Should MP's have voted with their constituents wishes or stood down after the first vote?

[RippleEffects]

I listened to some of the discussion on BBC news last night and Jacob Rees-Mogg talking about the percentage of voters who voted Brexit and percentage of people in parliament that want Brexit and the big disparity.

I thought MP's were ment to represent their constituents. Why, if they can't support such a fundamental democratic voted for process as Brexit, are they not stepping down?

I'm so angry with the elite we know best attitude. The gafawing and laughing, the lack of any real determination to get things resolved. The professional opposition, who just like to moan but don't actually contribute positive movement forwards or conceed anything to allow the nation to move forwards.

They don't act on their constituents' wishes in parliamentary votes. That's not how our system works. We chose the best person to stand up in parliament for our constituency and usually base this on the party we are most impressed with/by. If we don't like them, we vote them out at a general election.
We do not govern by referenda. We don't have direct democracy; we have representative democracy.
My MP voted Remain but is a Corbyn lick spittle, for example. I despise Corbyn. My MP is also on a side I don't agree with on a local issue. I will not vote for him even though I am a Remain voting Labour voter (or had been a Labour all my adult life until now).

Rees-Moggs constituency voted remain.
Is he offering to step down?

Thank you for responding. There's so much I don't understand. The more I start to think I'm getring my head around an issue the bigger the issue appears.

I'm with you on Cornyn. I feel so frustrated at knowing more about what he opposes than what he wants to do, that can realistically be done, to help the country move forwards.

I've been a Labour supporter too. Not sure what the hell I am now. Its a true lesser of evils vote. Horribly negative stance.

Ripple you are right, the issue is big (well enormous actually). Most MPs are also struggling with the current issues.

I just hope we get full parliamentary reform out of this. A form of PR and that in future we will have a government that knows how to negotiate and can cope with the fact that negotiation requires compromise on both sides.

The MPs first duty is to vote for what they consider is for the good of the country. Obviously, this will vary by what party they belong to.

Good point about Rees-Mogg - when will he go?

How would MPs know what their constituents want them to do in these votes? They haven’t asked us.

The public were not offered a vote on deals and ways of leaving in 2016. The referendum was not binding. And a lot of people have changed their mind in the mean time. So who knows what constituents want right now?! Maybe we should be asked again with the deals/ options and actual facts on the table... There’s a thought!

@MagicSeeker it is a thought. But to me, it feels like there are already too many conflicting opinions in the pie.

If it's a divorce (albeit countries rather than individuals) dont we need a court date and decision to draw a line under everything and then we can move forwards.

Being an advocate of a Parliament free of Party Politics I believe all MPs should vote according to their constituent's wishes. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works (a popular MN phrase) at the moment.

The current system has MPs of Leave constituencies advising Parliament how destructive Leaving will be for their constituents.

Ok - so are you telling your constituents that you know more than them or is there something that you know that your constituents don't?

Did you get elected because you were a member of a certain political party?

Would you still get elected if you stood on your own opinions?

Independent MPs - who can 'referendum'/engage with the people they represent and forward those views to Parliament, or get unelected and can go try and stand elsewhere is a system I desire.

Surely the days of 'whipping' have been over for quite a time now - isn't it time that Parliament stopped 'whipping' people too?

The Labour position is to leave with a deal that keeps us in the customs union, and ensures the rights of UK and EU citizens. Corbyn, Starmer etc have met with the EU negotiating team and they are in agreement that this could be acceptable to them.

How do people not know this? Are people even aware that Labour have been continuously meeting with the EU team?

Going forwards, the Labour leadership are this week meeting with MPs from both sides to work out what might be amenable to a majority.

A people's vote is still on the table, but statutory provisions mean it could not happen before the EU elections in May, and as such we would be tied into a new term in the EU. Obviously this would create a huge cost implication for the EU.

(I'm a remain supporter, but can see the value of a compromise that leaves us with a strong EU alliance.)

Also the EU has made it clear that there will be no further negotiations with the current government. They've been very careful in how they've stated this, they've not shut the door at all, but rather they're refusing to go round in circles with May and her endless stream of Brexit secretaries.

And the role of MPs is to represent the interests of their constituents. This isn't necessarily the same as their views!

(Apologies for the repeat posts!)

MPs are representing their constituents, MPs are not delegates for them.
As others have said, their first duty is to do what is in the best interests of the country, then the specific interests of their constituents. Nothing about (misled, uninformed etc) wishes of their constituents.