The
media and opposition politicians are all being very beastly to the Prime
Minister for failing
to answer a simple enough question.
Failing to answer questions is what she does; why the surprise and shock
now? The real news this time is that she’s
admitted that she’s not answering it, and even attempted to provide an explanation
for that. And it’s the explanation which
is the most interesting part.
It’s
paraphrasing, I know – but I hope fairly – but she basically said that Brexit
is a very complex issue with a lot of detail to consider and if there were to
be a new vote, then she would do as she did last time round, and consider all
the factors very carefully before coming to a decision. That’s not as unreasonable an answer as some
have painted it; circumstances do indeed as she put it “move on”, and opinions can change in the light of that. But isn’t that a pretty good argument for
asking the question of the public again once the detail is known? After all, if the person at the centre of all
this can’t say whether she’d support it or not in a vote at this stage, why
assume that all those who voted last time around can’t or won’t also reconsider
the issue?
House of Dogs, part 3: the first Robins v. Robins divorce trial, 1888
-
We continue our series exploring the history of a Pembrokeshire estate and
its family. Howell Harris Francis’s first will, written in 1878 after the
birt...
7 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment