,
14 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
2/ First up, I admire you for being vocal about remaining in the EU and challenging leaver voters on the consequences of their vote. These are good things
3/ I was surprised by your comments to me challenging you on your moral argument that leavers should be sacked first*
*only a little bit surprised, this is Twitter after all
*only a little bit surprised, this is Twitter after all
4/ I mean nowhere in your article do you talk about radio isotopes. I agree with you there is a risk of medicine shortages but that has nothing to do with your article or my original tweet. I have also called out that risk for quite a while
5/ And your question about who is entitled to medicine post-Brexit raises a whole series of moral questions so let's just stick to the one in your article - namely leave voters should be sacked first
6/ I get the point is that they should own their decision but simply saying they should be sacked first does not work in my view
7/ It would be illegal for a start but you recognise that. But if it were legal what precedent would it set? If Labour get into power and implement a policy that causes job losses, does that grant Tory voters immunity?
8/ More practically, even if you did sack leave voters, there would be no guarantee that you could save all the jobs for remain voters.
9/ How would you treat a leave voter who regretted their vote? Or who voted Lib Dem in the last election, or emailed their MP for another vote?
10/ I agree with you that one should challenge leave voters.
A better moral argument would be to ask them if they would volunteer for redundancy to save the jobs of their remain voting colleagues?
That puts the onus on them
A better moral argument would be to ask them if they would volunteer for redundancy to save the jobs of their remain voting colleagues?
That puts the onus on them
11/ But simply arguing they should be sacked first, however angry you are at them, will not help heal the country
12/ It wont help persuade them to change their mind or make them think that remaining is the better route.
Would you be persuaded by someone's argument whose first instinct would be to sack you? Would you think if they got their way that they would look out for you?
Would you be persuaded by someone's argument whose first instinct would be to sack you? Would you think if they got their way that they would look out for you?
13/ I don't think I would be persuaded. If we are to succeed with staying in the EU, we need to offer a future that works for as many people as possible and that goes beyond just staying in the EU but making the UK better and fairer
14/ So @terrychristian please keep up your great campaigning. It is hard and frustrating work. If the idea is that your shock doctrine jolts people into thinking differently, then I get it.
But it is not a moral argument and its not wishy washy nonsense to question you about it
But it is not a moral argument and its not wishy washy nonsense to question you about it
