Not sure what the discussion will be about.
UK - let us provide banking services.
EU - No.
TD Bank, at least, is stunned at this development. London offices are not big, but every position is going to need to demonstrate a rationale for remaining in the UK next month, with the expectation that most won’t. They did not see this coming.
There was a wide expectation of some level of compromise, with a lot of uncertainty as to where the lines would be. There is absolutely no compromise here.
As I have said from the start. I can not fathom where the ‘misunderstanding’ was/is. Did noone honestly not know what the situation is?
How far apart UK financial regulations are to most of Europes?
What did they think the UK’s preveledge was?
I think that just about sums it up - unilateral decisions by Britain and the bloc, rather than provided for in the trade agreement.
It’s a good job that financial services only account for roughly 40% of UK exports to the EU or we’d be really up the creak. 
I think the expectation was that the difficulty was because the UK was demanding the crown jewels, so to speak. That somehow, some line of division was being worked on that would allow the UK some level of services access, in exchange for market access in the UK. To quote my TD friend:
“What the fuck was so hard about a deal this asymmetrical?”
To me, if the above summary is true it looks like Boris has gone in and said
“give me free trade, some fish and stop freedom of movement. I’m not bothered about the rest. I’m only interested in stuff that will make me look good.”
Yes, I would say my concern about it perhaps being in for a rough ride in the European Parliament was clearly misplaced. Should be close to unanimous once they can stop laughing.
Why would the UK agree to something that is so obviously one sided(if that’s what you’re saying)?
When’s the Everton style Brexit DVD coming out?
Political expediency (“Get it done”) and it is nonetheless better than no deal circumstances a week from now. There is provision for seamless trade arrangements for some sectors, ‘trusted trader’ arrangements, that is not nothing. But fundamentally, the part of the EU-UK trading balance that was UK surplus has been cut off, while the portion that was in EU surplus will benefit. That is by definition asymmetric.
How does Starmer whip up support for this?
I think he just plays the ‘better than the alternative’ line. His Remain-leaners understand that, his Leave-leaners aren’t going to be the ones to go radical. His real choice is whip or free vote. If he whips, he potentially forces Johnson into fracturing the Tories if there is significant Tory pushback. With a free vote, he washes his hands of it and tells Johnson he has to knock Tory heads together, which probably dooms Johnson.
The problem as I see it is in late January and the UK is turning into a bigger mess, Johnson can just turn round and say “you agreed to this”.
How’s about, Bozo’s a plank and didn’t read understand what he was signing off? 
Boris might sign off on a deal but there are others who also have to agree in order to get it through parliament.You can’t just put a bucket of shite in front of them and expect them to see the Mars bar.
Presumably because they got what they wanted? At least this is what’s doing the rounds.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nufcdadio9/status/1342183055268708356
So you’re against the United Kingdom then
Of course you can. You do realise that you are talking about the tory party (and its supporters), don’t you?
At least you didn’t say anything about fish.
Can you explain to me what your TD friend means/meant?
Btw Cameron knew all this and perhaps more (and we mustn’t forget he betrayed Hollande (Macron was Hollande’s financial advisor so not easily forgotten)).
Let’s face it there was nothing the UK could put on the table that could get near balancing financial services. Anyone who thought it possible can only be classified as a moron.
Edit: I forgot to mention May’s deal, looks like that should have been accepted imo just soo much wasted time.