To think this could mean the end of brexit?

[jdoe8]

Now MPs will be able to block it. Could this be the end of this ridiculous brexit? MPs can not vote for something that they think will not be in peoples interest and its very clear the people that voted to brexit would be the ones worse off.

JO'B is doing a fab job on LBC today and most brexiters seem to be happy that it might not go ahead as they were fooled by lies!

Brexit is not daft, it is getting off a runaway train. The judges may have looked at the legislation, and not exactly without a degree of personal interest, but they did not look at whether the legislation was reasonable and whether the public had been fully informed. If this was contract law the legislation would have been thrown out as defective. It is akin to being sold a product with small print that said it actually still belonged to the store.

jaws5

Sunderland MP would lobby for cars and City MP for Passport/FoM for City professionals - both directions of course.

However, we only control half of the game. EU the other half - if there are grown up than it is a win win. If it is Task style IN our to Out then, well, more pain but clearer choices.

The key features are (some) Border control, No ECJ and out of tariff union. Both sides are generally in agreement in security and academic corporations etc.

The key features are (some) Border control, No ECJ and out of tariff union.

No, none of that was on the ballot paper, just leave or stay in the EU.

Do remainers realise that if we were to backtrack now and decide not to Brext we will have totally screwed up our relationship with Europe - we would be considered very weak and would have the EU walking all over us

We will be the laughing stock of Europe. As well as having a reputation for whinging, we will forever be known as those lily-livered poms who lacked the strength to follow through with their convictions.

whatever anyones feelings are - we really are living in thrilling times grin, thrilling.

and after Wednesday things could get even more thrilling. Hold onto your hats, the ride's about to get really bumpy .

Do you not think we've already totally screwed up our relationship with Europe, whatever happens now? For more than 40 years since we opted in under Thatcher, a vocal minority has been complaining about belonging to the European Community. "Leave" is not new - it's why UKIP was formed. Why does this most recent advisory referendum mean that Remainers should now be silenced? Seriously?

Tuktuktaker - I think you would be wise to re-read your post. Yes, people have waited 40 blooming years to have this option to leave and others who think they know better want to now come along and undo it. I think if the shoe was on the other foot you would be mightily pissed off too.

You could argue, if you were inclined, (I'm not) to say on Wednesday the country was screwed on Thursday the Country became very, very screwed. Well done everyone.

Merrymouse. Well, let's stay. Without paying our dues and ignoring all their laws. See how long we last. As I understand it, leaving means no longer paying membership or submitting to regulations.

We opted in under Ted Heath, and then had a Referendum about staying in a couple of years later under Harold Wilson, won by a convincing majority. And there the matter rested for many years, without it being a big issue.

So now EU have to be grown up and all will be fine? So the spectacle that UK is offering the world, is totally "grown up"?
As an example, someone I know who voted Leave, talking about the abuse by DM of the judges, said that he doesn't care what the judges decided as people are "fed up with people who think they know best", and then ranted about how much money Hillary Clinton has. He is a right wing Tory and an old family friend, and I used to respect him as a person although we've had many friendly disagreements over the years, on things like rent to buy (one of his businesses), private education (only the best for his kids) and things like that. No big deal, it's just that now he sounds like a freedom fighter for the "common people", while I'm accused of being elitist because I want to remain in the EU and live in London.For me, his opinion exemplifies why I am so genuinely scared. As the 20th century clearly showed us, in difficult times people can show a totally unpredictable side and appease fascists, inform on their old Jewish neighbour, and keep silent while judges are tried for treason. I'm so appalled and upset.

bored you do know, don't you, that if you want to export to the EU you need to submit to regulation? It's a sort of product guarantee without which you cannot trade. Furthermore, many other countries around the world want EU regulations approved products....

Peregrina - so why is it banded about by Remainers across a large majority of these threads that "Leavers have been banging on for 40 years about leaving why should we shut up now" we either have been banging on or we haven't, you can't just roll that out when it suits your argument.

What would happen if Parliament did vote against the Will of the People? What would we do? There'd be quite a lot of people who are very cross indeed, but what would we, the People, actually do? We have no power, we don't even have pitchforks!, not many anyway.

I reckon we'd just sit about whinging online.

There's an interesting intellectual debate as to why a Remain-leaning MP should feel obliged to vote to trigger Article 50 to begin Brexit.

In the UK we have a Representative Democracy which means that our MPs are exactly that - representatives, not delegates.
Despite what people might like to believe, we elect them to represent our best interests rather than us dictate exactly what they must do.

In the 'Duties of MPs' it clearly states that Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents. They are expected to exercise their judgement and consider issues in the context of both the national interest and the interests of their constituents. They also have to consider the interests of ALL their constituents, not just those that actively vote, or engage the loudest on social media, or write to them etc.

If we consider that this advisory referendum has provided MPs with the following guidance on how to act (if we use the national figures as an example/guide)

• a minority (37.4%) of their constituents eligible to vote are in favour of leaving the EU

• a not dissimilar minority (34.7%) are in favour of remaining
• a significant proportion (27.8%) did not vote (and in so doing have left it to their MP to represent them, and act in their best interests).
• another significant proportion were not eligible to vote, but this doesn't mean that their interests should not be considered, and again, an MP is expected to vote in whatever they believe would be their best interests. For example, c.21% of the UK population is under 18 years old.

Taking all this into consideration, it may well be that only about 29% of all constituents have actively expressed a preference to leave the EU. If the MP strongly believes (given everything they know and have learnt in the professional role to which they were elected) that it is in the best interests of the nation and constituents to remain in the EU, then that is how they should vote. They are then acting in what they truly believe is in the best interest of 70% of their constituents!

Yes, it might result in them losing their seat at the next GE.
Yes, it might result in rioting
Yes, people on Twitter and the Daily Mail will not like it

But that is what an honest, conviction, Remain MP should do.

vote against it. They can of course state their opinions

I live in a strongly Remain area and have a Remain MP. You are saying that he must not represent his constituents' views on this.

Although I suppose you have magnanimously allowed for some opinion on the detail of Brexit so we should count ourselves lucky, when other Leavers are calling for dissidents to be imprisoned in the Tower or the hanging of judges.

I agree a small handful of Tory MPs have been 'banging on about Europe' but average Joe and Jill, didn't give two hoots. And they still don't now. If these threads start up in anywhere except the Referendum thread, they get moved, because people don't want to read them, which isn't the behaviour of people who feel strongly about something.

And yes, I was around for the previous vote. Harold Wilson was a damn site smarter than Cameron or May! He didn't bother to ask the question until he was sure of the answer.

Memoires - this 'will of the people' is a tricky concept. Where was it ever agreed that 37% (or 29% - see my earlier post) represents the 'will of the people'?

What was crap about the referendum was that it didn't clearly state what % would be considered decisive and it gave the impression that it was a 'first past the post' thing which was legally binding.

Wilson was a smart man. We are much the poorer for the loss of people of that calibre in politics, they are like hen's teeth these days. Where have they gone?

Parliament was quite happy to override local democracy in relation to fracking, economic concerns but won't do the same for brexit even though their own advisers have said inflation etc will rise.

Where was it ever agreed that 37% (or 29% - see my earlier post) represents the 'will of the people'?

The only thing I'm sure about is that the will of those people is in the pocket of the telegraph.

it's more like the whim of the people than the will

jaws5

Mature democratic institutions have become a rarity nowadays.

The way this should work is that we have voted out so EU should say fine, now let's see how we can amicably disentangle and negotiate a win-win deal. Instead, we have all these tough talks

Think of a broadband company who tells you that if you dare leave us, we will cut you off before you are able to setup a new broadband connection rather than we look forward to have you as a partner/customer in the future.

If an institution hold members together through threat of 'punishments' rather than attractions of staying, it does not have many years to look forward to.

Quandary excellent explanation. The trouble is as soon as you tell people you are being 'patronising'. This whole debacle has just demonstrated how woefully ignorant vast swaths of the general public are. Now I am being elitist.

Merrymouse. Well, let's stay. Without paying our dues and ignoring all their laws. See how long we last. As I understand it, leaving means no longer paying membership or submitting to regulations.

The referendum was on leaving the EU.

It is possible to leave the EU, and still pay into the EU in return for various privileges. As to not submitting to their regulations - which regulations? Switzerland is not part of the EU but must allow free movement to be part of the single market. Switzerland was specifically mentioned on leave leaflets as a country that trades with the EU without being in the EU.

Businesses that trade with the EU must comply with EU regulations.

You might think that this should all have been clearly hashed out before the referendum. However it wasn't and the vote was only EU, in or out.

Nobody has asked the people what leaving the EU means, just whether it should be done. A bit silly in retrospect, but Cameron thought he would win.

TES

It is best to look at your logic by inverting it.

Do you believe that Leave majority area MPs should continue to block all future EU initiatives if the Referendum had resulted in a Remain outcome in order to represent their constituencies or should they accept that UK has voted to remain and so accept that fact and look how best to protect their constituents' interest subject to the fact that Remain had won ?