If they didn't vote Remain in the 2016 referendum what else could they have voted for?
The point is that it no longer remains the UKs choice to leave. A backstop situation and preparing for it is not necessarily a problem. Handing over the decision solely to the EU to determine when it is good to go is a problem. And contractually that is what we would be agreeing to, ergo it is no longer a choice of the UK.
The EU cannot be trusted on the backstop. It really is that simple.
/proxy.php?image=https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a4c0f97708722085cae2e03c061d0d2789bb27f5/0_96_3500_2100/master/3500.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=d90ea7666b05dee93b931ec762733ae6&hash=c0ed0e7bee8999c529d8c760e7430963&return_error=1 UK will stay in customs union without fishing deal, says Macron French president lays down Brexit red lines in talks over future relationship with EU /proxy.php?image=https://assets.guim.co.uk/images/favicons/fee5e2d638d1c35f6d501fa397e53329/152x152.png&hash=67d6889a1b6b515b2f5bbd7b59798083&return_error=1 www.theguardian.com
This is one of their leaders saying publicly they will abuse the backstop. I'm sure many others will be less public about it, but will still seek to abuse the backstop to force non Irish border related concessions.
How can you possibly trust them when their bad faith is there in black and white?
Indeed, but even when you do. A contract is a contract, it is just plain daft to give away such level of control. It is our choice today, why would anyone want to give up on such a freedom?
To me it is not a question of whether an individual's opinion is logically complete or well thought through. If it is the opinion of a single individual and they cannot claim that they are speaking for anyone else then it is not worth reporting on national news.
Of course commentators and experts are individuals as well. However, they have at least gained a position that is worth at least listening too - because they have either shown expertise in the area in question or have some kind of public voice e.g. they started a campaign group that has a number of supporters or they write an editorial that is widely read. Whether you agree with their opinion is an entirely different matter.
Some of your comments are valuable but let's try to keep the debate to specifics. Some real people, MPs for example, who have `gained positions' are openly declaring they oppose leaving the EU. That means they are going against the democratic will of the people and I don't think that's right for an MP. This is what I was pointing out in my original point 3. Continuing on the theme of MPs who say we should not be leaving the EU. Their logic is probably that the decision was made in haste, people didn't know enough about it, we were mislead etc. But people get the government they deserve and at the point of the Leave/Remain referendum we deserved to be there -ignorant of the facts for example- and I don't exclude myself from that. You cannot go back, you must proceed from where you are and we are leaving the EU 31/10/19. That is the democratic decision even if all those who said Leave were ignorant peasants and all those who said Remain were learned experts. I could understand a call for a new referendum provided it respects the circumstances. For example it might not be too late to have a referendum: Do you want to leave with the Deal (ie the WA) or with No Deal? If many people contacted their MP with their choice on this then we might establish a consensus.
I'm sorry Squiffy but your last reply to me implied I hadn't read the information your link led to when I had before I gave a considered reply to the same comment above. Not only that you showed me an angry icon and I can't deal with people who get so emotional. I repeat what I said. President Macron is not the EU. The terms of the Withdrawal Agreement which represent 27 EU countries are written in black and white and I think I pointed you to the Explainer for The Withdrawal Agreement (EWA). One of the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are that both sides will act in good faith. Below are two extracts from the EWA relating to fisheries which was one of the areas of the WA which I originally mentioned.
Fisheries (page 28)
121. Specific arrangements are also made in relation to fishing opportunities, to enable a smooth transition to the new relationship between the UK and the EU. During the implementation period the UK’s fisheries rules will be aligned with those of the EU and the UK’s share of catch cannot be reduced. During the last year of the implementation period, the UK will be able to negotiate its own fishing opportunities for the following year. The UK and the EU intend to conclude a new fisheries agreement in time to determine fishing opportunities for the first year after the Implementation Period, in preparation for which during the Implementation Period the UK can be invited to form part of the EU’s delegation in international negotiations.
183. (page 43) The rules governing the single customs territory do not automatically apply in respect of fishery and aquaculture products. These products would be included when a UK-EU Fisheries Agreement has been reached that includes arrangements on access to waters and fishing opportunities. Nothing in this Protocol prescribes the content of that fisheries agreement, and the UK as a whole will not be part of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Where?I can't see one, though I may have missed it.
My apologies IronGiant. I was actually responding to another member and I took so long the system may have misbehaved. I'm still getting used to it.
Yes, the terms of the withdrawal agreement is that they will act in good faith.
Despite that, Macron said they would keep us in the backstop unless we give them fishing right concessions.
You say he isn't the EU. He is one of 27 members who can all make similar demands. Any future deal can be vetoed by any of them, so they all have the power to keep us in the backstop and to force concessions.
If Macron is making these statements publicly despite the good faith clause in the WA, what are they planning to extort behind closed doors?