Here's a question for you then, has there ever been a era when the NHS has been given resources to meet demand ?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50
What a $#@!ing idiot. Now 48% of the country is represented by about 10% of MPs.
It was never legally binding, no-one has to 'accept' anything.
If MPs don't think Brexit is the right cause of action and they represent a constituency which voted in favour of remaining then what's wrong with them voting against Article 50? They're standing up for their views and their constituents' views.
So if we had voted to remain, would it be legally binding?
No.
Also, in addition to it being advisory, arguments dont simply stop after a vote. The opposition, for example, arent obliged to vote with the government simply because the latter won an election.
Had the vote gone the other way would you have stopped arguing against the EU? Would anti-EU politicians stop working to come out? Of course not. So why do you think the reverse should be so?
Not expecting a cogent answer obviously.
But it's not a game. Politics isn't about winning and losing its about arguing for the things you believe to be right. Just because a vote doesn't go your way you don't stop putting your arguments forward.I said after the referendum polls had closed and the exit poll gave a victory to remain "congratulations and we'll done". I would have thought it absolutely diabolical and being like a spoilt kid, not to accept the result.
I fight hard, but always accept when I lose. My parents bought me up like that.
Not what was asked was it though
Do a simple Yes or No to the question he asked "Had the vote gone the other way would you have stopped arguing against the EU? "
My post from the referendum night after the exit poll said we remain had won.
(by saying No btw you are not saying you wouldn't have accepted the outcome, if that helps you decide)