Instead of the press asking the Prime minister if we will go to no deal if the negotiations fail, they ask him if he will resign if negotiations fail.
He was after all, instrumental in taking us down this path from the beginning.
He claimed that this would be easy.
A failure that will do this much damage to the economy should not be framed as something damaging the purse of 60 million people, rather than damaging the job of the guy who got us here.
Surely one of the solutions to being unable to come to a deal is that the Prime Minister resigns and someone else comes in to try and conclude the negotiation.
Even if it is the case that it doesn't happen and the time runs out, putting your career aspirations before your country and damaging it is absolutely a resigning matter.
We've already had Priti Patel and Dominic Cummings walk away from any of their responsibilities, and if the media don't start asking questions and preparing the groundwork, so will he.
One thing we are sure of it that Boris Johnson will not do the honourable thing and has demonstrated little belief that people should be held responsible for their actions in office.
Next time people speak to the government or the Prime Minister about how the deal is going, please assert that the people aren't just innocent bystanders in this and he answers to us.
It should be made absolutely clear in every exchange, this is a failure so large that it will be expected to stand down.
Otherwise 'No Deal' is being presented as something that is going to happen to the people of this country at his whim, and it really shouldn't be.
/End
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So in my whole time writing threads, I have never come across a more important one for Remainers as we leave the European Union, or one that exposes the politics of this country.
It's called: The story of Peter, Owen, and Anand.
(Thread)
It is July 2016. At the completion of the referendum and after a vote to leave the EU, the think tanks go to work. Anand co-writes a document proposing leaving the Single Market, the ECJ, and having full control of our laws.
Later that year, Owen would sit down and write an article in support for the Labour position of keeping as much access to the Single Market as possible. (October 2016)
If it hadn't been for those "Hard Remainers", there wouldn't have been a meaningful vote. That means there wouldn't have been indicative votes. Theresa May's vote would have been her deal or No Deal.
But I've said we're not going to be blamed, so tonight I'm doing that Peter Mandelson article, and to be honest, having looked into this, I have more respect for him than I started with.
In fact, what Owen is doing is the opposite of what Peter was doing. Peter's article was about trying to move on.
For those keeping track, as of this week the rule was:
The EU are negotiating in bad faith because they aren't giving us the trade deal the WA guarantees.
Today:
The WA definitely doesn't guarantee a trade deal.
I don't mind making these notifications, but as Brexit goes on I think we might need a government institution to keep track of what was said, done, and written down as it changes from day to day.
1. Well if someone hadn’t removed the context and allowed people like Clair Fox to interpret it in the context of her beliefs, then maybe things would have gone better today. (Thread)
2. Because when I read the article you posted, from the context it was presented, I believed that it was a big admission that the push to stay in the EU led to the hardest of Brexit.
3. Then when I read through it, it was about strategic mistakes which I didn’t think are overly controversial.