Thread by @Darklord_Kaiser

I'd like you all to follow me on a little #Brexit thought experiment.

Imagine there was a referendum on the legality of cannabis (bare with me, I am going somewhere with this). The question asked of people was thus:

"Should Cannabis, in all its forms, be illegal in all cases?"

It's a simple Yes-or-No question. And if the overall result is 'Yes', then the actions taken by the government are equally simple - ban all the WackyBaccy. No plants, no oils, no medical applications - nada.

A 'No' result, however, is a bit more complicated.

Voting 'No' could cover a number of different possibilities:
-Legalised medicinal oils only
-Legalised medicinal oils + smoking
-Legalised medicinal + recreational use (if over 18) + licenced suppliers
-Legalised med + rec (18+) but no licence required for supply
...

-Legal for all people of all ages for all reasons
-Legal for recreational use, but illegal for medicinal use (for some reason)
-Legal only in designated areas
-Not only legal, but MANDATORY

The list goes on...

Now, people could vote No in our hypothetical referendum for any of the above reasons, but that does not mean they are voting FOR any of them.

Because that isn't the question.

They're only being given the oppertunity to vote AGAINST total illegality.

After the referendum, No voters will say 'I know what I voted for - legal Pot'. And you can see where they're coming from - either pot is completely illegal, or it's legal (even if only in certain situations).

But what they've said is incorrect. They haven't voted FOR anything.

It's a subtle, yet distinct difference.

You could vote FOR or AGAINST one very specific situation.

Voting FOR it creates a mandate for the Government.
Voting AGAINST it does not.

It's a simple matter of information. Voting AGAINST total illegality leaves open too many conflicting possibilities. It is impossible for the Government to declare they have a mandate for any singluar option based on a No result from that referendum.

If Boris 'Liar' Johnson stood up in front of the nation and declared that the governments official position was that because the country voted No, cannabis was now going to mandatory - that every person in the UK had to be high all the time - that would obviously be nonsense.

(Though a perpetually drugged up Tory party would explain a lot about their actions over the past several years).

Let's bring this analogy back round to #Brexit.

In 2016 we had a referendum FOR or AGAINST EU membership.

AGAINST won, but gave no mandate on HOW to leave.

Then we had a General Election - resulting in no Parlimentary majority and thus no mandate on HOW to leave the EU.

In fact, the only specific mandate given in the General Election was NOT to leave WITHOUT A DEAL.

Oddly, the very Brexiteers who claimed this result doesn't mean anything (because GE's are about multiple issues) are now the ones calling for another GE.

Over the past 3 years, the Government have been trying to agree on a workable withdrawal agreement with the EU, with their success ranging from 'Zero' to 'Basically Zero'.

Even if #LiarJohnson does produce a deal from his latest EU negotiations, he has NO MANDATE TO DELIVER IT.

The only way to get a mandate for any specific form of Brexit is to put it back to the People.

A General ELection is unsuitable to this task - they run the very real risk of producing a majority Government with a minority of votes.

The only viable solution to Brexit is to have a #PeoplesVote.

Put a defined withdrawal agreement against remaining in the EU.

If somehow, Johnson IS able to produce an acceptable deal, then he shouldn't fear asking The People to give him the mandate required to execute it.

Otherwise he might as well be trying to make smoking cannabis mandatory.