Re: we'll have all we want and if you don't like it...
Both sides usually go into a negotiation with a clear set of objectives, and then *tell them to the other side*. The UK has spent most of its time arguing with itself about what it wants, and very little time setting out in clear terms to the EU what it proposes, while pretending it is some sort of poker game where the smart player doesn't reveal their hand.
When the UK has put forward proposals, they amount to asking for a privileged relationship without any of the responsibilities such a position would require. Effectively, they are asking the EU to undermine its foundational principles, and the EU cannot agree without seriously - perhaps fatally - damaging the European project.
Therefore, from the EU's point of view, the damage caused by agreeing to what the UK wants is greater than the damage of a no-deal departure, so it's clear where they will end up falling.
Even a minimal deal will require the UK to agree to methods of rule-setting and dispute arbitration, and the more the UK makes itself look untrustworthy (by reneging on treaties, for example) the tighter those rule-setting constraints will be.
The whole problem is compounded by the fact that - perhaps for the first time in history - the UK is going in attempting to negotiate a worse deal than it had before. Every time an offer comes up they realise how bad it is in comparison to the status quo ante and - instead of realising the reality of the situation they have deliberately placed themselves in - they attempt to defy that reality, blame everyone else, pretend there is a better deal to be had, pretend that compromises are not going to be necessary, until they paint themselves so far into a corner that the only way out is by breaking the law.