Regular readers of this column will know I have something of a love-hate relationship with Warrington South MP Faisal Rashid.

I believe he has done some good work for which he has to be commended – his support for WASPI women affected by the change in state pension age is a case in point.

But I have been less convinced about his stance of Brexit.

Now I have firmly nailed my colours to the Remain mast. Personally, I would prefer the government to revoke Article 50 and let us all take stock of where we actually are in our relationship with the EU.

Failing that, given we all know so much more now than we did three years ago about Brexit, I believe the only safe way forward is to put any deal back to the people for a confirmatory vote.

There you go, my opinion in black and white. You can take it or leave it, I don't mind and I fully expect there is a significant number of people out there who don't agree with me

But it's been much harder to pin down what Mr Rashid thinks.

At one point, he did seem to be leaning towards a public vote (when Jeremy Corbyn seemed to be leaning towards a public vote).

Then, I wasn't sure exactly what his position was.

But now we have it from his own mouth, caught on camera by Local Democracy Reporter Aran Dhillon.

Well done Mr Dhillon for asking the question and getting the answer that Mr Rashid is in favour of us leaving the EU with a deal (presumably the deal that Jeremy Corbyn thinks he can get – the so-called Lexit).

A brave (some might say foolhardy) decision by Mr Rashid given that more than 10,000 of his constituents have signed the Revoke Article 50 petition on the Government's website – almost nine per cent of the Warrington South electorate in a constituency that Mr Rashid himself says was split almost down the middle between Leavers and Remainers.

Tough decisions to make leaving the supermarket...

The supermarket I use for the weekly 'big shop' has one of those charity systems whereby customers get a token at the check-out.

On the way out of the shop, they can choose from usually one of three different charities or good causes and drop their token in the appropriate container.

These containers are transparent so shoppers can clearly see which is doing best and gaining the most support.

The way the system goes, I am lead to believe, that after say three months, the winning charity is given a grant by the supermarket. And if I am correct, the second placed organisation gets a smaller grant and so on.

Recently, a good cause close to my heart had the good fortune to be selected as one of the competing groups at my supermarket.

After a fine start when it was clearly in the lead, my chosen charity fell behind into second place and stayed there throughout the three months.

The winning good cause was an animal organisation.

And so on to the current 'competition'.

All three good causes started from a level playing field of zero but within a couple of days, it had become fairly obvious that one of the three was doing better than the others.

From memory, one of the groups is something to do with the Samaritans, one is something to do with stroke prevention and the third animal charity.

And guess which one is in the lead.

No prizes if you said the animal charity.

OK, I get it. People like animals and to be honest, my chosen good cause was very worthwhile but not what you would describe as exciting so it was not a massive surprise when it came second (third was a playgroup).

But in the current round, I just cannot understand how anyone could rate an animal charity higher than a group that aims to save the lives of people who are contemplating committing suicide or a group that wants to combat the terrible effects of stroke.

I know it may not seem much when you drop your token into the plastic box but please, please have a good think about what your rate more highly – the life of an animal of the life of a human being.