Originally Harry came in with false law, and now he is arguing that we would have been held back because the EU countries agreed to take the longer route, but we didn't have to agree...
The whole argument is based around ignoring the counterfactual. These people are imbeciles.
Apart from the fact this is disingenuous because most of the response was down to a rubbish take on the regulation restrictions, which has been quietly swept under the table.
It just ignores the fact we weren't in the room when the decision was made. We don't know what the decision would have been had we been in the room.
And it's really just a matter of weeks, with there being benefits to both approaches.
If these people had the slightest bit of intelligence, they would be taking on the substance of what those few weeks would gain us, but instead they just want to focus on the fact we finished first.
If there was a modicum of thought to their position then they would be addressing why we wanted those limited benefits over the limited benefits of doing it the EU's way.
But no, they make up fake law and then imply a political decision by the EU that we weren't at the table for was binding on us.
This isn't rational discourse, this is arguing with people who have no intention to discuss issues beyond the kind of conversations we had in the playground of our Primary school.
We can't go on like this. Not if we want to succeed as a country.
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(I may have just made up that 11 years, but it goes back to some declaration or other before 2010, and they did report that particular event objectively to be fair.)
This is my favourite from the country who have shouted "We're prepared to walk away" for the last 4 years, and I don't remember anyone calling them out and saying "Well that will be a significant miscalculation".
If the press focus on Priti over this, in a week we'll be being told "we have moved on", but if they focus on failure of the Prime minister to sack her, things might be very different.
The Prime minister wants to be seen as a Churchill, while actually just being spoilt, entitled, and lazy. He knows he is all of those things, but insists on trying to cultivate this Churchillian figure who will see us through Brexit.
1. Hello, tonight’s thread is going to be focused on the recent article by @anandMenon1 and @jillongovt about how we ended up outside the Single Market.
2. It makes various claims which have merit, and some, like the EU’s attitude to bespoke deals, which are inaccurate, but it’s biggest failing is not recognising how the media is the main actor in this.
3. At the start of the referendum the government were very clear we would have the vote and then they would look at the various options available.
(They were required to publish those options as part of the referendum act 2015).
None of this language belonged in the debate, and I cannot believe there are people in the BBC that want to close their eyes to it.
Here is a another. We have advisory referendum which means parliament can do what it likes, but apparently if you run for election to specifically do something you are accused of "Overriding democracy".