a punch-bag- which protects in many ways these groups from any electoral consequences and also emboldens them in exerting influence, by drawing all such decisions on working rights and economic structures (which are not negotiation related, but for some reason the government think should be able to be changed by ministers through secondary legislation- with no limits on their remit, and little to no actual scrutiny) etc into a public frame.
If that makes sense, i might not be honestly
Its been a long day and Panto season is downright exhausting.