Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you think the basic tenets of our Parliamentary Democracy are "all blather" - that says a lot more about you than the state of our Parliamentary Democracy.

No. what you said was all blather. What I said is how a parliamentary democracy should behave in the context of a decisive referendum.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No. what you said was all blather. What I said is how a parliamentary democracy should behave in the context of a decisive referendum.

I see nothing decisive about any vote or referendum in decades. Unless 50.01% of the electorate vote for a particular something, there is no significant support. I do not mean 50.01% of those who voted.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

I see nothing decisive about any vote or referendum in decades. Unless 50.01% of the electorate vote for a particular something, there is no significant support. I do not mean 50.01% of those who voted.

That only works if the parliamentary rules cover your point of view. They don’t so it’s pointless you going on about the significance of non-voters.

Originally Posted by Angua

I see nothing decisive about any vote or referendum in decades. Unless 50.01% of the electorate vote for a particular something, there is no significant support. I do not mean 50.01% of those who voted.

An abstention is an abstention - it is a decision not to voice an opinion, for whatever reason, for or against. It isn’t uncommon to hear those who are on the losing side in a vote try to co-opt the abstainers to their side of the argument, on the basis that those people didn’t support whatever was proposed, but that really won’t do. An abstention is an abstention and that’s it. You can’t use it to infer anything, with the single exception of votes where a quorum is required, in which case the rules do effectively make an abstention into a vote for the status quo.

We do not use quorums in British public voting, with one exception, that being the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, where one was set, and devolution did not happen, despite there being a yes vote, because the quorum was not met. The result was a running sore in Scottish politics that wasn’t truly healed until Labour re-ran the referendum at its first available opportunity, in 1998.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That's not how our Representative Democracy works - we elect an MP to represent the Constituency (not just those who voted for them), but we do not have the right to mandate how they should think or vote

[
This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

Correct but the issue here is that “Parliament” voted to give the public the referendum, they could have voted against it if they thought that the risk of vote Leave winning would not be in the “best interests of their constituency”

The referendum didn’t have to happen, but they voted for it.

The result was to leave. “Parliament” then voted to enact the result and trigger article 50.

They could have voted against Triggering article 50 if they thought then that leaving the EU was not in the “best interests of their constituency” but they didn’t.

So it doesn’t really make sense for Parliament to be so anti-Brexit now? They had two legitimate opportunities to stop it.

If we are unhappy with our MP, we can de-select them.

try that with an EU commissioner

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Correct but the issue here is that “Parliament” voted to give the public the referendum, they could have voted against it if they thought that the risk of vote Leave winning would not be in the “best interests of their constituency”

The referendum didn’t have to happen, but they voted for it.

The result was to leave. “Parliament” then voted to enact the result and trigger article 50.

They could have voted against Triggering article 50 if they thought then that leaving the EU was not in the “best interests of their constituency” but they didn’t.

So it doesn’t really make sense for Parliament to be so anti-Brexit now? They had two legitimate opportunities to stop it.

try that with an EU commissioner

so seem to forget there been a general election since the referendum and the people voted for mostly remain MP's as vast majority of MP's are remain

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Dave42

so seem to forget there been a general election since the referendum and the people voted for mostly remain MP's as vast majority of MP's are remain

Indeed, and if remain happens as a result either directly or indirectly those MPs are willing to stake their position on it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Dave42

so seem to forget there been a general election since the referendum and the people voted for mostly remain MP's as vast majority of MP's are remain

Hmmmm.......Yet both Labour and the Tory’s manifestos stated that if they won the election they would deliver on Brexit????

If the electorate truly wanted to remain a they could have voted for the LibDems or the Greens both parties stated that they would not recognise the result of the referendum.

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hmmmm.......Yet both Labour and the Tory’s manifestos stated that if they won the election they would deliver on Brexit????

If the electorate truly wanted to remain a they could have voted for the LibDems or the Greens both parties stated that they would not recognise the result of the referendum.

yes as I said earlier in thread lots of manifesto commitments get ignored by all parties

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Dave42

yes I said earlier in thread lots of manifesto commitments get ignores by all parties

And nobody said when! Or how.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Indeed

bollocks

and if remain happens as a result either directly or indirectly those MPs are willing to stake their position on it.

They’ve had several opportunities to stake their position, non have taken it.

Where were the remainers at the vote to pass the referendum? Where were the remainers when campaigning for the general election? Where were the remainers in the vote for Article 50?

Pathetic.

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Originally Posted by Dave42

yes as I said earlier in thread lots of manifesto commitments get ignored by all parties

Oh, OK. That’s fine then................

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:39 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

And nobody said when!

An irrelevant statement after A50 invoked.

Or how.

it was explained that we would leave the EU and all that it entails included the SM & CU. So I had a good understanding of how. A Hard Brexit is what was on offer.

Did you not understand that? On yes, I remember you didn’t understand what you voted for.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

bollocks

They’ve had several opportunities to stake their position, non have taken it.

Where were the remainers at the vote to pass the referendum? Where were the remainers when campaigning for the general election? Where were the remainers in the vote for Article 50?

Pathetic.

---------- Post added at 21:39 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------



Oh, OK. That’s fine then................

It’s not an unreasonable position to allow the choice and assume a reasonable outcome.

Similarly it’s not unreasonable to invoke A50 assuming a competent government would guide the situation.

However, it’s also not unreasonable for Parliamentarians to vote as they please. They stand on manifestos that aren’t binding. Their careers live or die based on judgement. Would the public support remain? A key question nobody seems too keen to ask

When or how doesn’t become irrelevant once Article 50 is invoked. It’s within the control of Parliament to unbind itself, as I’ve always said.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not an unreasonable position to allow the choice and assume a reasonable outcome.

No need to “assume” the publicised outcome was a Hard Brexit. Fair enough you can allow it once. But then when you realise the ways the vote has gone. Then what the outcome would be, why be passive on two further occasions? Sorry but that is not “reasonable”

[wuotez]Similarly it’s not unreasonable to invoke A50 assuming a competent government would guide the situation.[/Quote]

I think May has brought forward a very competent proposal. Her downfall however is that she has tried desperately to deliver something that pleases everyone, and that is not possible.

Nobody could have delivered anything any better, but that doesn’t matter because nobody could deliver a deal that would work, certainly not Corbyn.

There is much. Wrong with the May deal, but if she manages to resolve the backstop, it does has a realistic chance.

However, it’s also not unreasonable for Parliamentarians to vote as they please. They stand on manifestos that aren’t binding.

as long as they are willing to fall on their hypocritical sword

Their careers live or die based on judgement. Would the public support remain? A key question nobody seems too keen to ask

I am happy for that to be put to the electorate, because after the last two years and seeing the way the EU have pretty much just treated us with contempt. I wouldn’t be sure of the massive swing to remain people think is there. A second referendum is a massive risk. It a no win. If Remain lose it - that’s is, no coming back. RemIn win it ( it will only be by a Narrow margin) cue several more years demanding another referendum.

[jfman]

Nowhere were we promised Hard Brexit. Indeed the concept didn’t exist prior to the referendum. Instead we were promised the easiest trade deal ever.

You fail to understand our representative democracy. Manifestos are not legally binding. The idea may be that politicians are expected to stand by them, which is noble, however in practice they are held to account after five years (at most). I hope the leave voters can keep their anger going until 2022.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nowhere were we promised Hard Brexit. Indeed the concept didn’t exist prior to the referendum

On that we can both agree. One of my main points through this discussion that my previous posts will back up.

You’re absolutely correct, we were promised “Brexit”. But that Brexit was leaving all the EU institutions, including the Single Market and Customs Union. That is what was sent to every home in the UK, and debated. Would you call that a “Hard Brexit”?

. Instead we were promised the easiest trade deal ever.

We were, we’ll know when we start negotiating it. We need to sort out the “withdrawal agreement” or not....first.

Manifestos are not legally binding. The idea may be that politicians are expected to stand by them, which is noble, however in practice they are held to account after five years (at most).

absolutely, the LibDems know all about that....................

However they are held to account after the fact.

Brexit hasn’t happened yet. We don’t know the effect of Brexit as it hasn’t happened. How can you hold anything to account that hasn’t Happened?

Let’s have Brexit, then after 5 years, if it’s a bit pony, we can elect to rejoin.