Why did Mtg put this thread up and not comment on it? It was put up to generate arguementive comments that had been done countless times. I voted remain, I lost the vote so we leave. I can’t stand these constant threats to derail the Brexit I don’t think there should be another vote. I think we move on and see what the future brings I might of been totally wrong about my vote or I could be proven right. As to calling Blair our saviour I voted in Blair and did like him at the time, but looking back now I see the destruction caused. If you truly believe he’s our saviour then you really don’t look at history. The trouble with people like MTG is they can’t accept that other people have an opinion. Believe it or not my daughter is the same age as MTG and she is unfortunately the exact same.
Anybody who describes Tony Blair as 'our saviour' is clearly not old enough to have lived through his government or is spending way too long on the crack pipe.
Totally agree, Blair, disgusting man, enough said, Corbyn couldn't save a £5 note, he'll bankrupt us, Clegg with his Aristocratic grandmother, With his Dutch and Russian heritage, and more than a decade working in Brussels, we all know what he is. No I'll stick with the British public majority thankyou.
Its brain washing in universities and the like, if you listen carefully to them they are ALL repeating the same mantra pretty much word for word. When you listen to debates on TV and radio, teachers and professors also do it, its funny how they do surveys showing the 'most educated' voted to stay, yet I have nearly never heard a single cognitive or persuasive argument from their side except repeated or untrue rhetoric. Corbyn has always been very anti EU until recently and thats only because he would do anything to get power. As would Labour, they were refusing to work with him until they saw a populist sway of opinion for him Young people want change, they need to be careful what they wish for.
corbyn is dangerous for the UK very dangerous,I would seriously think of emigration if he became our leader.
I literally answered this point in my last post. Erm, since when did Britain have a Parliament made up 100% of MP's from a single party despite only getting most of the vote? Yes they get to form a government but that's the compromise. Which is exactly my point.
I'm not old enough to understand deeply, but is it not fair to say that he did a lot of good for the country services-wise? Every school I know in the area got rebuilt and the NHS had proper funding. Of course we should never have gone to war with Iraq but is it not a bit unfair to suggest his government was particularly bad? With regard to Tony Blair the man himself, I'd completely agree with you. The man is a slimy see you next Tuesday.
You didn't answer it your last post you answered 52% out 48% in, my question was regarding 52 in 48% out , it's not the same , or are you saying it is ?
Agree with you on this, not keen on the man , never was , but the points you make about services, schools, NHS and funding generally all accurate points , oh and am old enough to have lived through it . The trouble with not funding things properly ALL the time is when you start again it takes ages and costs a fortune just to get things back to a reasonable level .
Yes, it is the same. If stay had won by 52:48 ratio, then we should be staying in the EU but pushing strongly for some of the measures which leave wanted. Admittedly that's easier said than done but it's what the aim should be. That's the way to represent a country. Big fan of people thinking that 52% of the vote entitles you to 100% of decision making.
Rob, I am 53 years old and there has been accusations of inadequate funding all my adult life and believe me it was no different under his government.
It does when it comes to a single question referendum with a yes or no outcome. ****s sake Rob, I had you down as more intelligent than this. This is not about government or representing minorities, it was OUT or IN.. What I do know is the people who voted out, if they had lost would not be whining anything like the IN lot.
Errms or not that was not your point. We as a populace do not get further votes on aspects of Government we do not like. Government is not a series of populist referendums till we get what we want. The EU referendum did not work that way either. It was leave or remain. .
Sorry Rob that isn't how Democracy works , as I explained in an earlier post when we originally voted to stay in the common market we didn't accommodate the minority who voted to leave, they lost so we stayed in, likewise this time remain lost so we leave. Using your logic we shouldn't actually be in the EU in the first place.
The question was out or in, but there was no other way to do it. Are you telling me then that you shouldn't read any more into the result? For you, we should treat the population the same whether 0% voted leave or whether 49% voted leave? It's an absolute non-sense. Democracy represents the people like-for-like (or is at least supposed to). 48% deserve 48% of the decision, in an ideal world - I'm fully aware it doesn't quite work like that. You could end up with a referendum which is won by one vote, and going by your logic we should shift the entire political spectrum towards something based purely on a result which wouldn't even be close to statistically significant. I'd agree entirely if the minority was something genuinely minor, like 5% or whatever, but we're talking nearly half the population here. It really was my point. I wrote it. Other referendums not occurring is irrelevant. You're now getting into a wider point insinuating I'm in a camp where we should have a referendum on any decision which again is not true. It is how democracy works mate. Look up the definition and see whose argument it applies closest to. That's why I'm saying it, and I think it was done wrongly in the first place. That's why a hell of a lot of people want to leave, what we've got is not what we signed up for. Yes the original 'leavers' were ignored but that was wrong imo.
