Hard to tell anymore whether this is sarcasm or not.
This picture is an allergen. Everything about it makes my ass itch.
Iâd imagine the rest of his feed would give the tweet some context but I took it at face value i.e. it is the ill-informed opinion of a moron.
The trolling is top notch
Classic 4d chess.
Labour wonât openly oppose Brexit or campaign for a second referendum as it will go down badly in their northern seats.
But equally they donât want to be seen to be actively supporting it in case it fucks the economy.
So instead they fudge it both ways and offer to support it but only if the public vote for it a second time. Then if it goes ahead and is a disaster they can say âwell we gave you the option to cancel it so donât blame usâ and if it all goes swimmingly they can say they respected the referendum all along.
Heads we win, tails you lose politics of the highest order.
1 Like
Hopefully this one stays up in saltash for a while
1 Like
What people voted for in 2016 bares little remblance to what is actually on the table.
Pushing this through is like selling tickets to see Jimi Hendrix, filling the auditorium, rolling out Rolf Harris then refusing to refund.
5 Likes
Sadly only people like Esther Mcvey are allowed to change there mind
Even though she jacked her job in over it last Nov but now backs it.
She knows it is far worse than the current deal,but her PM aspirations have helped her change her mind
A while back, Iâd have laughed in the face of anyone who suggested that as even as a remote possibility, but these days that seems as likely as anything else.
The trouble is that not everyone wants a refund. People deserve the opportunity to express their updated opinion. But whoever constructs the referendum has to narrow those opinions down to a few choices and it isnât clear what those should be. The best I can come up with would be a 4-way ballot with transferable votes so Leavers have the opportunity of not splitting their vote. The choices would be
-
Remain
-
Leave with Mayâs deal
-
Leave with no deal (EDIT: If youâre Dominic Grieve please read this as âLeave at the end of the Article 50 period without having entered into any further discussions with the EUâ)
-
Leave with some other deal to be negotiated during an Article 50 extension
Itâs the last one thatâs problematic of course, since so little can be guaranteed about how it might turn out.
VB
2 Likes
According to Dominic Grieve, you canât have No Deal as an option as it isnât enactable in law.
Iâm sure other legal opinions are available, because the gov sure as hell arenât listening to him.
What does he call the thing that will happen if we negotiate a short Art 50 extension, to give us time for a referendum, and we then fail to approve any of the other three options ? I call it leaving with no deal. I think Rees-Mogg would prefer âleaving under WTO rulesâ. Anyway, I meant that thing. If we donât choose something else it will hit all of us, Grieve included (whether he thinks it exists or not) right between the eyes in 296 hours. And counting.
VB
I agree, although thinking about it, if the latter cannot be pre-defined then it would have to be made subject to a further referendum, to be consistent.
The only way that this could be avoided would be to define it, in terms of SM / CU / FoM / ⏠contribution and so on, and say that it would need to be ratified by referendum if it fell outside the pre-approval agreed ranges.
That would stop people voting for it, at least!