These are in my view the substantive differences between Johnson's and May's Brexit agreements:
1) this agreement creates a customs and regulatory border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It crosses a May red line, although it provides an exit mechanism in NI
1) this agreement creates a customs and regulatory border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. It crosses a May red line, although it provides an exit mechanism in NI
2) the future relationship with the EU would be more distant, though clearer (an FTA)
3) the relationship that is envisioned in the political declaration is not a "Singapore on Thames" — an FTA would be conditional on stringent level playing field provisions as is clear in the political declaration
4) however, there is nothing to stop a government with a clear majority to go for a WTO arrangement, should it wish to do so (this would not be "no deal" as the withdrawal agreement would stand, if passed by parliament tomorrow)
5) govt's own analysis, shows that the more distant the relationship with the EU, the greater the economic hit. Trade deals do make up the loss, the more the UK diverges, the greater the barriers to trade with the EU i.e. any benefits would not be enough to mitigate the losses
*trade deals do *not* make up the loss
