Read on Twitter
The issues that are currently holding up this trade deal as outlined in this statement would barely be a footnote in other negotiations the EU has. I am going to look at each one and ask questions from a reverse perspective!
1/
1/
The first issue is the "Level Playing Field". The EU wants this so that the UK does not de-regulate/remove workers' rights and basically make doing business here more profitable for companies and less favourable to workers, which is not going to happen.
2/
2/
However, if we did (and we really should not) agree to this, will the EU being making sure that it levels up to match the UKs standards across a number of areas? For instance the EU has a minimum amount of annual leave for employees, of 20 days, In the UK it is 28.
3/
3/
So they would need to guarantee that they are going to make that a law across the EU as it is not a "level playing field" otherwise. What about the transportation of livestock? This is going to be banned in the UK, will the EU ban it? Or not?
4/
4/
Lastly,(there are loads more I could use) what about our commitments to be Carbon Neutral? The banning of plastics happening rabidly etc... Will the EU match our rules/laws in these areas? If not why not? They want a level playing field, surely they can't think...
5/
5/
...that their rules are all better than ours, so they would not need to change? Well yes, they do, they want us to follow them even though we are ahead on so many issues (LGBT+ rights being another example, try putting that legislation to the EU!). Without their assurance...
6/
6/
...that they will follow our current standards and future standards, why should we commit to following theirs? What if they lowered and removed all workers rights? We would be forced to follow, so obviously we can't agree to such a stupid idea, just like no country would.
7/
7/
What we would agree to, is, that imports from the UK have met (or exceeded as is more likely) the standards required within the EU. If they don't meet those standards, then they can't be imported/exported - that should be forced both ways!
8/
8/
Next, "Governance". This to me should be the simplest one to resolve there is, obviously the UKs law lords should have the overriding say on any disputes between the EU and UK after the signing of the deal. The Supreme Court is too young to handle such an expectation.
9/
9/
The EU will think that the ECJ is the body to arbitrate, but compared to the law lords it is so inexperienced, it has only a few decades of arbitration experience compared to the UK's system which has been doing this for centuries, 5 years after Germany existed the…
10/
10/
... Law Lords were working away at making sure the best legal system in the world was running smoothly.
Of course, I am being sarcastic, the idea that one nation should have the power to decide on any matters of arbitration is utterly stupid. So why is it a sticking point?
11/
Of course, I am being sarcastic, the idea that one nation should have the power to decide on any matters of arbitration is utterly stupid. So why is it a sticking point?
11/
The EU want the ECJ to have the say on all disputes. Which would mean the EU had control over all aspects of this deal, that and the fact we have a level playing field (which is not level, and is lopsided in favour of the EU) they want to be able to control us if we are...
12/
12/
...deemed to have stepped out of line. The level playing field and the governance are both indirect attacks on the sovereignty of the UK, and anyone foolish enough to agree to them, or thinks that we should is beyond biased, or is clueless as to how this will play out.
13/
13/
This is what the EU are attempting, we agree to the level playing field 
We then agree that the ECJ can arbitrate
The EU then starts to make laws that would be aimed at crippling London, transaction taxes and foreign currency taxation. All aimed at hurting London.
14/
We then agree that the ECJ can arbitrate
The EU then starts to make laws that would be aimed at crippling London, transaction taxes and foreign currency taxation. All aimed at hurting London.
14/
They would want us to follow their (soon to be introduced) single tax rates, on VAT, and Corporation tax plus PAYE and a host of other taxes that the EU has started planning. (Google it and you will find it, it is not being hid, they are doing this in plain sight)...
15/
15/
...we then refuse to follow these rules as they are ridiculous. The law Lords would agree straight away "this is not in the spirit of the agreement that was made etc..." however the ECJ only read words. They only see black and white. They would say, you agreed to this...
16/
16/
...you are legally bound to follow it. Then our PM whoever that would be, would be faced with the question, throw away the deal (that we apparently needed to accept all this for) or follow the rules that will cripple the UK's economy and see job losses, for the EU's benefit?
17/
17/
So, that is why governance is not as simple as it should be which is as follows:
EU/UK should have representative judges appointed to each arbitration (doesn't have to be the same judges each time) and then we have a 3rd nation such as Canada provide judges. There, done.
18/
EU/UK should have representative judges appointed to each arbitration (doesn't have to be the same judges each time) and then we have a 3rd nation such as Canada provide judges. There, done.
18/
Or, we ask the WTO to arbitrate the dispute, there are so many methods and simple solutions that for it to have become a sticking point to me is all the evidence I need that the EU have war-gamed how they intend to play out the future damage they want to inflect on the UK!
19/
19/
Then lastly, the distraction! "Fisheries" that is right, I called it a distraction, because while there are 3 main issues and 2 of them clearly show that the EU have acted in bad faith invalidating the Withdrawal agreement and shows them in a very negative light, our...
20/
20/
...media is focused on talking about fishing and how many years transition the EU want, how many we have offered and the potential to meet in the middle, all the time ignoring the fact that the EU is trying to maintain sovereign control of the United Kingdom via...
21/
21/
...alternative methods. Boris must stand firm. He can't accept these demands, as his predecessor said, no deal really is better than a bad deal, the deal we are being offered with these sticking points is capitulation and a loss of sovereignty. (Also a clear breach of WA GF)
I don't need to talk more about fish, as it is the one area the media are bothering to cover for you. However, I will show this screenshot, which shows that the good faith clause is linked to the WA, and the EU are in clear breach. So no, Boris won't be breaking the law!
23/
23/
The above screenshot from the Withdrawal Agreement shows that the joint declaration is part of the WA and that good faith is to be used in respecting it, and reaching a deal etc... This screenshot shows that the EU have breached the Joint Declaration and therefore the WA!
24/
24/
The EU want to maintain access as they have now, and Macron will veto any deal unless they have the same control. However, they have recognised that we will be an independent coastal state! So ditch the WA (Legally) as the EU have acted in bad faith. We haven't!
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
