No Conservatives bothered to turn up to debate our 6 million strong Revoke Article 50 petition 😢😡

[tenredthings]

Not a single conservative MP was present when it was debated in Parliament in spite of over 6000000 signatures on the revoke A50 petition. It's clear they don't give a damn about the will of the people.

If remain wanted genuine political power it can only be in a general election. At that point it has to get together and support Labour.

That means however much you dislike Corbyn and his policies towards women etc you have to vote for him anyway.

But chances are it won't work. Because Labour is already fracturing, the SNP are already stifling Labours power and a number of tradional Labour supporters will switch to UKIP if labour dont support leave.

In the end if Conservatives support leave chances are conservative UKIP voters wont risk splitting the vote becausr of the clusterfuck this parliament has been.

Ukip were successful politically because in the end it put stress on all parties. And unfortunately we are still seeing the result of that now. You can dislike UKIP (and i really do) but what it achieved politically went way beyond a few signatures on an online petition and in a system that is designed to suppress minority interest parties

Also the political powers have trundled through no deal as an option, were debating it and it lost. However some Leavers still advocate it. What's the difference?

It shows that remain are mostly of the computer literate generation who want action now and leavers are more politically minded in there use of the system to effect long term change

That sounds like it ought to be true

But i dont reckon it is

I think most of the arguments would work better if leave didnt have a petition of their own

Anyway im probably the wrong person to be debating this as ive said eleventy billion times that i dont think it will achieve anything

And i should really clarify that i agree with masses of what green is posting

Just not all of it...but that would be boring

You mean that petition where folk on social media and here on MN were encouraging multiple signatures with different email addresses, signing in the name of your kids, dogs, cats etc? I think an actual vote, by registered adults, is more indicative of public opinion.

Respecting the results of the referendum was a party promise of all parties in the last general election. all parties were voted in on this mandate.

If you dont vote in a deal or revoke, no deal is the only outcome that still respects that election promise, its the defacto outcome regardless of what anyone actually wants.

You cant drop no deal as an option an respect past parlimentary votes (that did get through).

No party takes or should breaking that big an election promise lightly. Look at Lib Dems, broke a significant election promise (uni fees) demolished at the next general election.

No doubt some leavers are more politically minded in their use of the system to effect long term change. That's sensible for any political viewpoint.

However not enough long term change to the Leave view has happened yet.

As pointed out up thread not enough of the 66 million people or 639 MPs support that view which isn't a singular view anyway.

If the long term change had happened then there'd be greater consensus.There isn't.

Perhaps the timing of the ref just wasn't right.

I think most of the arguments would work better if leave didnt have a petition of their own

Have you seen the petition? Its a tin pot set up done in response the the remain vote with little social media support handed round by email. The wording so poor/disgusting it would put a significant number of people off signing even they did support leave. It was the first time leave has been so utterly off the back foot and it shows.

The remain petition played to remain strengths. Strong social media support, well written. It was a fine protest.

I thought manifesto promises only apply when there's a parliamentary majority?

If there's no clear win then no single party has the clout to implement its manifesto pledges.

If there's a coalition (or a confidence and supply?) then the government’s manifesto promises have to be watered-down, compromised or replaced.

Anyway majority governments often break manifesto pledges e.g.

•Labour didn't hold a ref on electoral reform despite promising to in its 1997 manifesto.
•Labour gave operational independence for the Bank of England to set interest rates which had not been mentioned in the manifesto.

There are lots of things large and small in manifestos that don't happen and things not in manifestos that do.

Speak to me a few weeks back i thought Conservatives might fracture with the European group JRM etc. I dont think that will happen now. Remain has scared tories back together again.

Oh i know green once again i agree with you

green needs to say something i dont agree with or its going to get embarrassing

@lonelyplanetmum

I agree. Paddy Ashdown also agreed with you when the BBC interviewed before Election night general election before last. He even offered to eat his hat. He was ashen when the results came it. I have no doubt it was a combination of issues but attention coalesced on tution fees. Its about voters trust in the party and the demolition of the lib dems dealt a significant political scar. You can see it in some remain Labour voters that had a high UKIP/leave constituency

Labour didn't hold a ref on electoral reform despite promising to in its 1997 manifesto.
Correct me if im wrong but i believe they tried and it didnt get through commons. Either way it was a worrying proposal as it turned out it would have given UKIP significantly more power than it had. Turned out to be a politically astute uturn.

@Rufusthebewilderedreindeer

I support leave. There we go You got a 50/50 chance of not being able to agree with that probably higher given mumsnet

Oh its higher alright green

Oh the relief

I disagree!!!!

I thought id be spending the day trotting round behind green going

I agree

I agree

I agree

as it turned out it would have given UKIP significantly more power than it had

I obvs despise UKIP as I think you do. However as I've said on another thread this morning I want UKIP to have an MP. Then instead of being an agitating unknown threat they would be out in the open and assessed on substantive merits.
Instead of focussing on one ( non) issue they'd have to focus on wider government issues, health, education, social care, poverty line etc.
Better the devil you know etc..

However not enough long term change to the Leave view has happened yet.

The Maastricht Treaty (officially the Treaty on European Union) was signed on 7 February 1992. It set up the framework for the European union.

1993 UKIP set up. Considered a one interest somewhat objectionable minority interest party. It applied sufficient pressure to get a Referendum bill through in 2015 and win a Referendum the year after.

That we are even having this discussion is as a result of the long term political campaign leave managed.

Why leave hasnt happened yet is because actually Parliament is mostly remain. Thanks to a bloody stupid General election that Theresa May held no party has the numbers to enforce their will. Therefore if you voted leave are asking many decent people to vote against their conscience. Hence stalemate.

There is absolutely no way i want UKIP to have an MP, especially now they have links with Tommy Robinson. And it wouldnt have been one MP (they had that for a time anyway) based on the number votes in 2015 it would have been 12.6% of the houses of commons, i suspect higher if some conservatives hadn't been worried about splitting the vote and thereby losing to labour. You can assess their merits based on the information they put out either deliberately or incidentally. You dont need to have an mp to do that

I think give UKIP enough rope they'll destroy themselves - look at the number of leaders they had in a year it was laughable.

The MEPs that had that physical fight. The spilt with Farage. The infiltration of some Tory constituencies.

People need to see more of that.

By their actions they are judged or something like that.

You need to understand that in context though.

They'd won. They did what they set out too do. They had no purpose. Much of their support for the time being at least went back to their respective labour and conservative routes.

Their strength wasnt actually in the leadership. It was in the grassroots ability to plod the streets and spread the word for something they believed passionately in and then turn that into actual political pressure.

Get 17.4 million actual voters and perhaps they will would you like a link to one of the bots?

Respecting the results of the referendum was a party promise of all parties in the last general election. all parties were voted in on this mandate.

I accept that as a reality, but I disagree with the implication. No one had a choice, because as you say, all parties had that in their manifestos. Those of us who disagreed had no choice in the matter. That vote was in any case also a long time ago, before TM triggered A50 with no prior examination of options and wasted 3 years faffing around.

Tell you who I'm furious with a) Brexiteers, but b), Brexiteers who then didn't give the Tories the mandate in that stupidly called GE.

Now, I am both a Remainer and a Lib Dem , fwiw.

But, to me, the stupidest thing to do was to vote Leave then emasculate the party delivering it to you.

Why??

It defies logic, tho does unfortunately play into the 'Leave voter as stupid' narrative...