we find on offer a view from James Hancock, a “Common Man” that “Remainers in Parliament are trying to overturn the will of the people”, one from Kenneth Lamden that makes a “Call for borough MP to engage in “meaningful conversation” with public over Brexit impasse” and one from David Gordon, that asks “So, what is undemocratic about a second referendum?”
We can argue for and against such views until the cows come home. But one thing is certain. It is a matter of law that the UK will leave the EU on 29th March. Only if that law is overturned will we re-consider our position. Locally we recall that in a 74% turnout there were 35,323 leavers and 28,546 remainers. Mr Gordon compares referenda with general elections. It was an act of Parliament that enabled a referendum on membership of the EU. General elections are enabled by different laws.
Mr Lamden mentions how West Lancashire benefits from the EU. How does he know or believe we received better benefits from having our own money paid to the EU returned to us? “Informed advice” from economists is generally proved to be inexpert “guestimatical” fluff.
Now, in the face of disgraceful insults from EU officials
we find that “On the basis of the EU’s own view of what is legally allowed under Article 50 and on the basis of which the negotiations proceeded, the backstop in its present form is illegal as a matter of EU law. The Attorney-General of the UK came to a similar conclusion in paragraph 17 of his advice to the government of 13 November 2018.
“It could also be argued that the backstop is inconsistent with the aim of the Treaty on the European Union to promote peace (expressed in its Article 3) since it is inconsistent with the institutional provisions of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and therefore undermines it”.
So why is Mrs May going back to Brussels to be kissed by these wretched people?
“WTO arguments could be used in the negotiations to secure improvements in the text of the Withdrawal Agreement or the Political Declaration. The WTO provides a basic level of trade liberalisation and there is no need to accept such a level of trade freedom as a concession. The negotiations should have as their objective an enhanced level of trade liberalisation. Many of the positions advanced by the EU as the consequences of a no-deal Brexit (partly to strengthen its own negotiating position) could be contested as inconsistent with the EU’s own WTO obligations”.