Cant see it.We had 3 years of May promising (over a 100 times) that the UK would leave on the 31st March - then she reneged. Boris stood for election based on leaving on the 31st Oct 'do or die' - and he has consistently repeated that promise.
If he does a May and reneged on that promise he is toast.
He won't be toast.His voters know he lies and they don't care.They will still vote for him because 'he's Boris'.
That's what I said he should have kept in the bag, and not spouted his bluster about "do or die", "dead in a ditch".
Potentially sealed his own fate with such ridiculous language.
Where he has shot himself in the foot over this was to continue to claim we would leave on the 31st after Parliament moved the goal posts on him.Which makes it harder to claim it's their fault if we don't leave.
Oh yeah it's just even more evidence of his bullcrap. And there's no way he'll escape his own comments if he ends up asking for an extension. Could even harm his election chances, which just plays into the hands of everyone else. There'll be very quick to remind him of the ditch. And I hope they do.
I see the EU has rejected weekend negotiations on the grounds there is nothing to discuss whilst the Johnson deal is in its current form.Hopefully the UK Government will spend the time on a complete re-scrub instead,
The arrogance. Won’t do them any favours.
What I also find astonishing is the very limited reporting regarding the EU Euro Central Bank row. Many countries have written very critical to the ECB regarding their monetary policy, causing negative interests rates, allowing zombie companies to survive and setting the zone up for some very serious issues. It’s co-signed by Netherlands, Germany, Austria and France. The ECB is just responding that they shouldn’t be openly critical.
The EU Euro zone is not looking good at all.
I guess that doesn’t fit with the narrative regarding Brexit.
Fight 
/proxy.php?image=https://c.apple.news/AgEXQWZ6Ym5hVTlzUjlHS1lld0drOG5XV3cAMA&hash=b2f2a3a69e4de444d51b79fee62cfd8f&return_error=1 Brexit news latest: Boris Johnson says UK will leave the EU on October 31 with 'no delay' — Evening Standard Boris Johnson has insisted the UK will leave the European Union by October 31 with “no delay”. /proxy.php?image=https://apple.news/images/favicon.ico&hash=728d017d40f6c9e9b93612054cd124ca&return_error=1 apple.news
No.
The 'Backstop' issue is a diversion from the rest of EU's cynical deception in the 'transitional agreement'.The backstop just ensures the EU can use its dictatorial and draconian ideology on Britain in perpetuity and leverage all types of demands from the UK until it totally subordinates the UK and ransacks its economy and sovereign independence. One only has to look at how the EU are currently treating the Swiss as their bi-lateral agreements are coming to an end. Like an imperial power born from the 19th century the EU has tried to place the Swiss economy under all types of economic duress until, basically, it's people (direct democracy), cave in and totally acquiesce and subordinate themselves to its demands.
The WA is no different, one incompetently agreed by May and the EU's favourite diplomat - Olly Robbins. This is a treaty unique in nature which arguably contravenes international law and one so one-sided and harsh it hasn't been seen since the Treaty of Versailles - and we haven't just tried to take a continent by force!
The UK will have to stay in the SM and CU during this period and won't just be bound by present rules but will also by bound by future ones. The EU will have no interest whatsoever in protecting the UK's economy as a member anymore and could pass laws that effect (purposefully or carelessly) against the UK's interests. The WA/TA is set up so that the UK will stay in the Common Fishery Policy for example, and if the UK does not acquiesce to such demands the EU can demand the 'transitional agreement' remains in place. The EU initially said the TA will only last 2 years, Simon Coveney spoke how that could undemocractcally be extended to 4 years. Who is to say, unless the UK rolls over to every demand the EU make during the TA period, 4 years won't turn to 6 and 6 to 8?
Currently, there are four locks that give the EU permanent sovereignty over the UK and it's economy:
1. The transition period of 'all pay and no say'
2. The Backstop
3. Political declaration - ensuring BRINO
4. Supplement to the political declaration where its terms are clear, conclude at lightening speed a future partnership that consigns the UK to best second class membership of the EU, at worst vassalage.
Here are just some of the pitfalls to the WA/TA "negotiated" by May, suffice to say, it is a trap:
- Trade arrangements under the WA would be worse than WTO - the UK would lose access to third country markets under an EU agreement, yet those third countries would retain access to UK market with no concern for British business or producers.
- The WA mandates the future trade deal must be built on a customs arrangement the most economically damaging deal for the UK which requires full implementation of the EU's trade policy and WITHOUT any say. UK consumers as part of this protectionist bloc will carry on paying on average 16% higher food prices than the RoW.
- Going back to the WA 'unique nature' this international treaty has no exit clause, once signed the UK cannot legally escape its provisions, unless it accepts beneficial arrangements to the EU.
- May argued the point above and the WA itself could be abrogated if it could prove the EU negotiated in 'bad faith'. Though many of us know the EU have negotiated in bad faith with their draconian measures in place for the UK, it would be next to impossible to 'prove' the EU negotiated in bad faith and therefore wouldn't be able to leave the treaty unilaterally if the UK wanted to.
- Another important issue that has gone under the public's radar and one that didn't parliamentary scrutiny was the EU's demand, or May's willingness to totally subordinate the UK's defence and security structure to EU control for full integration. This, is totally different to 'cooperation'.
- The ECJ would remain supreme over this period and this foreign court would be allowed to prosecute the British government up to four years after the WA binding the UK to its judgement and fines thereafter.
- The WA would also be able to restrict UK government for support into agriculture and defence industries while placing no restrictions on the EU in these areas.
- The WA makes the UK a rule taker from the EU in areas such as trade, competition, environmental, social and even tax policies.
The backstop is a diversion to the trap of this transitional agreement of which it has many pitfalls for the UK as an independent sovereign nation.