To add insult to injury, the EU will deal with the THIRD request for an extension from the UK in a written procedure, meaning:
1- there will not even be a European summit in Brussels any more to decide on it: after all: it's just routine now, isn't it?
2- BoJo will have to sign off on the document to make it official!
Gotta love the 2-
After weeks repeating he will not request extension, frenetically searching loopholes in the Benn act, claiming it again after the Letwin and pulling out the MV all he had was to ridiculously send the request without signing !!! For nothing, as the letter have been treated as genuine, but now his signature will be needed to confirm the extension, that’s trolling level evil.
That's what happens when you try to play silly games with people who know the little details of all the EU protocols better than the best uberbrexiteer- adviser: the EU will simply apply its rules and Boris ends up with the some egg on his face.
I'm sure the signed document will conveniently be leaked at some point too, just to pull the line that 'I didn't request it, since I didn't sign the lettre' from BoJo's speechbook.
BoJo's deal is a shit deal really for the UK, even worse than that of TM: it empoverishes the people by some 8% (only a no deal will leave people more out of pocket still) and there's going to be a border down the Irish sea under it on top, meaning everything NI sends to GB has to go through customs for instance…
If I correctly understand earlier post, this deal is essentially the same that the EU initially proposed, are the changes Bojo requested what has made this deal such a tragedy for the UK?
Meanwhile, your question has been answered already:
The major difference is within the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of having a backstop kicking in a the end of the transition period if nothing is agreed (putting NI in the Custom Union), the end state is already agreed now and it is NI remaining in UK custom but using EU protocols (more or less) forever. EU also agreed to drop Level Playing Field conditions from the WA and push it in the non-binding PD.
Indeed, during the transition period the differences are purely theoretical only, but the main difference is that now the Tories have clearly decided to basically give NI up in all but name already upfront and for good, thus giving away that their ambitious FTA with the EU they say they will be seeking will not nearly be of the same level as what the UK now enjoys.
If it would, then under the 'old deal' it would have ment that the NI backstop would never have kicked in and so you'd have to be completely daft to be doing what they do now, unless of course they do it because they know the outcome for NI would have been the same anyway AND that in this way they can then have a completely free hand in the rest of the GB from the start.
And the things they want to put their hands on are also given away in fact, through the guarantees on LPFs which got moved from the binding treaty to the non-biding PD!
Instead of focussing what is in the text, you should read what is no longer in the text: compare the 2 versions and see for yourself where the Tories are taking the UK to if they get their way.
If you want some more in depth reading on why the ERG suddenly thinks this is a better deal whereas it is actually giving up more than before, read this. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -interests
The main take-away:A deskilled, low-wage workforce with few rights, with the UK a playground for footloose corporations to shake their tail at the EU’s regulatory regime from 21 miles across the Channel, would suit them perfectly. Therefore when you look at the kind of businesses associated with or owned by ERG notables, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg’s emerging markets fund or Steve Baker’s financial services holdings, it suggests their penchant for transforming the country into a no-regulation tax haven may align with their interests. Ideology and principles come second.
TMs deal painfully tried to keep the UK together, but made their objectives impossible to achieve, so they were against it: BoJo's deal basically puts a border down the Irish Sea (and risks seeing Scotland leave the Union), but allows GB (or England and Wales if Scotland ever leaves) to be transformed into a bargin basement economy, thus making them even more wealthy people than they already are, so they are in favour of it! And most of the rest of the Tories don't care and will vote for anything that their leader brings back (the others have been expelled already), for as long as they can keep their comfortable seat in Westminster, so there you have it: a 'compromise' proposal acceptable to all Tories: wonder why TM never did it in fact, because she's clearly also belonging to the large middle group of indifferent Tories, contrary to Hammond for instance.
Anyway, forget about their proclaimed love of the Union and of their desire to take back control: they just want to take people's rights away, so they can make even more money on their back!