robbin Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually, Alan, they didn't agree a deal with the > UK. The 'deal' you refer to (the WA) was entirely > conditional on approval and ratification by UK > Parliament and therefore was never a 'deal' in the > sense of it being any sort of concluded agreement. It's also conditional on being ratified by the European Parliament. > It was and is, no more than a proposed deal > (which has now been comprehensively rejected by > Parliament). The EU continues to refer to it as a > deal which is not open for renegotiation, but in > truth it is not a deal, because one side has never > agreed to it. It is not therefore a matter of > re-opening a deal. The EU should just be honest > and say they are not prepared to negotiate > something new, instead of suggesting there is some > sort of binding agreement which the UK is seeking > to re-open. To be fair, both sides as well as the press and commentators alike have constantly been referring to it as 'the deal' for quite some time now. It's a Withdrawal Agreement, a roadmap if you like for the 'actual deal' negotiated during the agreed transition period...