I’m no fan of the EU but that is just ridiculous.
He’s reverted to a border in the Irish Sea (which he said no British PM should ever allow) and implemented the backstop immediately for NI.
Whilst he’s removed the ‘threat’ of the backstop for the whole of the UK (if a suitable alternative wasn’t implemented during the 2 year transition period), he’s simply agreed to put it in place from day one for NI, and agreed to kick the can down the road for 4 years.
It’s not a deal, it’s an updated withdrawal agreement. Perhaps you should try and read it so you can see what is different  The way it has been updated clearly relates back to the original articles with replacement text.
And removed the dependency on agreement from the other EU members states to end the frontstop arrangements. That is a big shift in position from theEU. And quite a bit of the rest of the text of the WA has changed as well.
I agree that the veto on implementing the Backstop, in the event of no alternative being implemented, has gone but it’s clear that it’s not required if the backstop is already in place from day one.It appears that Brexiteers are happy for NI to have the backstop, so long as there’s a new border between it and mainland Britain and Storemont (which hasn’t actually sat for 3 years) has a vote on it every 4 years.
That is a disingenuous twist to the interpretation of the text. Another is that it provides NI what is required and avoids a hard border. This facilitating the transition period. Yes it is limiting the backstop as it was known previously to NI instead of the whole of the U.K., but that is where it was required.
Stormont has a choice now.
Can I ask how my interpretation is disingenuous, especially when you then agreed with it? It negates the issue of the hard border, for 4 years, hence kicking the can down the road.
I didn’t comment on the effect of the deal, just posted my understanding in response to the post suggesting that Johnson is a hard negotiator.
Firstly you made the suggestion that the veto isn’t required as the backstop is in effect immediately. The point is that it isn’t there at all anymore. The EU had no veto rights if NI decides they no longer want this. That is a major shift.
Happy is also a loaded word. It’s a comprise, it wasn’t a desire. What I’m happy about is that it resolves a deadlock situation. And not only that but that it also shifts the balance of power away from the EU.It’s not perfect but it is good.
Personally I think every four years is too long.
That is 4 years more often than they were going to be able to vote before. As has been pointed out - it removes the EU's veto which was the main concern with the backstop before.
The Backstop, in its original fallback guise, isn’t there at all because it’s implemented from day one. I agree that the EU veto has been removed, and that’s clearly seen as a good thing, but the how and why also must be highlighted.
I used the term “happy” in response to the various posters here commending Johnson on his great new deal, suggesting that they are happy with it.I agree that a 4 yearly vote in Storemont is too long as well, which was why I suggested it’s kicking the can down the road for Johnson as it, in theory, no longer becomes his problem.