@roschappell@mastodonapp.uk
🌍 before 🇪🇺 and 🇬🇧.
Country before party🔸
Jun 9, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
"Ukraine is the frontline of the global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism." @apmassaro3
No, much worse. There are and have been many authoritarian regimes: Franco, Greek junta, Egypt... Russia is a belligerent gangster state on steroids, threatening world stability
Since his rise to power, Putin has become deemed untouchable & one of the richest men in the world, through blatant theft, corruption, threats, murder, instigating brutal war, brainwashing Russians. His aim is not just an empire, but to weaken the West, destroy rational thinking
Mar 5, 2022 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
I am so ashamed of the West. They praise Zelensky's bravery, but hang him out to dry. Biden, Stoltenberg and others repeat: NATO will not do what is needed to save Ukraine. It is TERRIBLE poker. @ZelenskyyUa is right. They've given Putin the green light to annihilate Ukraine.
@ZelenskyyUa NATO and western leaders admit they miscalculated about Putin in the past. They were warned, and all the signs were there. But they didn't listen, maybe paralysed by fear of the awfulness that a ruthless gangster was running a country with nuclear weapons.
Aug 23, 2019 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
As every logician, philosopher, or Lewis Carroll fan knows, if you start with a false premise, valid reasoning can take you to weird conclusions. That is why Brexit is like the topsy-turvy world of Alice in Wonderland.
The false premise is *MPs must enact the referendum result*.
MPs have a duty to act in the interests of UK. Normally, holding a ref would not conflict, because normally the electorate isn't asked if it wants to self-harm. And if asked, the electorate is expected to say 'no'. It's like asking your child "Do you want to make yourself sick?"
Aug 5, 2019 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
Brexiters are using tactics of psychological abuse on the public
It is political gaslighting to gain control of UK’s psyche, just as an abuser in a personal relationship gains control of his victim.
It is done slowly so we don’t realize we are being brainwashed: boiling frog
It is the strategy of dictators and cult leaders.
1.They tell blatant lies with a straight face, including denying they ever said something, even though you know they did. For example, they deny they ever suggested that we could stay in the single market if we vote Brexit.
Feb 22, 2019 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
This is shocking if not surprising. Proof that Putin is doing in the EU what he did in the US. The probability is Brexit is made in Moscow. Or at least parts are. And May, suppressing investigation, is at best defending *her* Brexit, at worst colluding
This is no time for People's Vote. I even think the EU elections should be postponed. The West, including the EU, has been underestimating an existential crisis. Putin has been waging a clever subtle war. We don't want to see it.
ps: more "protecting *her* Brexit" than defending
Oct 22, 2018 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
The PM says over & over again:
*They voted to Leave and we will deliver on it*
But she is not delivering what they meant when they voted to Leave. It's like we order prawn chow mein and they deliver pork spare ribs.
If May wanted to find out what the people meant by Brexit, she had to ask them, near the time of the referendum, when it was fresh in their minds.
ComRes did that. Only 35% of Leavers thought they were voting to leave the Single Market.
That is only 18% of all voters
May 13, 2018 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
THREAD: I don't agree @Femi_Sorry. Pandora's Box may have been opened anyway, infecting GB with populism, but it's past time we tell the truth. It was PM's & Parliament's job to stop Brexit. After advisory ref, PM weighs result together w all relevant factors to decide policy.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @Femi_Sorry view original on Twitter
Then policy is put to Parliament to scrutinize & legislate if nec. May cheated, claimed ref was the decision. Normally it would be natural for a ref result to be accepted, because normally a ref asks about a change for the good. If the ppl reject the change, it's status quo ante.
May 12, 2018 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
It is flawed thinking. *Legally advisory but politically binding* is meaningless. The legal status of the Act trumps the political promise. Ref was perverse because one of the options was against the interests of UK. It's not normal to ask the public *Do you want to self-harm?*
Process following the advisory ref is alluded to in briefing paper 07212. Mercer QC understood it directly I raised the issue at the conference. The Exec decision is based on considering the result together with all other relevant factors. They have latitude on weight accorded.
Apr 27, 2018 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
Either @abcpoppins is right about #A50Challenge or we have a profound constitutional crisis, b/c it will be determined that Parliament can be tricked by a sleight of hand into giving the PM power to bypass a legally required process, in effect giving the PM power to break the law
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @abcpoppins view original on Twitter
The decision process required by #A50 is simply that which separates democracy from dictatorship. Executive decides on policy within its party political perception of national interest, based on evidence, impact analysis, etc. parliament scrutinizes, then legislates if required.
Mar 28, 2018 • 10 tweets • 4 min read
THREAD: May & Corbyn have perpetuated a lie, so successfully that even Remain politicians fall in line: The people decided to leave the EU in the 23 June referendum,
*Referendum was a decision* was exposed as untrue in the Miller case, but the lie persists. #A50Challenge
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @A50Challenge view original on Twitter
So why do they persist with a lie? B/c the ref was advisory. Brexit was supposed to be May's policy decision, then for Parliament's scrutiny. But Brexit is a stupid policy. May didn't want to own it or have Parliament scrutinize it. Easier to bypass this procedure w *ppl decided*
Mar 22, 2018 • 10 tweets • 2 min read
Starmer: "With Labour having consented to the plebiscite it would be intellectually dishonest to say “Now it’s gone the way I don’t want, I’m not going to accept the result.”
What is dishonest is to legislate for advisory ref w/out safeguards & assessment a mandate would require
Then to deceive the electorate, telling them it is their decision - a mandate - when the law says it is not their decision, but advisory.
Then, though you're a barrister, to contradict what the law says & confirms in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
Mar 5, 2018 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
Ooops, @DLidington, that's not what you told the House on 16 June 2015, during debate on the EU Referendum Bill. THREAD
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @pestononsunday view original on Twitter
You replied to Alex Salmond that the referendum was advisory, so nothing followed from it, and therefore a safeguard, such as Amendment 16 which he wanted, made no sense.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @RosChappell view original on Twitter
Feb 28, 2018 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
THREAD: Thank you Vernon Bogdanor for stating what many of us on twitter have said but virtually no politician dare admit
There is no such thing as *Soft* Brexit. The Hard vs Soft debate is a ruse, a disingenuous attempt to *respect the result* without destroying the country
As if just leaving the seats in the European Parliament is what *leave the EU* meant in the referendum, The debate (if it can be dignified as a debate) was not about a building. It was about the rights & obligations, the costs & benefits, of EU membership.
