Dreiko said:
When you have the horribly bad for the UK but great for the EU deal that May presented be refused by the EU, you have a situation where the EU is using this element to keep the UK in limbo, unable to leave through their refusal to agreeing with any sort of deal whatsoever.
Uhrm, May's deal wasn't refused by the EU. It was negotiated
with the EU. The EU had already accepted it by the time it was put to the Commons.
The EU didn't do anything to keep the UK "in limbo". May's deal was rejected by the UK parliament, and the UK government then requested an extension.
(I also hope that if you regard May's deal as insufficient, you also recognise that Johnson's deal is literally almost identical. Its been rebranded, but that's about all).
When you have the EU be like this, what is it for one to do? Do you play a staring contest for 20 years while being in limbo still in the EU? Isn't it closer to what people voted for to actually leave even without a deal?
I doubt it, but I don't know, because the leave option wasn't defined. Hence the case for actually asking the people that question.
And isn't the EU at fault for this first and foremost?
This is the kind of trick they do to get you to give up leaving altogether because of this factor. The spirit of the vote result is best honored through a no deal exit than through eternal limbo remaining.
How are they at fault? There was a withdrawal agreement they were fine with that the UK parliament (including Johnson) rejected. Are you blaming the EU for granting an extension that the
UK requested!?
There's no trick. This is the kind of ridiculous blame-shifting game the UK government has been involved in: Johnson voted against the deal, then he pulled his own (slightly amended) deal out of the Commons when the Commons had finally voted in favour.... and yet everything is blamed on the EU.
Its absurd refusal to take responsibility.