No Deal........

[Bulletguy]

Barryd999 - 2018-09-22 11:25 PM

 

Looks like Labour are going to be officially backing a second referendum after conference.

 

Corbyn: I will back second Brexit vote if Labour party wants it.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-09-22/corbyn-i-will-back-second-brexit-vote-if-labour-party-wants-it

Good.

 

YouGov polled 1054 Labour party members on Saturday and found that "a sweeping majority believed that Brexit would make it harder to end austerity, weaken workers’ rights, dilute environmental protections and make children worse off than their parents."

 

An overwhelming 91% to 3% thought Brexit would damage the economy and 86% want a second vote.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/dc56ee36-bea4-11e8-95b1-d36dfef1b89a

[W3526602]

<<< Brexiteers shouldn't have over promised and not only that, we now know the consequences of a no deal exit which we didnt know over two years ago, at least not in the detail we know now. >>>

 

Hi,

 

If you didn't kow the facts, and that bothers you, you shouldn't have voted. But I bet that if you had abstained, Remain would have won ... and you would now be regretting it.

 

You got out of bed this morning, not knowing what was going to happen. That was a good decision ... STATISTICALLY ... as most people die in bed. But having got out of bed, you then made it work.

 

Remain or Leave ... there is no right or wrong decision, unless you have a crystal ball. You make your decision, and get on with it, make it work.

 

An E-pal travelled to Germany, bought a camper van for £25,000. It would have cost him £35,000 in UK. OK, it would have cost him £26,000 in Germany if he had wanted RHD. No wonder the EU call the UK "Treasure Island". The EU talk about "Free Trade", but their definition of FREE is not the same as ours. The EU describe themselves as democratic. I don't know about the rest of the EU, but us Brits cannot vote for who we want to represent us. We can only vote for the party.

 

I've said it before, 52 is not 3.8% more than 48 ... it's nearly 9% more.

 

The EU hold the UK in contempt ... they don't want us, they only want our money.

 

602

[John52]

W3526602 - 2018-09-23 6:17 AM

An E-pal travelled to Germany, bought a camper van for £25,000. It would have cost him £35,000 in UK. OK, it would have cost him £26,000 in Germany if he had wanted RHD. No wonder the EU call the UK "Treasure Island". The EU talk about "Free Trade", but their definition of FREE is not the same as ours. The EU describe themselves as democratic. I don't know about the rest of the EU, but us Brits cannot vote for who we want to represent us. We can only vote for the party.

 

Can you explain why you blame the EU for campervans being more expensive here, and how lleaving the EU would correct that?

 

(Oh and Britain is the least democratic country in the EU because it does not elect its Head of State or House of Lords. Both of which have power of veto over the sopposedly democratic Commons, where the ruling party is held in place by taxpayer funded bribes to the DUP)

[Violet1956]

pelmetman - 2018-09-22 11:03 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-09-22 4:28 PM

 

There are remain voters who are not intent upon preventing Brexit. FYI I haven't made my mind up

 

There's only 188 days to go Veronica ;-) .......

 

It's high time you got off that fence :D ........

 

 

 

No Dave I prefer to know as much as possible about the likely consequences of my choices before I make them.

[Barryd999]

Well it looks like Jezza is not only going to back a second referendum but he is going to use the ERG to try and force a general election!

 

You all laughed at me when I said earlier in the year we could see a second referendum and a Labour Government by the end of the year thanks to Brexit. Bet your not laughing now though. (lol)

 

Who would have thought Brexit would bring such chaos? Well most of us probably.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-back-second-referendum-13292683.amp?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar&__twitter_impression=true

 

 

[Paul-]

I think we had a no deal when we got them out of the sh1t in 1918 and in 1945 why do they think we should have a deal now :-S

[snowie]

pelmetman - 2018-09-20 6:04 PM

 

Is looking promising B-) .........

 

 

If I were a full-timer who tried to spend as many months as possible outside the UK, for economic or cultural reasons, I don’t think I would be very happy if we ended up with a “no deal” option; unless of course, our pm considers that the future rights of senior citizens in Europe is a cherry worth fighting for.

Life in the EU zone , post Brexit will be very different from now; particularly if you are “non-productive”

I would also be rather anxious about the prospects of being forced to spend more time in my motherland, particularly if “Austerity II” does happen. And be certain of one thing. If anything gets a Conservative government excited And even United, it’s the prospect of reducing public services on the grounds of economic necessity. No matter that their incompetence has been the cause.

Prepare yourselves for an expansion of food banks ( I’m surprised the conservatives/ entrepreneurs haven’t found a way to make money out of them) or have I missed something?

Of course, we all voted for our country’s benefit, not our own personal lifestyle, didn’t we?

Take care, and pray

Snowie

[John52]

Paul- - 2018-09-23 11:18 AM

 

I think we had a no deal when we got them out of the sh1t in 1918 and in 1945 why do they think we should have a deal now :-S

 

So the propanda goes - and perhaps it made those who had paid such a high price for it feel better.

But lets be Honest about it now.

British army was routed by the Germans in 6 weeks.

Then with American and Russian help, Britain got Hitler out of Poland, and left Poland with Stalin who was worse.

Even Churchill realised that because he then wanted us to join the remnants of the German army and fight Stalin. Why would Churchill have wanted to do that if we had really got Poland out of the sh*te?

[John52]

snowie - 2018-09-23 2:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-20 6:04 PM

 

Is looking promising B-) .........

 

 

If I were a full-timer who tried to spend as many months as possible outside the UK, for economic or cultural reasons, I don’t think I would be very happy if we ended up with a “no deal” option; unless of course, our pm considers that the future rights of senior citizens in Europe is a cherry worth fighting for.

Life in the EU zone , post Brexit will be very different from now; particularly if you are “non-productive”

I would also be rather anxious about the prospects of being forced to spend more time in my motherland, particularly if “Austerity II” does happen. And be certain of one thing. If anything gets a Conservative government excited And even United, it’s the prospect of reducing public services on the grounds of economic necessity. No matter that their incompetence has been the cause.

Prepare yourselves for an expansion of food banks ( I’m surprised the conservatives/ entrepreneurs haven’t found a way to make money out of them) or have I missed something?

Of course, we all voted for our country’s benefit, not our own personal lifestyle, didn’t we?

Take care, and pray

Snowie

 

Indeed. Once the Brextremists have taken away EU workers rights and dismantled the benefit system they will have a more compliant workforce.

Not that I will be part of it, but I feel for those who will. :-(

[snowie]

Paul- - 2018-09-23 11:18 AM

 

I think we had a no deal when we got them out of the sh1t in 1918 and in 1945 why do they think we should have a deal now :-S

 

I suppose that NATO is the “Deal” we have now, and I see no suggestion that will change.

Snowie

( but I suppose it might save a bob or two?)

[Bulletguy]

snowie - 2018-09-23 2:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-20 6:04 PM

 

Is looking promising B-) .........

 

 

If I were a full-timer who tried to spend as many months as possible outside the UK, for economic or cultural reasons, I don’t think I would be very happy if we ended up with a “no deal” option; unless of course, our pm considers that the future rights of senior citizens in Europe is a cherry worth fighting for.

Life in the EU zone , post Brexit will be very different from now; particularly if you are “non-productive”

I would also be rather anxious about the prospects of being forced to spend more time in my motherland, particularly if “Austerity II” does happen. And be certain of one thing. If anything gets a Conservative government excited And even United, it’s the prospect of reducing public services on the grounds of economic necessity. No matter that their incompetence has been the cause.

Prepare yourselves for an expansion of food banks ( I’m surprised the conservatives/ entrepreneurs haven’t found a way to make money out of them) or have I missed something?

Of course, we all voted for our country’s benefit, not our own personal lifestyle, didn’t we?

Take care, and pray

Snowie

Interesting post Alan. Indeed many ex-pat Brits who retired to live life 'on the cheap' in the sun in a less authoritarian or controlling state have cause for concern.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/no-deal-brexit-ex-pat-pensions-illegal-retired-eu-europe-theresa-may-a8461166.html

 

https://www.ft.com/content/502a3d48-6e66-11e8-8863-a9bb262c5f53

 

Another point you raised about 'being forced to spend more time in the motherland'....that's actually already in place though countless thousands of UK citizens have no knowledge of it, or those that do, circumvent 'the rules' by using a variety of dubious dodges and staying below the radar. I'm referring to the 3 month rule which anyone on prescribed 'meds' will know about, but that 'rule' also includes those who are not which gives every GP a legitimate right to remove a patient from their list if the person has been out of the UK for a period over 3 months. As a consequence they also cease to be eligible for NHS treatment.

 

People don't realise quite how restrictive the UK is yet in their anxiety to cleanse the country of 'foreigners', they shoot themselves in the foot. European citizens travel freely throughout needing just an id card whilst UK citizens have always had to have a passport. Not sure about other country charges but Germans pay £50 for their card and Poland issues their citizens with a card at no charge. Both are valid for 10 year periods.

 

Good points about public services and food banks too!

 

[Bulletguy]

W3526602 - 2018-09-23 6:17 AM

 

I've said it before, 52 is not 3.8% more than 48 ... it's nearly 9% more.

To be absolutely precise it's 3.78%.

 

It's quite simple really.....look at the percent figures of the result and subtract 48.11% from 51.89%. I've no idea how you get 'nearly 9%'. :-S

[Violet1956]

snowie - 2018-09-23 2:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-20 6:04 PM

 

Is looking promising B-) .........

 

 

If I were a full-timer who tried to spend as many months as possible outside the UK, for economic or cultural reasons, I don’t think I would be very happy if we ended up with a “no deal” option; unless of course, our pm considers that the future rights of senior citizens in Europe is a cherry worth fighting for.

Life in the EU zone , post Brexit will be very different from now; particularly if you are “non-productive”

I would also be rather anxious about the prospects of being forced to spend more time in my motherland, particularly if “Austerity II” does happen. And be certain of one thing. If anything gets a Conservative government excited And even United, it’s the prospect of reducing public services on the grounds of economic necessity. No matter that their incompetence has been the cause.

Prepare yourselves for an expansion of food banks ( I’m surprised the conservatives/ entrepreneurs haven’t found a way to make money out of them) or have I missed something?

Of course, we all voted for our country’s benefit, not our own personal lifestyle, didn’t we?

Take care, and pray

Snowie

 

Words of wisdom that strike a chord with me.

[W3526602]

<<< It's quite simple really.....look at the percent figures of the result and subtract 48.11% from 51.89%. I've no idea how you get 'nearly 9%'. >>>

 

Hi Bulletguy,

 

I checked my figures on a calculator, and I found my guestimate was wrong. I apologise.

 

17,410,742 divided by 16,141,241 works out at 1.0786, which I think indicates that the larger figure is aproximately 8% bigger than the lower figure. How could I have been so wrong?

 

Maybe I should have divide 16,141,241 by 17,410,742, which would have given me 0.927, which indicates that the lower figure is 9.27% less that the higher. Doh! I just can't find anything like 3.8%, or even 4%. I'll don my pointed hat, and go stand in the corner. :'(

 

602

[Bulletguy]

W3526602 - 2018-09-23 7:19 PM

 

<<< It's quite simple really.....look at the percent figures of the result and subtract 48.11% from 51.89%. I've no idea how you get 'nearly 9%'. >>>

 

Hi Bulletguy,

 

I checked my figures on a calculator, and I found my guestimate was wrong. I apologise.

 

17,410,742 divided by 16,141,241 works out at 1.0786, which I think indicates that the larger figure is aproximately 8% bigger than the lower figure. How could I have been so wrong?

 

Maybe I should have divide 16,141,241 by 17,410,742, which would have given me 0.927, which indicates that the lower figure is 9.27% less that the higher. Doh! I just can't find anything like 3.8%, or even 4%. I'll don my pointed hat, and go stand in the corner. :'(

I'm not sure why you are using division when it's a simple subtraction of the percentage figures shown alongside each total vote figure. :-S

[W3526602]

<<< I'm not sure why you are using division when it's a simple subtraction of the percentage figures shown alongside each total vote figure. >>>

 

Hi Bulletguy,

 

Because that way is wrong.

 

Lets pretend only three people had voted, two to remain, one to leave, the remainers could claim they got 100% more votes than the leavers, while the leavers could clain they got 33% of the votes. By your reckoning, the remainers got only 33% more votes than the leavers.

 

I'm saying, that in the real Referendun, there were approximately 8% more votes to leave, or looking at it the other way, there were approximately 9% fewer votes to remain.

 

I agree that a 3.8% SWING towards remain would mean a draw ... but that would mean 634,751 Leavers would have to change their minds, presuming that no Remainers changed their minds, and the same people voted, and were asked the same question.

 

Cameron was fair, he asked a simple IN or OUT question. He was so confident that the IN's would win, that he didn't bother legislating what would happen if the OUTs won. At, least I hope that is how it happened ... but surely a senior civil servant should have pointed it out?

 

Corbyn is claiming that 85% (?) of his member voted for another referendum. Note ... that is 85% of MEMBERS of the Labour Party who bothered to vote. Most people who vote Labour are not members of the Labour Party. Can anybody tell me how many people actually voted? Actual votes, not proxy votes, or whatever other ploys they can use.

 

My father told me that he spent a whole night putting crosses on ballot papers. He didn't say when, but I'd guess late 1920s or early 1930s.

 

It could be argued that Theresa's back is to the wall. As I see it, her best bet is to burn her boats, and attack. No more Mr Nice Guy. Turning the other cheek isn't working. Power to her elbow!

 

602

[W3526602]

<<< I'm not sure why you are using division when it's a simple subtraction of the percentage figures shown alongside each total vote figure. >>>

 

Hi Bulletguy,

 

Because that way is wrong.

 

Lets pretend only three people had voted, two to remain, one to leave, the remainers could claim they got 100% more votes than the leavers, while the leavers could clain they got 33% of the votes. By your reckoning, the remainers got only 33% more votes than the leavers.

 

I'm saying, that in the real Referendun, there were approximately 8% more votes to leave, or looking at it the other way, there were approximately 9% fewer votes to remain.

 

I agree that a 3.8% SWING towards remain would mean a draw ... but that would mean 634,751 Leavers would have to change their minds, presuming that no Remainers changed their minds, and the same people voted, and were asked the same question.

 

Cameron was fair, he asked a simple IN or OUT question. He was so confident that the IN's would win, that he didn't bother legislating what would happen if the OUTs won. At, least I hope that is how it happened ... but surely a senior civil servant should have pointed it out?

 

Corbyn is claiming that 85% (?) of his member voted for another referendum. Note ... that is 85% of MEMBERS of the Labour Party who bothered to vote. Most people who vote Labour are not members of the Labour Party. Can anybody tell me how many people actually voted? Actual votes, not proxy votes, or whatever other ploys they can use.

 

My father told me that he spent a whole night putting crosses on ballot papers. He didn't say when, but I'd guess late 1920s or early 1930s.

 

It could be argued that Theresa's back is to the wall. As I see it, her best bet is to burn her boats, and attack. No more Mr Nice Guy. Turning the other cheek isn't working. Power to her elbow!

 

602

[Guest pelmetman]

Bulletguy - 2018-09-22 5:47 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-22 9:05 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-09-21 5:27 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-21 4:10 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-09-21 3:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-09-21 12:10 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-09-21 11:55 AM

 

I think it likely that the EU negotiators are happiest with no deal too Dave in the hope that it would make it more likely that parliament will vote to hold a second referendum.

 

 

It has all the makings of a monumental cock up as a direct result of national disunity exacerbated by media paranoia and an opposition hell bent on not supporting the government and the democratic referendum vote.

 

As I have said all along the only way to negotiate successfully, especially with an entity like the EU, is from a position of strength and national unity presenting a consistently strong and unified case.

The 'national disunity' became apparent during the run up to the referendum which itself was a 'monumental cock up' and since the outcome result, has become even more crystal clear. How more divisive can you get with such a tiny miniscule percentage separating the two which not only split the country in half, but tore families apart?

 

17,410,742 .........If Corbyn got that many votes in an election, would you call it a "Tiny minuscule percentage"? ;-) ...............

That's not the figure which separates the two though which was what i referred to in that post. It's 3.8% which is miniscule.

 

So if Labour won by 3.8% would you still be calling it "Minuscule"? >:-) ..........

 

Nah thought not *-) ..............

What has Labour 'winning' got to do with the point being made here? Absolutely nothing at all. You cannot compare an election with the EU referendum as the two are completely different. The former can easily be changed every four years......the latter can not.

 

You can continue using all kinds of excuses and deflections but it won't ever hide the fact the gap of just 3.8% is abysmal and indicative of a completely divided country. You need to start taking this matter a lot more seriously than some kind of game. The foolishness of Brexit has already cost the country more than it would have had we remained in the EU......and we haven't even left yet.

 

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument ;-) .........

 

If Corbyn won by 00000.1% you'd be jumping up and down calling it a landslide *-) ...........

 

Hopefully the UK public isn't that stupid that they'd vote for a Communist :-| ..........

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

snowie - 2018-09-23 2:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-20 6:04 PM

 

Is looking promising B-) .........

 

 

If I were a full-timer who tried to spend as many months as possible outside the UK, for economic or cultural reasons, I don’t think I would be very happy if we ended up with a “no deal” option; unless of course, our pm considers that the future rights of senior citizens in Europe is a cherry worth fighting for.

Life in the EU zone , post Brexit will be very different from now; particularly if you are “non-productive”

I would also be rather anxious about the prospects of being forced to spend more time in my motherland, particularly if “Austerity II” does happen. And be certain of one thing. If anything gets a Conservative government excited And even United, it’s the prospect of reducing public services on the grounds of economic necessity. No matter that their incompetence has been the cause.

Prepare yourselves for an expansion of food banks ( I’m surprised the conservatives/ entrepreneurs haven’t found a way to make money out of them) or have I missed something?

Of course, we all voted for our country’s benefit, not our own personal lifestyle, didn’t we?

Take care, and pray

Snowie

 

As a atheist I don't pray ...........I apply common sense ;-) ............

 

I doubt any EU country will be kicking out Brit tourists, as they'll need every euro they can get if we leave with no deal >:-) .......

[John52]

W3526602 - 2018-09-24 7:47 AM

It could be argued that Theresa's back is to the wall. As I see it, her best bet is to burn her boats, and attack. No more Mr Nice Guy. Turning the other cheek isn't working. Power to her elbow!

602

 

So Britannia rules the waves and can dictate its terms *-)

[John52]

pelmetman - 2018-09-24 8:57 AM

....I apply common sense ;-) ............

..

 

If you don't fancy working for the Daily Mail you could use your l'common sense' to become a disability assessor (lol)

They have just cut the benefits of a man with no legs and told him he is fit for work because he can climb stairs with his arms https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-benefits-man-julius-holgate-no-legs-cut-government-pip-climb-stairs-with-arms-dwp-a7606416.html

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-09-24 9:22 AM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-24 8:57 AM

....I apply common sense ;-) ............

..

 

If you don't fancy working for the Daily Mail you could use your l'common sense' to become a disability assessor (lol)

They have just cut the benefits of a man with no legs and told him he is fit for work because he can climb stairs with his arms https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/disability-benefits-man-julius-holgate-no-legs-cut-government-pip-climb-stairs-with-arms-dwp-a7606416.html

 

So he couldn't work in telephone sales, or at the checkout in a Supermarket? :-| ...........

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

John52 - 2018-09-24 9:15 AM

 

W3526602 - 2018-09-24 7:47 AM

It could be argued that Theresa's back is to the wall. As I see it, her best bet is to burn her boats, and attack. No more Mr Nice Guy. Turning the other cheek isn't working. Power to her elbow!

602

 

So Britannia rules the waves and can dictate its terms *-)

 

No Deal = No Terms ;-) ................Or 39 billion pound bill B-) ..........

 

 

[Bulletguy]

W3526602 - 2018-09-24 7:45 AM

 

<<< I'm not sure why you are using division when it's a simple subtraction of the percentage figures shown alongside each total vote figure. >>>

 

Hi Bulletguy,

 

Because that way is wrong.

 

Lets pretend only three people had voted, two to remain, one to leave, the remainers could claim they got 100% more votes than the leavers, while the leavers could clain they got 33% of the votes. By your reckoning, the remainers got only 33% more votes than the leavers.

 

I'm saying, that in the real Referendun, there were approximately 8% more votes to leave, or looking at it the other way, there were approximately 9% fewer votes to remain.

 

I agree that a 3.8% SWING towards remain would mean a draw ... but that would mean 634,751 Leavers would have to change their minds, presuming that no Remainers changed their minds, and the same people voted, and were asked the same question.

 

Cameron was fair, he asked a simple IN or OUT question. He was so confident that the IN's would win, that he didn't bother legislating what would happen if the OUTs won. At, least I hope that is how it happened ... but surely a senior civil servant should have pointed it out?

 

Corbyn is claiming that 85% (?) of his member voted for another referendum. Note ... that is 85% of MEMBERS of the Labour Party who bothered to vote. Most people who vote Labour are not members of the Labour Party. Can anybody tell me how many people actually voted? Actual votes, not proxy votes, or whatever other ploys they can use.

 

My father told me that he spent a whole night putting crosses on ballot papers. He didn't say when, but I'd guess late 1920s or early 1930s.

 

It could be argued that Theresa's back is to the wall. As I see it, her best bet is to burn her boats, and attack. No more Mr Nice Guy. Turning the other cheek isn't working. Power to her elbow!

1) I think you are complicating the issue in order to try and get a more favourable figure. It's a basic subtraction between the two figures to show the narrow gap.

 

2) I agree Cameron asked for a simple in/out question which was on the ballot paper. So why are you now expecting people to support something which was not on the ballot paper...eg leaving with a shoddy deal at best or no deal at worst? All the major players who led the Leave campaign should be held to account....but they ran off like rats from a sinking ship.

 

3) Corbyn hasn't "claimed 85% of Labour members voted for another referendum" at all. It was a poll conducted by YouGov among Labour party members on Saturday which found that, not Corbyn. He has said if that's what party members want, then he will back it.....as he should. Oh, and not to split hairs over the figure but it was 86%.

 

Not sure why you see proxy voting as "a ploy" as though it's something dodgy. Proxy voting is a legitimate method available to anyone unable to attend a polling station, but you have to provide a valid reason as to why you can't attend eg, out of the country on holiday.

[Bulletguy]

pelmetman - 2018-09-24 8:51 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-09-22 5:47 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-22 9:05 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-09-21 5:27 PM

 

pelmetman - 2018-09-21 4:10 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2018-09-21 3:52 PM

 

Tracker - 2018-09-21 12:10 PM

 

Violet1956 - 2018-09-21 11:55 AM

 

I think it likely that the EU negotiators are happiest with no deal too Dave in the hope that it would make it more likely that parliament will vote to hold a second referendum.

 

 

It has all the makings of a monumental cock up as a direct result of national disunity exacerbated by media paranoia and an opposition hell bent on not supporting the government and the democratic referendum vote.

 

As I have said all along the only way to negotiate successfully, especially with an entity like the EU, is from a position of strength and national unity presenting a consistently strong and unified case.

The 'national disunity' became apparent during the run up to the referendum which itself was a 'monumental cock up' and since the outcome result, has become even more crystal clear. How more divisive can you get with such a tiny miniscule percentage separating the two which not only split the country in half, but tore families apart?

 

17,410,742 .........If Corbyn got that many votes in an election, would you call it a "Tiny minuscule percentage"? ;-) ...............

That's not the figure which separates the two though which was what i referred to in that post. It's 3.8% which is miniscule.

 

So if Labour won by 3.8% would you still be calling it "Minuscule"? >:-) ..........

 

Nah thought not *-) ..............

What has Labour 'winning' got to do with the point being made here? Absolutely nothing at all. You cannot compare an election with the EU referendum as the two are completely different. The former can easily be changed every four years......the latter can not.

 

You can continue using all kinds of excuses and deflections but it won't ever hide the fact the gap of just 3.8% is abysmal and indicative of a completely divided country. You need to start taking this matter a lot more seriously than some kind of game. The foolishness of Brexit has already cost the country more than it would have had we remained in the EU......and we haven't even left yet.

 

Just pointing out the hypocrisy of your argument ;-) .........

 

If Corbyn won by 00000.1% you'd be jumping up and down calling it a landslide *-) ...........

That's where you are wrong because unlike you i wouldn't. I'd be very concerned and worried that a government had been elected on such a tiny weak majority......similar to how May discovered for herself in calling a snap election only to get an abysmal result requiring billions of taxpayers money to bribe the DUP to jump into bed with them.