Ok raging, your post confirms where you are going wrong.
The transition period is
not governed by the withdrawal agreement (save that it acknowledges its existence). The transition period was agreed in March when David Davis was at the Brexit helm. The Labour Party supported it (Keir Starmer called it a step in the right direction) and I would be surprised if anybody other than ultra-hard line leavers are seriously opposed to it. It basically says that we stay as we are from when we leave on 29th March 2019 until 31st December 2020, save that we don’t get any say in making the rules that we have to comply with – hence it being like the Norwegian model that you favour
The withdrawal agreement that was put forward last week is contained within a 500+ page document which you can read here:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...greement_0.pdf
The withdrawal agreement sets out our financial obligations to the EU and confirms that at the end of the transition period, free movement and membership of the CAP and CFP ends, amongst lots of other technical matters.
The primary purpose of the transition period is to allow time for the negotiation of a future trade agreement. The EU say that they will not enter substantive talks about that until after we have left next March. Davis tried to negotiate a trade deal alongside the withdrawal agreement, but was repeatedly rebuffed.
Where it gets contentious is that the withdrawal agreement contains a ‘backstop’ which provides that if a future trade relationship is not agreed by 31st December 2020, the entire UK will remain in the Customs Union, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the creation of a customs border on the island of Ireland. It’s not popular in the UK because remaining in the CU means accepting the continuing partial jurisdiction of the ECJ and hampers our ability to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. The DUP don’t like it, because it contains some additional checks on trade across the Irish Sea (over and above those that already exist and have done for years, mostly in respect of bio-security…). The EU doesn’t like it, because it is seen as a risk to the integrity of the CU and some fear that it could give the UK a competitive advantage in EU markets.
The real bone of contention in the UK is that the backstop is, if triggered, not time limited and cannot be ended unilaterally by the UK (although, as I have said, in practice it can be, if we are willing to deal with the backlash from the EU for breaking the terms of the agreement).
You can find them in the draft withdrawal agreement. You are the only person – lay person or politician- who is suggesting they aren’t there. Don’t you think Rees-Mogg or the press would have picked it up if May were telling porkies about its contents?
I have never said that it pained the EU to make concessions on FM, CAP and CFP. None of them need feature in a
trade agreement, but may do. It is hard, however, to see the EU and May falling back from the position already agreed in the draft withdrawal agreement.
You seem to have tied yourself up in knots searching the joint EU/UK political statement that I linked to (not realising that you are not au fait with the sequencing of leaving and the nature and number of the documents in play - sorry). That statement is entirely separate to the draft withdrawal agreement and is, in essence, a framework for future trade negotiations.
I understand your position on the willingness of the EU (not Teresa May) to go back on everything it has said in the last few days about the draft withdrawal statement being their final offer. I just think you are likely to be proved wrong. A couple of days ago you were running around like a hyperactive puppy about something David Davis said in January 2017 about the deal he hoped to get in the withdrawal negotiations. He failed because the EU stayed remarkably united in saying ‘non/nein’ until he got the message and May got a grip of him at Chequers. You and Labour are going to be left with a lot of no deal egg on your face if it turns out that you have made the same mistake as him. Unfortunately, the rest of the country will get a portion too.
As for Corbyn winning a GE, it’s a bit like the collective wet dream that Labour seemed to have after the 2016 GE, when he rattled on about preparing an alternative Queen’s speech. I just don’t see the mechanism of how it is supposed to happen.
Sure, the DUP are a bit cross and are doing some sabre rattling, but do you think seriously think they would risk bringing down the Tories and having Labour gain power under the current management? They fear being separated from the rest of UK and having a border in the Irish Sea, whereas the current Labour leadership team have spent much of their political lives working for just that outcome. And the DUP MPs are likely to have had friends or family who were gunned down or blown up by people that the current Labour leadership may have backslapped and taken tea with. Northern Irish politics can be bonkers at times, but surely not that bonkers?