No I don't.

I think they are very frustrated and incredibly patient.

If I was PM I would be finding a way to swallow my pride and get the "May" deal over the line because it's the only one that has a chance of flying.

I have never understood what the objections to the backstop are. We are already a sovereign state and leaving would just confirm that. The backstop is intended to be a temporary protection to be used only if the detailed negotiations run over time. Should they do that, and we believed that the reason was down to EU intransigence, then what would stop us simply enacting new UK legislation that removed our commitment to honour the backstop requirements and then default to the WTO rules?

Am I missing something?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I cannot think of another EU country where part of it is separated by a sea but has a border with another member. Where there is a long history of violence caused by those conditions.

Therefore any other country wanting to leave would not face these issues. I think we are unique in having them. Do you see any similar issues elsewhere?

So I don't see this as an attempt to just throw up barriers to discourage others.

As a side issue just imagine what might happen if, as it might very well in the not too distant future, Scotland holds another independence referendum with the nationalists promising to rejoin the EU? They would likely win but how on earth do we operate that border if the UK government accede to their wishes? Would Wales then want to follow suit? There's no evidence yet of a strong nationalist movement there but I can imagine it taking root after a successful Scottish rejoin. All hypothetical of course but Brexit is a big can of worms.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

THe issue we all must accept that was never considered when the referendum was made is that our current political system and complexities of the UK will never enable a Brexit.
Giving the referendum for leaving Europe was clearly not thought through. Probably because Cameron never thought the leave side would win.
With some 70% of politicians remainers coupled with the complexities of Ireland, it is very unlikely a solution for exit will be found in the foreseeable future.
If I am right, are we going to continue flogging a dead horse while all the while our domestic issues are not being given the attention they deserve? What will happen on 1 November when we haven’t left?

The irish will cave in for another large loan, never to be repaid.
Very high standard of living for a country with the begging bowl out permanently.
They hate the English but not our money.

Glad to see you're finally falling into line midland.

If we leave without a deal and the EU refuse to put up any borders in Ireland I think that I will change professions and become a smuggler as there will be fortunes to be made smuggling goods over the non existent border.

No doubt the more dim witted remainers will start spouting off that it was Boris's plan all along as he's backed by an international smuggling ring

If we leave without a deal don't be surprised if the EU suddenly realises that there is a way to manage the Irish border problem after all.

One more point

Hasn’t Jacob R-M got something to do with hedges? Or is that the Privet Councillor?

I guess both would have problems as trade, and people, flow both ways.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Why? I think an extension followed by a GE is much more likely.

If this "final offer" is rejected, as seems inevitable to me, then it seems that the gap is far too large in basic understanding of what is required for there to be any realistic prospect of tweaks making any difference. I truly hope I am wrong.

If I am right then we will be down to finding out what Parliament will decide to do. This government are not in control of matters.

Elsewhere in this thread I have read suggestions that as EU law is superior to UK law that the triggering of Article 50 would stand above the requirements of the Benn Act. This is the relevant clause in Article 50:-

"3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period."

The key phrase being "in agreement with the Member State concerned".

UK law applies to all, so if the PM is required to ask for an extension then he is obliged by law to do so. That applies whether Johnson is still the PM or has been replaced.

My conclusion therefore is that this is all electioneering and not a serious attempt at finding a deal. Johnson is setting up the scene (choreographed by his stage designer Cummings) ready for his next big performance as the martyr who tried to do what "we" wanted, but was blocked at every turn. This is all about him. He is entertaining in an Arthur Daley kind of way but I wouldn't buy a car from him either.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.