You sir are a pompous ass.

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. It's what the people voted for.

You pick and choose when democracy works and when it doesn't just because the general voting public do not hold your beliefs.

But then hypocrisy and hissy fits do seem to be the premise of the remain camp.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

The post is about the opportunities in Labour heartlands that UKIP can exploit. But fails to point out that the significant majority of Labour voters (under this survey) were Remainers, so would be unlikely to look to UKIP.

I also don't know how statistically accurate the poll can be seen to be. The split by ethnicity shows that only those who identify as White voted for Brexit (by a margin of 51:49). Every other ethnic group in the survey voted for Remain, and mostly by a large majority.

But the overall referendum result was a 52:48 split so there must be a statistical variance that would be big enough to call the data into question anyway.

And if the only issue that mattered to people was Brexit then it would suggest Corbyn (although he eventually supported Remain) was a truer reflection of the working class voters Labour are meant to represent. On the logic that views on Brexit are all that drives people's voting habits, then JC deserves recognition for bringing Labour closer to its roots?

Surely deciding the relevance of a political party based upon a single issue isn't valid.

Edited by OknotOK (08 Dec 2016 12.52pm)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Flippin' 'eck!

Better than flipping burgers!

Optimistic as ever

So do you think everything the government does should be subject to a referendum?

If not, why make a hugely complex area subject to such a vote and not all the minor issues?

Anyway, my point was that in a democracy you evolve decisions based on public scrutiny. So I objected to Holf's assertion that this was a bad idea. AFter all, if it was a bad idea why have the referendum in the first place?

You can try and draw battles lines all you like, but I think it's not that simple and you can't just go around characterising everyone who disagrees with you as some sort of limp-wristed whinger, there's no need to be a be a fatuous f*ck.

Why should we have to allow for people to think the future is brighter in the EU? We shouldn't have to, we voted to leave.