EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[northwichcat]

That would be fundamentally undemocratic. You could end up with a situation where the majority of the UK voted to Leave, but the geographic distribution of votes was such that in fact over 50% of constituencies actually polled a majority Remain.

No, MPs must respect the referendum result and allow A50 to pass - subject to scrutiny, of course.

Of course the situation I described was one where the MP could see retaining their seat as a higher priority then representing the views of all their constituents.

However, 48% voted Remain so if all MPs vote to accept A50 giving the PM full control to implement how she best see fits that would be undemocratic. There should be 300+ refusing to accept triggering A50 unless the concerns of those who voted Remain are addressed in the bill.

 

[DarloRich]

And what happens if the vote is lost ?

lost by whom?

The deal on table needs to be clearly and honestly explained and the alternatives, pro & cons etc set out. If people reject that than so be it. We go with the the alternative.

In any event surely a sovereign parliament should vote on this issue?

 

[Johnuk123]

How do you mean "lost"?

The vote (potentially) would be about what sort of Brexit we'd like.

What would "winning" be in that scenario?

If the Govt. loses the vote after various amendments what happens then ?

 

[northwichcat]

so what? We voted to leave. Should we not also vote on how we leave and what that landscape looks like?

And what happens if the vote is lost ?

There doesn't have to be a losing option if multiple options (all involving leaving) are put to the vote. It could be:

Option A - Norway like arrangement with EU after leaving.
Option B - Canada style (trading only) arrangement with EU after leaving.
Option C - Unique arrangement.

using the alternative vote.

So then if 52% vote A as first choice option A is implemented. If 42% vote A and 37% vote B then option C is dismissed and second choice votes are considered before the winning option is chosen.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the Govt. loses the vote after various amendments what happens then ?

I have no idea!

 

[northwichcat]

I have no idea!

Vote of no confidence in the government and an election where UKIP and the Lib Dems both suddenly see their support surge and the pound hits a new record low. (Presuming the vote is on putting legislation in place to trigger article 50 not a later vote on how article 50 is triggered.)

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course the right wing press is trying to spin this as an attempt to block Brexit or to stop the "will of the people" or, and I quote, "the Elite showing their contempt for Brexit voters".

Kind of ironic really when parliamentary sovereignty was one of the reasons spat out in the campaign about why we had to leave.

 

[Domh245]

I expect that the Conservatives and Labour will 3 line whip for Brexit, so passing it won't be an issue. It'd be nice if MPs were allowed to vote as their constituency did (it'd still hand a majority to Brexit - indeed it'd be an increased majority) - but we lost so we've got to get over it I suppose :roll:

 

[Domh245]

Kind of ironic really when parliamentary sovereignty was one of the reasons spat out in the campaign about why we had to leave.

You've made the mistake of assuming consistency and logic from Brexiteers...

 

[northwichcat]

Of course the right wing press is trying to spin this as an attempt to block Brexit or to stop the "will of the people" or, and I quote, "the Elite showing their contempt for Brexit voters".

Of course Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage aren't the elite and graduates earning under £20,000 or still looking for their first full time permanent job after graduation are the elite. :roll:

 

[Steveman]

Of course the right wing press is trying to spin this as an attempt to block Brexit or to stop the "will of the people" or, and I quote, "the Elite showing their contempt for Brexit voters".

Kind of ironic really when parliamentary sovereignty was one of the reasons spat out in the campaign about why we had to leave.

Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Mandelson, Branston, Clarke, Gina Miller, Sturgeon and many many others want Brexit stopped, no other outcome will ever be good enough.
You're deluded if anyone thinks these people will be content with ANY Brexit however many amendments have been made.
They don't want amendments they have never wanted amendments they want Brexit cancelled which is also what the vast majority of Remainers also want.

 

[Howardh]

I expect that the Conservatives and Labour will 3 line whip for Brexit, so passing it won't be an issue. It'd be nice if MPs were allowed to vote as their constituency did (it'd still hand a majority to Brexit - indeed it'd be an increased majority) - but we lost so we've got to get over it I suppose :roll:

If nothing else, it could give Northern Irish MP's the chance to force the government to set out their stall over the CTA/border as we assume if it's a hard Brexit it's very unlikely the EU will allow a borderless CTA to continue; something they seem reluctant to do just now.

 

[Steveman]

You've made the mistake of assuming consistency and logic from Brexiteers...

Don't forget as well as being illogical they're all racists, xenophobes and ignorant as hell - all jibes regularly and consistently said on here from day one.

 

[Howardh]

Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Mandelson, Branston, Clarke, Gina Miller, Sturgeon and many many others want Brexit stopped, no other outcome will ever be good enough.
You're deluded if anyone thinks these people will be content with ANY Brexit however many amendments have been made.
They don't want amendments they have never wanted amendments they want Brexit cancelled which is also what the vast majority of Remainers also want.

Yes, you can add me to that list!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage aren't the elite and graduates earning under £20,000 or still looking for their first full time permanent job after graduation are the elite. :roll:

To be fair, that whole discussion is one for elsewhere I think. There certainly seems to be a trend towards rich people who are part of the establishment trying to paint themselves as "men of the people" when they are no where near. Just look at Trump too for another example. I read a headline yesterday about how Trump being president was a win for the people against the billionaires which confused me to no end because Trump is a billionaire himself.

Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Mandelson, Branston, Clarke, Gina Miller, Sturgeon and many many others want Brexit stopped, no other outcome will ever be good enough.
You're deluded if anyone thinks these people will be content with ANY Brexit however many amendments have been made.
They don't want amendments they have never wanted amendments they want Brexit cancelled which is also what the vast majority of Remainers also want.

Oh I am not denying that I would love parliament to vote it down. However realistically that will not happen, and if it were to then we would end up in even more chaos.

However my point isn't about what ends up being decided about Brexit. It was more that part of the Brexit campaigning was based on returning power to our Parliament (not our government). So the very fact our parliament is going to have a vote on this, so that the government can't just randomly decide to do something without democratic oversight, is a good thing surely? Would you really want a precedent set where the government can make such large decisions on its own without parliaments consent? If so what would the point of parliament be?

 

[dosxuk]

Don't forget as well as being illogical they're all racists, xenophobes and ignorant as hell - all jibes regularly and consistently said on here from day one.

If the shoe fits...

 

[miami]

An MPs job is to do what's best for the interests of his constituency, which is clearly to vote to not issue article 50.

That won't happen of course. And yes, many of those on the remain side will not be happy unless brexit does not happen, just like many in the leave side were not happy with being in the EU.

Unelected elites like Desmond, Murdoch, Dacre, the Barclay Brothers want brexit, they've worked for years to make it happen. We voted to remove control from a democratically elected parliament that was very hard to control by those elites, and give it to our own parliament which are far easier to control.

Fortunately they didn't get the final prize - the ability for an unelected government likely backed by a small majority of MPs representing 37% of the vote to remove our rights without even a debate.

 

[Steveman]

If the shoe fits...

Thanks, at least I know what I and all the other millions of Leavers are.

 

[EM2]

Nick Clegg, Owen Smith, Mandelson, Branston, Clarke, Gina Miller, Sturgeon and many many others want Brexit stopped, no other outcome will ever be good enough.

Whether that's the case or not (and not knowing any of these people personally, I can't say), that is not what this court case was about.

 

[Johnuk123]

An MPs job is to do what's best for the interests of his constituency, which is clearly to vote to not issue article 50.

Cheers for that clarification I thought some constituencies voted Leave, didn't realise they all voted Remain.
The information that 61% of mp's constituencies voted Leave must be a mistake then.

 

[anme]

Thanks, at least I know what I and all the other millions of Leavers are.

1. What are you and all the other millions of leavers?
2. How do you know what all the other millions are leavers are?

 

[EM2]

Apparently from Iain Duncan Smith (I'm trying to find the original source):

I'm disappointed that the Supreme Court are telling Parliament what to do. They've stepped into new territory here.

EDIT - The Daily Mail is reporting IDS's comments as being made on the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire Show:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uling-PM-executive-powers-trigger-Brexit.html

But former Cabinet minister and Brexiteer Iain Duncan Smith said the ruling underlined the problem of judges intruding on the role of parliament.
He told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire show: 'You've got to understand that, of course, there's the European issue but there's also the issue about who is Supreme – Parliament or a self-appointed court.
'This is the issue here right now, so I was intrigued that it was a split judgment.
'I'm disappointed they've tried to tell Parliament how to run its business... they've stepped into new territory where they've actually told Parliament not just that they should do something but actually what they should do and I think that leads further down the road to real constitutional issues about who is supreme in this role.'

 

[dosxuk]

Cheers for that clarification I thought some constituencies voted Leave, didn't realise they all voted Remain.

People don't always vote for what's best for their whole community, region or country.

If we had a referendum on making paying tax optional, you can guarantee a landslide "yes" vote. It'd destroy the country, but individually we'd all be better off until the problems kick in.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Apparently from Iain Duncan Smith (I'm trying to find the original source):

I'd hope he actually knows the difference between Parliament and Government and he is just trying to spin his point there. If he doesn't know the difference then that is indeed worrying!

For the avoidance of doubt, it is perfectly correct that the judiciary (Supreme Court) tells the executive (Government) what can and cannot be done. Indeed these kind of checks is exactly why we have three branches of government.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Cheers for that clarification I thought some constituencies voted Leave, didn't realise they all voted Remain.
The information that 61% of mp's constituencies voted Leave must be a mistake then.

There is a difference between what a constituency voted for and what is best for that constituency. Cornwall and parts of Wales are good examples where this is the case. There is certainly an argument that a MP should act in the best interests of his/her constituency rather than act based on a populist vote. Of course, any MP doing so would put themselves at risk in the next election, but that is one of the choices an MP has to make on many different topics all of the time. Would it be the right choice in this case? Only the MP can answer that one really. Certainly if Brexit is likely to hugely damage the regional economy of a particular constituency then you really do have to ask the question.

 

[dosxuk]

Of course, any MP doing so would put themselves at risk in the next election, but that is one of the choices an MP has to make on many different topics all of the time.

I think the next general election is going to be very interesting.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think the next general election is going to be very interesting.

Oh I certainly agree!
Especially if we do end up properly leaving before it, as it could go either way. If Brexit does severally harm the economy in a particular constituency but the MP voted to allow Article 50, I can certainly see the MP being punished by voters. Just as if Brexit doesn't really impact a particular constituency much, and the particular constituency was a leave area, then the MP could easily be punished in that case too.

 

[The 39 Steps]

https://secondreading.uk/elections/brexit-the-people-vs-parliament/

This was done by Chris Hanretty (University of East Anglia) and he estimates that 421 of the 574 (possibly 573, both numbers quoted in this and links) English and Welsh parliamentary constituencies had a majority leave vote.

 

[burneside]

An MPs job is to do what's best for the interests of his constituency, which is clearly to vote to not issue article 50.

Although the referendum vote was not organised along parliamentary constituency boundaries, it has been estimated that if it had been then the result would have shown 408 for Leave, and 242 Remain. More than enough authority to trigger A50.

 

[anme]

If I may make an observation:

- Leavers seem to believe that all decisions should be made by the UK government in Westminster (although seem confused about whether that means parliament, the prime minister, or someone else).

- Many Remainers (including myself) prefer a more "federal" structure, where decisions are taken at the lowest practical level. So I prefer control by regions, by cities, by local councils where it is sensible to do so, rather than being centralised in Westminster. I'd argue that the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and London have been very successful and I'd recommend people in other regions campaign for similar devolution. However, I also realise that some decisions are better made at national and European level, and that unnecessary local variation is sometimes impractical, wasteful and inefficient. And in the modern world, needless barriers and variation between European countries make us all poorer; they make Europe much less competitive than larger markets such as the US; and they reduce opportunities and quality of life for all of us. We can achieve so much more when we work together.

That's one reason why I'm a strong supporter of the European Union, and I strongly object to the leaver position of centralising all power in Westminster.