Why can't thin-skinned Brexiteers handle a bit of salty language from Donald Tusk?
Please send your letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Oh my goodness! How thin-skinned are our flag-waving, taking-back-control Brexiteers! Why on earth are they so upset about talk of a “special place in hell”? Or about the amusing follow-on comments from Europe? They are so happy to make (laughingly, so-called) policy on the basis of a bundle of lies and an anti-immigration stance and then get all squeamish about the mention of hell. Reality check, anyone?
Why all the feigned surprise and outrage at Donald Tusk for mentioning that the ardent Brexiteers hadn’t thought through their ideas when we have known this for ages? The outrage should be aimed at the reckless and slovenly thinking of the avid and persistent pro-Brexit campaigners for the harm that their woeful inadequacies are doing to the country.
Thirsk, North Yorkshire
At least we Leave voters know our history
In view of Brexit, I have been trying to understand both the Irish backstop and the Good Friday Agreement. I came across a survey of young Irish people, where they were asked about the Good Friday Agreement, and the best anyone could come up with was that it was something to do with a peace process. The comment was that young people who had never lived without it didn’t even know what it was.
The same could be applied to the Brexit vote. The young are so proud to have voted Remain and consider themselves superior to the “oldies”, but if you asked them if they understood what the common market was and how it came about, they wouldn’t have a clue. Ask them about the common fisheries policy or the common agricultural policy and they would reach for their iPad, phone or computer to contact their equally ignorant “friends”.
My 32-year-old son and I were having a discussion a few days ago about how we would vote if there were another referendum. I voted Leave, while he voted Remain, but he now says that having seen how controlling and difficult the EU can be, that he would vote to Leave.
Donald Tusk said yesterday that there will be a “special place in hell for those who promoted Brexit”. This is the person with whom we are trying to negotiate, and who represents the EU. So what do the 20-year-old Remain voters think now?
Take Tusk’s words with more than a pinch of salt
I am astonished that you are prepared to accept Mr Tusk’s extremely dramatic words about hell and Brexit. I am also astonished that, on your front page, you intimate that he was referring to all Brexiteers rather than Brexit politicians.
All politicians must be exhausted and exasperated, whatever views they hold. Mr Tusk’s comment was ill-judged as it furthers the Brexiteers’ cause. It is also surely deeply offensive to people who still believe in the concept of hell, hardly “slightly salty”, as argued by Tom Peck.
Very strong and “conversational” language in a speech. A great pity. Even if you agree with him!
Chasing unicorns and pipe dreams
Considering your article, “Theresa May accused of ‘chasing unicorns’ over plans to end Brexit impasse after Northern Ireland talks”, surely the real problem of the backstop is that it would ultimately hold the Brexiteers accountable for their half-baked ideas?
Throughout the referendum and its aftermath, leading Brexiteers made extravagant claims and promises, including on trade. We’d sign up to some of the easiest trade deals in history. We could have our cake and eat it. Even border controls would be no problem because of technology.
So far, great trade deals have been conspicuous by their absence. The Irish backstop is now a problem as the Brexiteers know it continues until they deliver on their promises. They also know this is unlikely. Max fac and their other preferred technology solutions are political flimflam, not the basis for frictionless trade.
Parliament needs to take back control. When something can’t be done, a rethink is needed. The country needs to decide between achievable objectives or aiming at Brexiteer pipe dreams.
Spookily enough, dating hasn’t changed in many years
I am writing about the article by Christine Manby entitled “Is it ever OK to ghost someone?” Ms Manby begins her piece by saying “Ghosting is one of the worst things to come out of the digital age”. I continued reading to discover what this new phenomenon was, to learn that it meant ending a relationship by breaking off contact with the other party. This is nothing new at all and in fact Ms Manby acknowledges this further on in her piece by saying “but of course the concept isn’t new, before mobile phones and social media people stopped responding to love letters or didn’t answer their landlines”.