I started to read the "withdrawal" "agreement" but these things are not that attention grabbing to those unused to examing them, so like most, I allowed the experts to interpret for me and place their interpretation in the public domain. They were mostly scathing. I was particularly taken by one found in the Spectator that went through it pointing out the issues.
I think it's clear there is too much wrong with it to act as a basis for change. The NI issue (which ought not be an issue at all) being a particular sticking point. But there were trade negotiation restrictions too. It was an error trying to separate specific withdrawal demands from trade discussions in the first place. It seems to me that they should have started with an agreement over security, joint projects to continue, citizens' rights, etc. and ignored mugging attempts demanding cash for leaving and offering no evidence anything was legally owed. Then the Canadian trade agreement should have been used as a basis and expanded that to cover services and other areas as they were uncovered. As it is, time is tunning out, no shift in EU position has been seen, nor is likely, and no-deal has been all that's left for ages now.