EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[burneside]

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.

What's the difference between a populist vote and an ordinary vote?

 

[WelshBluebird]

What's the difference between a populist vote and an ordinary vote?

The example gave by dosxuk is the best really.
Basically just trying to make the point that just because a majority voted for something does not mean it is the best action to take.
If that is the case for Brexit or not really depends on the specific constituency.

 

[furnessvale]

What's the difference between a populist vote and an ordinary vote?

A populist vote is one that doesn't give you the answer you wanted.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

If it was a normal parliamentary vote even the UKIP MP couldn't be guaranteed to vote in favour of the bill on the first vote. He might want Leave but that doesn't mean he'd be happy with the terms of the bill proposed by another political party without any amendments.

 

[miami]

It's important to remember that the referendum and trump results, no matter how bad they are, is the culmination of years of regressive viewpoints. Based on the number of regrexiters, and of course the deaths of many brexiters, a second referendum now would of course mean a remain vote, but only in the region of 55-45. This wouldn't solve the societal problems of a rejection of reasoned arguments in favour of alternate-facts and snappy headlines, and would instead likely drive even more people into the trap of the loony fringes of society, making those extremist views more 'acceptable'.

A colleague's friend was yelled at in the supermarket last week for not going "home". Roll on brexit. #NotAllBrexiteersButDefinitelyTooMany of course.

 

[burneside]

It's important to remember that the referendum and trump results, no matter how bad they are, is the culmination of years of regressive viewpoints. Based on the number of regrexiters, and of course the deaths of many brexiters, a second referendum now would of course mean a remain vote, but only in the region of 55-45. This wouldn't solve the societal problems of a rejection of reasoned arguments in favour of alternate-facts and snappy headlines, and would instead likely drive even more people into the trap of the loony fringes of society, making those extremist views more 'acceptable'.

A colleague's friend was yelled at in the supermarket last week for not going "home". Roll on brexit. #NotAllBrexiteersButDefinitelyTooMany of course.

Not that a second referendum is going to happen, but you are being far too confident in assuming Remain would win. Have you not learnt the lesson of June 23rd?

 

[northwichcat]

A colleague's friend was yelled at in the supermarket last week for not going "home". Roll on brexit. #NotAllBrexiteersButDefinitelyTooMany of course.

Are they even from an EU country?

 

[EM2]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ent-twenty-years-private-equity-a7540986.html

Brexit could cut wages by 30% over next two decades, says private equity boss Guy Hands
Leaving the European Union will be bad for most people but good for his own multi-billion pound fund, he says

One of the most high profile names in finance has said that Brexit is going to lead to dramatic economic upheaval which will be bad for most people but good for his multi billion-pound private equity firm.

Guy Hands, chairman of Terra Firma, one of Europe's largest private equity groups, warned that the country will have to get rid of much of its social safety net and may see a 30 per cent decline in wages in real terms in the next 20 years to enable it to compete outside of Europe.

Debt will command higher interest rates as more risk is ascribed to an independent UK, and immigrants from Europe will be replaced with workers from the Indian subcontinent and Africa, who may be willing to accept “substantially” lower pay, he said.

Still, ultimately, the exit will be a good thing for the economy, Hands said.

“The slightly sad thing is the people who voted for Brexit aren’t the people who are going to have to make these sacrifices,” Hands said. “That’s not unusual for big, political decisions when people don’t fully analyse what the economic consequences are.”

Prime Minister Theresa May said this month that the country would leave the European Union’s single market, pursuing a so-called hard Brexit and severing the bloc’s influence over the UK’s immigration and laws. She’s aiming to preserve tariff-free trade between Britain and the continent while securing the liberty to make new deals with other countries.

Brexit will also present opportunities for buyout funds, Hands said. As interest rates go up, some businesses will go bankrupt, leading to buying opportunities, he said.

“Sadly, and this is always one of the strange things about business, I think it’s probably a bad thing for the majority of people and bad for the country, but I think, for my business, it’s probably going to be good,” he said.

 

[dosxuk]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ent-twenty-years-private-equity-a7540986.html

Brexit could cut wages by 30% over next two decades, says private equity boss Guy Hands
Leaving the European Union will be bad for most people but good for his own multi-billion pound fund, he says

I'm still waiting for our leavers to actually tell me anything that will result in Britain being better after Brexit after consigning yesterday we're all too negative.

 

[NSEFAN]

It's important to remember that the referendum and trump results, no matter how bad they are, is the culmination of years of regressive viewpoints. Based on the number of regrexiters, and of course the deaths of many brexiters, a second referendum now would of course mean a remain vote, but only in the region of 55-45. This wouldn't solve the societal problems of a rejection of reasoned arguments in favour of alternate-facts and snappy headlines, and would instead likely drive even more people into the trap of the loony fringes of society, making those extremist views more 'acceptable'.

A colleague's friend was yelled at in the supermarket last week for not going "home". Roll on brexit. #NotAllBrexiteersButDefinitelyTooMany of course.

You're assuming that people's political views don't change as they get older, but this isn't necessarily the case (golden age syndrome, etc).

 

[dosxuk]

You're assuming that people's political views don't change as they get older, but this isn't necessarily the case (golden age syndrome, etc).

But the younger you get, the more the EU has featured in their rose-tinted goggles. It's only those under 45 who have even lived outside the EU, and those over 60 who will really have been affected by the accession.

 

[Trog]

the ability for an unelected government likely backed by a small majority of MPs........

Bit of a contradiction there as I am sure I remember there being a General Election where we were asked to vote for said MP's, the majority or largest group of which then form the government.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Bit of a contradiction there as I am sure I remember there being a General Election where we were asked to vote for said MP's, the majority or largest group of which then form the government.

Nope.

We vote for Parliament (aka the legislative branch of government). As you correctly say, every MP is elected.

The Government (aka the executive branch of government) is usually made up by the biggest group who can command the majority of Parliament. However to say we elect the Government isn't really true. Minority Governments are a thing, and technically the Queen appoints the Prime Minister who then chooses Ministers to make up the Government themselves. No voting required. It is important to note the difference between the Government and the MP's aligned to that group (in part because a member of the Government doesn't have to be an MP, even the PM technically doesn't have to be). Just because someone is a Conservative MP at the moment, it doesn't mean they are a member of the current Government (indeed a Conservative backbencher would be a current Conservative MP who isn't part of the Government).

So although it appears that we elect the Government, in reality that isn't really true.

 

[PHILIPE]

A populist vote is one that doesn't give you the answer you wanted.

Are you listening, Mr. Cameron ?

 

[HSTEd]

And Sturgeon is already screaming that this is a 'betrayal' and that Scots must now vote for independence for some reason.

 

[Howardh]

And Sturgeon is already screaming that this is a 'betrayal' and that Scots must now vote for independence for some reason.

UK wants "freedom" from the "tyranny" that is the EU where they feel they get little say and dictated to by a bunch of unelected commissioners; and that's fine, Scotland want "freedom" from the "tyranny" of an UK Parliament that they feel get little say and dictated to by a load of English MP's and the unelected House of Lords, and that's bad.

Got it.

 

[HSTEd]

UK wants "freedom" from the "tyranny" that is the EU where they feel they get little say and dictated to by a bunch of unelected commissioners; and that's fine, Scotland want "freedom" from the "tyranny" of an UK Parliament that they feel get little say and dictated to by a load of English MP's and the unelected House of Lords, and that's bad.

Got it.

When did I ever say the UK leaving the EU was a good thing or couch it in those terms.

But Sturgeon is becoming something of an annoying broken record, the Judges finding that Parliamentary Supremacy means that the Scottish Parliament has no veto (which is what she was demanding) is not a 'betrayal'.
It is just a statement of the blindingly obvious.

 

[furnessvale]

UK wants "freedom" from the "tyranny" that is the EU where they feel they get little say and dictated to by a bunch of unelected commissioners; and that's fine, Scotland want "freedom" from the "tyranny" of an UK Parliament that they feel get little say and dictated to by a load of English MP's and the unelected House of Lords, and that's bad.

Got it.

You missed the bit where Scotland want to retain the tyranny of the EU but that is good....or is it bad?

 

[Trog]

Nope.

We vote for Parliament (aka the legislative branch of government). As you correctly say, every MP is elected.

The Government (aka the executive branch of government) is usually made up by the biggest group who can command the majority of Parliament. However to say we elect the Government isn't really true. Minority Governments are a thing, and technically the Queen appoints the Prime Minister who then chooses Ministers to make up the Government themselves. No voting required. It is important to note the difference between the Government and the MP's aligned to that group (in part because a member of the Government doesn't have to be an MP, even the PM technically doesn't have to be). Just because someone is a Conservative MP at the moment, it doesn't mean they are a member of the current Government (indeed a Conservative backbencher would be a current Conservative MP who isn't part of the Government).

So although it appears that we elect the Government, in reality that isn't really true.

There appears to be an echo in here as that is the point I was making but in more words. As a reply to the statement that Brexit was the project of an unelected government. My point (and yours) being that no government is elected but their constituent MP's are so the current government is no different to any other.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There appears to be an echo in here as that is the point I was making but in more words. As a reply to the statement that Brexit was the project of an unelected government. My point (and yours) being that no government is elected but their constituent MP's are so the current government is no different to any other.

Totally missed the point of your post in that case then, so apologies!

I disagree slightly in that even though technically we don't vote for a government, a lot of the time a persons opinion on how to vote is influenced by who will be PM, so the potential candidate can influence the result of the vote. Whereas in this case that obviously wasn't the case. And there is a smidge of hypocrisy in that May was pretty vocal back when Brown became PM (but hypocrisy in politics - no one is shocked there!).

But yeah, technically no government is elected. Although I would love to see what would happen if say a chosen PM wasn't an MP for example.

 

[EM2]

You missed the bit where Scotland want to retain the tyranny of the EU but that is good....or is it bad?

But the Scots obviously don't feel the EU to be tyrannical.

 

[Trog]

But yeah, technically no government is elected. Although I would love to see what would happen if say a chosen PM wasn't an MP for example.

It has happened in the past with Prime Ministers from the House of Lords. I think in theory you don't even have to be a British Citizen let alone elected to be Prime Minister, you just need the support of the largest group of MP's.

 

[radamfi]

Brexiters, why don't you address the concerns that UK citizens may find it difficult to live and work in the EU in future? I'm still waiting for your solution.

 

[Howardh]

But the Scots obviously don't feel the EU to be tyrannical.

Which it isn't of course!

 

[miami]

Nope.

We vote for Parliament (aka the legislative branch of government). As you correctly say, every MP is elected.

The Government (aka the executive branch of government) is usually made up by the biggest group who can command the majority of Parliament. However to say we elect the Government isn't really true. Minority Governments are a thing, and technically the Queen appoints the Prime Minister who then chooses Ministers to make up the Government themselves. No voting required. It is important to note the difference between the Government and the MP's aligned to that group (in part because a member of the Government doesn't have to be an MP, even the PM technically doesn't have to be). Just because someone is a Conservative MP at the moment, it doesn't mean they are a member of the current Government (indeed a Conservative backbencher would be a current Conservative MP who isn't part of the Government).

So although it appears that we elect the Government, in reality that isn't really true.

Indeed, and normally the PM is the leader of that party, who in the case of the conservatives is the MP who is elected from a very small number of people (I believe just the MPs?). They need to command 50%+1 of their party to support them, which in this case is 165 MPs, and that gives them control over the whips who can control the other 164 MPs with threats of firing them (deselection) if they don't fall in line with regards to votes of no confidence.

In this case our current PM wasn't even elected - simply appointed, and maintains support of a minimum of 165 tory mps, most of whom have government jobs (ministers of some sort), and therefore have a financial incentive to back the current leader.

The rest of parliament has no say over the ministers the PM appoints - this isn't a democracy in the way the EU is a democracy (with parliament having control), this is the control sitting with Theresa May. Fortunately Parliament now need to represent the interests of their constituents and vote the way that's best for them, paying attention to the feelings of their constituents, but voting for what's best, not necessarily what the constituents think want (the same way a doctor shouldn't prescribe antibiotics to someone with a runny nose).

 

[miami]

Totally missed the point of your post in that case then, so apologies!

I disagree slightly in that even though technically we don't vote for a government, a lot of the time a persons opinion on how to vote is influenced by who will be PM, so the potential candidate can influence the result of the vote.

Indeed so. And in 2015 we elected a party that said David Cameron would be PM. In 2016 we voted for brexit on the back of David Cameron promising he would stay as PM.

That changed, both votes are invalid.

 

[miami]

But yeah, technically no government is elected. Although I would love to see what would happen if say a chosen PM wasn't an MP for example.

The head of government in the US is elected - Donald J Trump was elected by a minority (not even a plurality) of voters, and has built his government (secretaries). Those secretaries/ministers get scrutinised via the equivalent of parliament.

That's way more democratic than the UK system where the PM isn't elected, and the ministers don't get scrutinised.

 

[furnessvale]

Brexiters, why don't you address the concerns that UK citizens may find it difficult to live and work in the EU in future? I'm still waiting for your solution.

I thought everything remainers say is cast iron FACT whereas it is only brexiters who deal in ifs and buts?

 

[radamfi]

I thought everything remainers say is cast iron FACT whereas it is only brexiters who deal in ifs and buts?

So what's your solution?

 

[furnessvale]

So what's your solution?

Teresa May has already offered a deal to the EU but was rebuffed.