Hmm.
It's too hot to be following things closely tonight but my social media feed (probably unlike Miranda Sawyer's) is showing a wide range of reactions to matters related to Mrs May's apparent cabinet getaway Brexit plan.
Besides the ardent anti-Brexiteers I follow, I'm seeing the Spectator calling it Mrs May's "third way", Guido Fawkes calling it the "softest Brexit" and the BBC's Nick Robinson saying that the EU might still reject it in favour of a "softer deal":
Cabinet agreement to Brexit plan matters as it undermines the “we can’t really negotiate because you won’t tell us what you want” excuse used by Brussels. EU27 must now whether to take plan seriously or reject it in hope parliament votes for softer deal.
Now, you - in the light of Guido's claim that this is the "softest Brexit" (a point of view) - may have picked up on Nick saying that a "softer deal" is possible (another point of view) but 'the other side' have been raging at Nick this evening for using the word "excuse".
A representative tweet runs as follows:
A representative tweet runs as follows:
How on earth can you be so misleading as to call it an excuse? The EU hasn't been able to negotiate because the UK hasn't presented anything to negotiate. Am sick of this distorting of the facts from the BBC. Licence fee payers deserve better from their public broadcaster
And another runs:
It’s not an excuse though is it? Why use emotive language? No wonder people question your and the BBCs impartiality on Brexit.
Since when does a reason become an excuse? The BBC really has lost its way and become the mouthpiece for the government.
And even Nick's BBC colleague Hugh 'I hang my views up with my coat' Sykes has joined in the criticism:
What was the EU supposed to do, g u e s s what the UK government wanted - which has never been stated until this evening, more than two years after the EU Referendum vote?
So who's right? Nick or Hugh? Or neither? And why do people only pick up on parts of what someone says when getting offended?
