Petition

Thanks, I wasn’t ;-)

 

I Rest my case

 

Lol, your case was clearly too heavy to lift ;-)

I understand though, some tough points in there.

 

Simple , that’s how our unwritten constitution operates . You don’t have to agree with it but until it is changed by our parliament we will go forward in this like irrespective which party is in power. It’s not the present incumbents fault .

 

Your not so excusing when parliamentary etiquette is blocking Brexit .

 

? Expand !

 

This is factually incorrect. The mandate to join was larger, for one.

 

I know it's probably an oversight, but there was no mandate to actually join, Ted Heath's Tories took us in without referendum.

 

Sorry, yeah - I meant the 75 referendum which was shortly after we joined

 

Either way you are still incorrect. The number of people voting to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum was larger than the number who voted to stay via the 1975 referendum. Which is why it can comfortably be regarded as the largest democratic mandate for anything this country has ever seen.

 

It's a fair cop. Might have to nick this for my signature.

 

Nope. In the 1975 referendum the pro EU vote was a larger proportion of both the votes cast and registered voters than leave was in 2016. It's simply ******** to say 2016 was a larger mandate

 

44 years of population growth. Of course numbers will increase.

The margin of the illegal victory in 2016 was nominal and certainly not emphatic enough to justify the most radical of all exits.

 

Yep. A democratic mandate comes down to numbers not proportionality, particularly when it comes to referenda. 2016 leave was clearly bigger than 1975 stay.

Look, I can tell this means a lot to you (or arguing with me does) so you're welcome to keep at it, not that it's going to change anything, but I'm not sure what else I can add.

 

So 10,000,001 votes out of a population of 100,000,000 would be a bigger mandate than 10,000,000 votes out of a population of 11,000,000? You're either very bad at statistical reasoning or realise you're wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it.

I think your last sentence gives away that it's the latter. Trying to take the high road and make it look as if any response to your argument would be me being petty, when in fact you're simply wrong.

 

I'd tell you that the victory in 2016 wasn't illegal but I'm not sure what the point is. I'd also suggest that leaving without a deal is not in any way shape or form 'radical', or likely to lead to the kind of apocalyptic scenario you incessant tedious remoaners keep pushing (without of course any ability to evidence your doom-laden forecasts), and is in fact the default option that will be forced upon us by an EU hell bent on punishing us for having the gall to leave and who are determined to make us eat sh*t, even if it hurts them equally too. And these are the folks to whom you and your ilk want to remain cosied up? The reality of course is that if Johnson holds his current no-deal course, we will either see a significant change of tack from the EU which may give us something reasonable to consider, or leave without a deal and be fine anyway.

 

Apart from the fact that Number 10 has already publicly carpeted him for 'misspeaking' (they were being kind, he was gobbing off about something sensitive, with which he'd not been involved, and allowing himself to be filmed doing so. He's a berk.). If I were Boris, I'd be sacking him in the morning, as there's no room for such poor judgement in a senior ministerial position.

 

How can it be ‘fine’ whilst equally being the EU ‘hurting’ and ‘punishing us’ and ‘being determined to make us ‘eat ****’? Also, how is it the EU ‘forcing it on us’ if it is a result of ‘Johnson holding his current no deal course’?