Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Aqui1a]

You basically didn't...

The referendum was non binding and advisory. It did not have legal effect until Labour and Conservatives pledged to deliver it in their manifestos.

We have subsequently had a GE in which the public voted for the current PaRliaMent, which Labour lost in. Why would they continue with the same policy if they thought the reason they lost the GE was related to their stance on BrExIt?

I also think it's stretching the definition, if you think that a debate that has dominated the political & to a degree legal landscape for the last 3 years has been ignored.

haha I've already explained I didn't intend to be condescending or anything by italicising some words, yet you're behaving like this? lol Grow up mate.

It might have been non-binding, but people were told the result would be implemented, people on both sides argued their case as if they knew the result would be respected, the people voted in their millions as if it would be respected. The fact people like you are trying to weasel out of it like this is plain undemocratic, and quite disgusting imo.

Just because they didn't gain the most seats, doesn't mean they get to ignore their manifestos, you plum. They still represent the people who voted for them on those manifestos. I mean seriously, come on man.

And when I say it hasn't been respected, I mean it hasn't been carried out. They could "debate" it for the next 20 years and it still doesn't mean the result has been respected.

 

[peteblue]

Thing is though, the alternative is Corbyn.

And this is the reality they cannot accept.....

 

[peteblue]

haha I've already explained I didn't intend to be condescending or anything by italicising some words, yet you're behaving like this? lol Grow up mate.

It might have been non-binding, but people were told the result would be implemented, people on both sides argued their case as if they knew the result would be respected, the people voted in their millions as if it would be respected. The fact people like you are trying to weasel out of it like this is plain undemocratic, and quite disgusting imo.

Just because they didn't gain the most seats, doesn't mean they get to ignore their manifestos, you plum. They still represent the people who voted for them on those manifestos. I mean seriously, come on man.

And when I say it hasn't been respected, I mean it hasn't been carried out. They could "debate" it for the next 20 years and it still doesn't mean the result has been respected.

Respecting a vote is no longer an accepted norm apparently....

 

[Walken]

if people are declaring where a politician was educated as the defining factor above everything else in what makes a good political leader, then championing someone who got a 2:1 after receiving absolutely every advantage given to those from the correct families is pretty weird as it hardly makes them the creme de la creme. If that is really how all politicians should be measure then it should actually disqualify them from the top job

 

[peteblue]

if people are declaring where a politician was educated as the defining factor above everything else in what makes a good political leader, then championing someone who got a 2:1 after receiving absolutely every advantage given to those from the correct families is pretty weird as it hardly makes them the creme de la creme. If that is really how all politicians should be measure then it should actually disqualify them from the top job

Compare Corbyn with Wilson, then tell me Corbyn is the man to lead the Labour party......

 

[tsubaki]

Compare Corbyn with Wilson, then tell me Corbyn is the man to lead the Labour party......

Corbyn is the man to lead the Labour Party.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

if people are declaring where a politician was educated as the defining factor above everything else in what makes a good political leader, then championing someone who got a 2:1 after receiving absolutely every advantage given to those from the correct families is pretty weird as it hardly makes them the creme de la creme. If that is really how all politicians should be measure then it should actually disqualify them from the top job

What’s weirder is it’s tories, the party of meritocracy, who are championing the man who has never had to strive for anything his whole life. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[Aqui1a]

if people are declaring where a politician was educated as the defining factor above everything else in what makes a good political leader, then championing someone who got a 2:1 after receiving absolutely every advantage given to those from the correct families is pretty weird as it hardly makes them the creme de la creme. If that is really how all politicians should be measure then it should actually disqualify them from the top job

I say that I'm against Corbyn because (amongst other things) he badly flunked his A-levels by getting two Es, and then dropped out of a trade unionism course at his local polytechnic, that somehow means I'm basing my preference of PM entirely on education and intelligence alone? Either I've not explained well enough, or you've misunderstood/misrepresented my position.

 

[Walken]

I say that I'm against Corbyn because (amongst other things) he badly flunked his A-levels by getting two Es, and then dropped out of a trade unionism course at his local polytechnic, that somehow means I'm basing my choice for PM entirely on education and intelligence alone? Either I've not explained well enough, or you've misunderstood/misrepresented my position.

take corbyn and johnson out of the equation, you've insinuated who went to the better school matters. But previous political catastrophes don't, who funds them doesn't matter, what corrupt actions they've taken doesn't matter, what lies they've told doesn't matter. You may have other arguments and have just been dragged into a debate thats gotten heated and taken a bit of perspective away but thats how your argument looks to me, there is obviously the very real possibility of me misunderstanding it.

 

[Aqui1a]

take corbyn and johnson out of the equation, you've insinuated who went to the better school matters. But previous political catastrophes don't, who funds them doesn't matter, what corrupt actions they've taken doesn't matter, what lies they've told doesn't matter. You may have other arguments and have just been dragged into a debate thats gotten heated and taken a bit of perspective away but thats how your argument looks to me, there is obviously the very real possibility of me misunderstanding it.

Education/intelligence is always a big factor, but I don't think I've ever said that it's the defining one, that ranks above every other. You're right I don't think it matters who funds them. Why do you think it matters? Unless you want to somehow stop all donations, and have parties funded by taxes alone, then all parties will receive donations big and small from all sorts of people. Do you think Labour doesn't have its own list of wealthy donors? I don't think Johnson has done anything particularly bad while he's been PM, he's legitimately trying to carry out the will of the people by respecting the 2016 ref. result. Both sides have been using dirty tactics, to claim it's only Johnson who's tried to be clever about things is unfair.

 

[Ruairi77]

 

[Jebus_lives]

Nor me....and if you can find any reference then post it. In fact it may well have been you that invented this little lie. I get invited to gatherings, conferences, meetings, I don’t attend parties.....but go ahead check the thread, then you can apologise for continuing this silly assertion.....

Sorry Pete, should've said gatherings not parties.

I'll change it.

'I wonder if Corbyn gets invited to gatherings that only those who belong will be invited to'?

Happy?

 

[Jebus_lives]

And if there was one more stupid than you I would be very surprised....

What a lazy insult.

 

[Blues Harp]

Personally I would have loved to have gotten involved in helping to sort it out, alas I don’t think I am politically correct enough and perhaps a bit too harsh with solutions to be acceptable........

This "debate" is symptomatic of the absolute mess we are in...As a genuine question Pete, what solutions would you employ to make the NHS better. I may not agree with you but at least it may raise the debate from the levels of "my dad's bigger/better/more educated etc, than yours" I cannot afford private health insurance so I rely on a service which was brought into being by a Labour government. I feel that I may be at the mercy of a USA style health system which is frankly quite terrifying for me.

 

[Jebus_lives]

haha I've already explained I didn't intend to be condescending or anything by italicising some words, yet you're behaving like this? lol Grow up mate.

It might have been non-binding, but people were told the result would be implemented, people on both sides argued their case as if they knew the result would be respected, the people voted in their millions as if it would be respected. The fact people like you are trying to weasel out of it like this is plain undemocratic, and quite disgusting imo.

Just because they didn't gain the most seats, doesn't mean they get to ignore their manifestos, you plum. They still represent the people who voted for them on those manifestos. I mean seriously, come on man.

And when I say it hasn't been respected, I mean it hasn't been carried out. They could "debate" it for the next 20 years and it still doesn't mean the result has been respected.

If someone, who has been told it's possible, tells you they are going to jump into the sun, do you respect that as a statement or do you say 'no that's not possible, it's not achievable'