Thread by @WomaninHavana

Serious cognitive dissonance in @theresa_may⁩’s Op-Ed.

Citizens of nowhere, we remember.

Hard red lines without any respect to a deeply divided result, we see now.

A refusal to apologise for the #HostileEnvironment.

EU citizens rights, we care. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

May claims a “decent, moderate and patriotic programme that is worthy of” Labour support.

So patriotic it deprives us of jobs?

So decent it leaves British citizens in Europe stranded?

So moderate it strips us of our right to study, travel, live, love & work in 27 countries? /2

May boldly asserts “The British people are not bound by ideology”.

Brexit is nothing but ideology.

There are no proven facts. There is a preposterous belief that we can do everything, as all the evidence before he flees to Paris, Berlin, Dublin. /3

There is no #GlobalBritain in diplomatic circles, just a dawning realisation that the British govt has no interest in speaking plain truths to its people, as it turns onwards & backwards. /4

In the week drug trials were stopped because of Brexit fears, May talks about investing in the NHS with a straight face.

Why aren’t vital NHS jobs being filled?

What will your “low-skilled” £50k immigration do to the NHS?

£350m?

Doctors are against Brexit for good reason. /5

May talks about being for everyone.

If she genuinely believes that to be true, despite overwhelming evidence the young are against her Brexit, she must offer everyone a 1st vote on the true facts.

Give democracy a voice @theresa_may. Otherwise, it’s nothing but empty words. /6

“Inwards and backwards”. Auto-correct...

Post-script. Reflecting on this today, what esp bothers me about the May Op-Ed is that she always had a choice.

She could have chosen to run these last 2 years with a different style & consensus - she could have chosen to be moderate & inclusve. She actively chose not to. /7

She could have stood on Downing St steps & said - this vote was not sufficiently conclusive to empower such cataclysmic constitutional change.

At least 2 more moderate options would have flowed from that choice of strategy. /8

1) She could sensibly have said - let me negotiate. Let’s get all the options on the table before we invoke #Art50, so people understand what that future actually looks like. Then we will vote again. That gave her time & the ability to seek genuine & informed consensus. /9

Or 2). She could have said, for the same reason on the numbers on the vote, the only consensus could have been to remain in the SM & CU - albeit having left in name.

Many of us would not have liked that option, but it may well have achieved some electoral consensus. /10

The fact is, for all her re-hashed words, she has always chosen to impose her will at the expense of seeking consensus.

See the unnecessary election, & language around it about those seeking to block Brexit, her ramming though Art50 & Withdrawal Act &/or packing committees. /11

Her govt has consistently failed to level with the British people about the reality of the choices ahead. She occasionally tipped her hat but marginally. Remember #impactassessments? Remember #NoDealBetterThanBadDeal? /12

This is a Prime Minister who chose to set the tone, right from the start, of hard red lines, of meaningless slogans in the most significant constitutional, legal, political & economic decision our country could take.

And it’s been an unmitigated disaster all through. /13

So that’s why PM May has chosen to write in @ObserverUK.

She has failed to be moderate.

She has failed to make the right choices.

She has failed to unite the country, or her party, or tell the hard truths - sometimes any of the truths - the British people should be told.

/14

In short, this is a failed project, and she knows it.

This op-ed is a begging bowl, that pleads with Labour voters - and voters on all sides affronted by what has happened to our country on her watch (enemies of the people anyone?) - to forget, to let her start again.

/ends