[no1youknowz]

Yes, the proposed deal does do this. Because Boris just wants a quick win and then wants to say that Brexit is done and then wants to win a majority on december 12.

It's one thing to do what's best for the country and what 17.4 million people voted for. It's another thing entirely to do what's best for yourself (that being boris)

[ceejayoz]

So, again, the deal that's on the table is not the one that was voted for. By your own evidence!

[no1youknowz]

What are you going on about?

First you are saying, people did not know what they are voting for.

Secondly, you are saying the deal on the table is not the one which was voted for.

You are conflating two different issues here.

On the second point. Yes, you are correct. The current negotiated treaty (don't call it a deal because it's a legally binding agreement) is not what the 17.4m British public wanted.

On the first point. The conservatives under May decided to interpret the will of the people and decided on a close relationship with the EU and she negotiated very badly. Thus we are where we are today due to her wilful negligence.

For the last 40 years Politicians have never delivered on their promises. Have never said what they will do on their manifestos. Are you surprised that Politicians are not doing a full on brexit? Because I am not.

[mcv]

> "The conservatives under May decided to interpret the will of the people and decided on a close relationship with the EU and she negotiated very badly."

Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one that would have been more in line with some of the promises that had been made to the British public. Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border. That turned out to be something she couldn't get through Parliament, and it has probably contributed to the general public turning against the idea of a Brexit entirely. No Brexit is apparently better than a bad Brexit.

[no1youknowz]

I'm going to get downvoted more. But honestly, I feel we are living in parallel worlds here.

> Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one

No, Junker asked her if she wanted a FTA. She declined and wanted a closer relationship with frictionless trade. So she got the deal she wanted. The UK in the customs union.

> Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border.

No being in the customs union means the UK has regulatory alignment with the EU. Frictionless trade. It's called BINO. Brexit in name only. It's a soft exit.

She couldn't get it through parliament due to the ERG in the conservatives wanting a much harder brexit and labour saying it did not do enough to be more aligned with the EU.

I'm going to ask a serious question. Have you actually read the withdrawal treaty? Because it's BINO. It's not a hard brexit.

Do you even know what a hard brexit is? Let me explain it to you.

- Own immigration policy. No free movement.

- Able to set own taxes. Corporate Tax, Income Tax, VAT, etc.

- Able to set own foreign policy, full control of army.

- Full control of local fishing waters. Only British fishermen allowed to fish.

- Able to set own regulations for businesses and for manufacturing goods and services.

- Outside of the ECJ. UK law > EU law.

- Great Britain and NI outside of the EU, together. The UK will not be putting up a hard border. Who knows (and cares) what the EU will do.

Let me explain Boris's Deal.

- Own immigration policy. No free movement.

- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our taxes the same as theirs.

- In the transition period. The UK cannot veto anything the EU does and the UK cannot act in such a manner that the EU does not like. After the transition period, some fear that Britain will join the EU army.

- Whilst UK fisherman now have access to UK waters. EU fisherman will STILL be able to fish there.

- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our regulations the same as theirs.

- Probably still under the jurisdiction the ECJ.

- NI inside the EU still. A border in the Irish sea. Although the NI assembly have the right to change this every 4 years. But they have not sat for many years, who knows if this will ever get changed. Regardless the DUP are not happy.

Now that I have outlined both scenarios. Do you still think that May/Boris were wanting a hard brexit?

Finally, why does the EU want the UK to ratify this terrible deal and why the EU does not want a hard brexit?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/14/eu-right-fea...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1180469/Brexit-news-fear-E...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1195966/brexit-lates...

These 4 articles should tell you everything you need to know.

[mcv]

> "We have to set our taxes the same as theirs."

And what is "theirs" here? The EU does not have a singular tax policy. I hope there's some coordination, but every country sets their own tax policy. Your post makes it sound like you're giving that up by leaving the EU.

Many of the things you want, you already had as a member of the EU. You had your own tax policy, foreign policy, full control of your army (if not, then that's on NATO; the EU has nothing to do with armies).

Stuff like fishing, manufacturing regulations, trade, etc are indeed subject to many EU (not to mention international) treaties. You make it sound like the UK does not want any treaties with anyone anymore. Even the WTO is an international treaty. Do you want to leave that too? Do you realise you're asking for economic isolation here? Self-imposed economic sanctions?

And yes, what May wants is a hard Brexit. Anything that takes the UK out of the EU common market is a hard Brexit. Anything that leaves the UK with access to the common market (the Norway or Switzerland model that Brexiteers used to argue for) is a soft Brexit. Breaking off all treaties like you're proposing is the No-Deal Brexit that Johnson seems to prefer if only Parliament would let him.