Let me rephrase that; sick-making parroting. Nausea inducing repetition.

I really did think I could leave the B-situation for a while, but it comes back to slap me in the face. The latest thing comes in the form of a reminder, watching the increasingly desperate Maybe continuing her squirrel search around Europe for something, anything, that might breathe life into the dead horse deal she keeps flogging. Someone please tell her. It is an ex-deal. It has passed on. It has ceased to be. It has expired. It is bereft of life. (with apologies and thanks to Monty Python and the singularly appropriate dead-parrot sketch).

The life she tries to breathe into it has only one source – the increasingly less dependability of the referendum of 2016, where “the people voted to leave the EU” and, according to Maybe, to push that aside would be to break faith with the British people and with democracy.

I am starting to develop an ability to see the mismatch between what politicians say and what their faces give away – Boris Johnson being the prime example as I have mentioned before. He believes not a word of what he says. Now Maybe has contracted this infection too. Every time she says that she is determined to deliver B-word as voted for in that referendum, her disbelief in her own words is becoming embarrassingly obvious. Particularly when she tries to saddle all her party colleagues with this increasingly worthless bit of nonsense. If that referendum really was a holy grail, a sacrosanct manifestation of the democratic will, then every politician of whatever stripe would be on board with it. A very large number of MP’s are not. Not even the principle of party unity, dying on its feet, can rescue the desperately leprotic carcass that came out of that 2016 vote.


The fact that the demand for a second referendum is developing into a nation-wide roar is enough to make it clear to anyone but the most obtuse that it will happen, and soon.

Is there a nutshell into which one can put an explanation for what happened in 2016? I think so. Those who voted against leaving the EU knew what they were voting against because they understood the consequences. Those who voted to leave did not know what they were voting for, because they did not understand the consequences.

Now, there’s no excuse. Two years and a bit of an almost unrelieved diet of B-stuff has made it as plain as plain could be that Britain cannot afford the consequences of leaving the EU. Can someone please explain this, too, to Maybe and those who, however reluctantly, support her?


In a new referendum, provided that it is held under rules that avoid another bare majority, no-one will be able to claim that they do not understand the consequences of a “leave” vote. Those who campaign for a reversal of the 2016 vote will not make the same mistake again, and arrogantly assume that a “remain” vote is a sinecure, a given, as they did last time. They have an opportunity to make the consequences of leaving the EU very obvious to everyone, without laying themselves open to accusations of “Project Fear”.


Final word: what is really behind Maybe’s apparently entrenched position? She is desperate to keep the Conservative party in government, by any means, and herself as PM. She will do anything to achieve that, whatever the cost to the country. And that cost could result in seeing O Jeremy Corbyn into Number 10, which really would be too awful even to contemplate.

Which is why the time has come to stop party politics in its weaving, wavering tracks, and elect a House of Commons where Independents have control.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.