Cable Forum - Brexit (Old)

No, MPs have a duty to represent their constituents best interests. Which may well include a belief that Brexit has no economic benefit for their constituency, despite how their electorate voted in the referendum.

So you have Leave MPs representing constituencies that voted Remain. No one seems to hang them out to dry.

Sorry Angua, but that is a completely crass argument. If MPs are elected on a manifesto commitment, they should not actively work on trying to overturn that commitment.

Your view of things would mean that the electorate would not be able to judge which party to elect on the basis of their manifestos. That would be ridiculous.

jfman

16-03-2019 15:03

Re: Brexit

Did either manifesto specify when we would leave the EU?

mrmistoffelees

16-03-2019 15:19

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35986978)

Oh please. Delegates/representatives - never crossed my mind. The treachery is the simple matter of disrespecting and trying to thwart the Referendum result.

Which they are legally and morally quite entitled too do

---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35986977)

This is a straw man argument.

Nobody is contradicting the Burkean view of what an MP’s role and responsibilities should be. What many of us have done, repeatedly, is to point out that our MPs used the judgment they owe us to call a referendum and to promise to implement the result.

To argue that their failure to do so is in fact evidence of high principle at work is laughable.

No, it’s along the same lines where you pointed out that general public had little to no idea politics worked.

They are as entitled too change their minds as much as we are

To call someone treacherous because they’re not doing what you want is akin to a small child throwing its rattle out of its pram

---------- Post added at 15:19 ---------- Previous post was at 15:14 ----------

Manifestos/campaign pledges are valid until the acquired result is achieved. The leave campaign is a good example of this.

Sephiroth

16-03-2019 16:05

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35986988)

Did either manifesto specify when we would leave the EU?

The manifestos supported Brexit, and it was implicit that we would leave 2 years after serving A50 notice. Parliament then overwhelmingly passed the withdrawal legislation.

Now they are treacherously ratting on their commitment.

jfman

16-03-2019 16:17

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35987002)

The manifestos supported Brexit, and it was implicit that we would leave 2 years after serving A50 notice. Parliament then overwhelmingly passed the withdrawal legislation.

Now they are treacherously ratting on their commitment.

No such thing exists.

Manifestos are commitments, but if it becomes clear it's not possible to leave the EU in the manner people believed we would at the time (easiest trade deal ever etc.) it's entirely reasonable for any political party to step back and say yes, there's a commitment to leave the EU, but let's get it right.

We could leave the EU in 2049 and it'd honour the manifesto result.

Angua

16-03-2019 16:31

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35987003)

Not forgetting, the Labour Manifesto specifically ruled out No Deal, where this was only mentioned once in the Tory Manifesto (deal was mentioned a further 28 times).

nomadking

16-03-2019 16:33

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35987003)

I'll bear that in mind when you, if you haven't already, complain that a government hasn't fulfilled a manifesto pledge.

jfman

16-03-2019 16:37

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35987010)

I'll bear that in mind when you, if you haven't already, complain that a government has fulfilled a manifesto pledge.

I assume you mean if/when we leave the EU. If/when we leave the EU I'll accept that it was the natural outcome of a series of events I wish hadn't happened.

I've said in the thread before I stand to benefit financially from the most chaotic Brexit possible - this farce dragging out and ending in no deal would suit me personally, but I recognise that the national interest is in getting it right.

nomadking

16-03-2019 16:41

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35987013)

I meant "hasn't fulfilled". Weird type of error I keep making when preparing posts.

It's not in the national interest to have a Labour government, especially a Corbyn and McDonnell one.

The "farce" started with Gina Miller etc.

Chris

16-03-2019 16:47

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 35986990)

Manifestos/campaign pledges are valid until the acquired result is achieved. The leave campaign is a good example of this.

Not true. Failure to adhere to a previous manifesto is a frequent source of political strife during a government’s term of office and causes problems at the following election. Governments typically try to at least look like they’re following them. And when they try to do something unpopular that wasn’t in the manifesto, governments frequently find the Lords become more obstructive, because the convention that the upper house does not obstruct the Commons is weakened when the Commons itself weakens the convention that election manifestos are taken seriously.

However, besides all that, the referendum campaign was not an election and there were no manifestos nor were there any campaign pledges. Nobody was running for office. The referendum was a battle of ideas and the same British government was committed to adopting, as policy, whichever outcome prevailed.

jfman

16-03-2019 17:03

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35987017)

Thank you for the clarification. I’m used to being disappointed by manifestos!

Sephiroth

16-03-2019 17:30

Re: Brexit

Some of you can and do argue the toss and its square root about manifestos, trying to make excuses for not honouring the Referendum result.

The same people also use the argument that it's such a mess now that we can't leave on 29-March.

The same people also come out with stuff like 'nobody voted for this mess'. Very true. But 52% did vote to leave the EU and Leave means Leave; no question of that.

A No Deal exit does have its problems - but they will be overcome as things settle down in a reasonably short time.

May's deal is a bad deal, but if it gets us out, then it's not the worst option provided that the Political Statement isn't taken seriously by the UK. The EU (see the Political Statement) want to shackle our competitiveness

A 21 month extension is the worst of the lot. They will want all the dosh that would have been our Brexit Dividend of No Deal and probably then some other demands. Unless something changes in Parliament, we'll get nowhere with negotiations. A long extension will almost certainly cause a 2nd Referendum to occur because of the entirely new circumstances.

Will there be a General Election? Can't rule that out and that will get very interesting as Tory vs Labour could well morph into Leave vs Remain.

Angua

16-03-2019 17:51

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35986979)

So what about Kate Hoey and other Labour MPs who voted against taking No Deal off the table. This was a specific Labour Manifesto pledge, to rule out No Deal.

Our electoral system actually gives the voters Hobson's choice in most cases. Some lucky few vote for who they want as their MP knowing their vote matters, others vote for the person they want despite party manifestos. Others vote to stop what they really don't want, even if that option is only slightly less bad.

Manifestos only seem to be vital when politicians are not doing what you want. - Welcome to my world, I have never been able to vote for an MP I would like, with even a remote chance of my vote making a difference. Still I vote to show how unrepresentative our electoral system is.

Assuming people voted for MPs based solely on Manifestos is where you are missing the point.

jfman

16-03-2019 18:12

Re: Brexit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35987034)

If you really want no deal, and believe it reasonable (and I actually do given specific circumstances) why not call it 1st January 2023? What is there to fear from it?

nomadking

16-03-2019 18:24

Re: Brexit

The issue isn't wanting a full-on "No Deal", but what the alternative is. The current "deal"(ie withdrawal agreement) has a permanent customs union, and implied freedom of movement as a highly likely outcome.

Quote:

Currently, there are no border posts, physical barriers or checks on people or goods crossing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The backstop is a measure in the withdrawal agreement designed to ensure that continues after the UK leaves the EU. It comes into effect only if the deal deciding the future relationship between the UK and EU is not agreed by the end of the transition period (31 December 2020). Until the deal on the future relationship is done, the backstop would keep the UK effectively inside the EU's customs union but with Northern Ireland also conforming to some rules of the single market. Critics say a different status for Northern Ireland could threaten the existence of the United Kingdom and fear that the backstop could become permanent.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59.

Page 581 of 591

581

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page