YP Letters: Questions we need to ask over Tony Blair’s right to intervene

To what extent should Tony Blair influence the Brexit process?
To what extent should Tony Blair influence the Brexit process?
Have your say

From: David Lee, Tennyson Close, Caistor, Lincolnshire.

WITH regard to Tony Blair’s recent intervention in the decision of the majority of the UK electorate to leave the European Union, I would like to ask the following questions:

Who is paying him to be their frontman?

How much is he being paid?

Is this income subject to UK taxation?

He is not an elected representative of anybody, yet feels free to obstruct a democratic vote. Equally disappointing is that no members of the Press ever question what he says or the fact that any group he addresses is very carefully vetted. Why is this failed politician still able to access so much unquestioning publicity for his opinions?

From: Simon Barber, Digley Road, Holmbridge, Holmfirth.

IT is a supreme irony that the Remainers are trying to stop Brexit by championing the supremacy of Parliament, insisting that it must approve invoking Article 50 rather than the Government using the Royal Prerogative. Both they and Parliament have been more than happy to surrender Parliament’s powers to the unelected EU Commission which issues its orders and instructions through directives. These directives are malign, going into every nook and cranny of our lives not only telling us to jum, but how high.

From: David Brooke, Malton.

DAVID Cameron has no morals if he’s to spend his retirement being paid to give speeches about why he presided over Brexit.

From: David Wood, Howden.

THERE are one or two glaring errors in David Seex’s letter (The Yorkshire Post, December 8) – the actual result of the referendum was 52 per cent for leave and only 48 per cent for remain, a clear victory for common sense.

Mr Seex claims 63 per cent did not vote to leave but he is claiming all of the 15 per cent that did not vote for his lost cause. The Brexiteers could also claim that 67 per cent did not vote to remain, using the same logic, or rather illogic, used by Mr Seex.

The actual figure for Leave was slightly more than 17.4 million, not the 17 million that he incorrectly states.

It is amazing how the ‘remoaners’ can lose 420,000 people when it suits them. The other 15 per cent who did not vote surely did not care which way the vote went and must be prepared to accept the result, otherwise they would have turned out and voted.