Brexit Arms

[DustyDiamond]

Welcome to the Brexit Arms!!

🍷🍷🍷🍷🍷

#PrayForSally
🙏🕯

MPs' code of conduct expects them to act in the best interests of the nation,

News to me, TwoFingers.

What I think you are referring to is the Burkean view of representative democracy: MPs as representatives of their constituencies and not delegates.

Burke did not allow for the possibility of a direct referendum. Such things were unknown in his time. Parliament handed the decision directly to the people and was duty bound to act on their decision.

However, if you have a copy of the Code of Conduct to which you refer, happy to be corrected.

However, if you have a copy of the Code of Conduct to which you refer, happy to be corrected.

Google is your friend

Continuity labour front bench, at least 4 major players all benefitted from the the type of education they want to be tip from others, grammer school.

Then oxbridge.

Arghhhhhhh!! Want to rip from others!!

How can an mp be legally bound to act in the best interests of the nation (according to them) when a referendum has been held stating otherwise?

If the law still gives mp that precedence then the law is an ass and needs addressing.

I'd like to see what happens if every single mp who voted remain and wants to simply cancel the ref result stand clearly on tv and invoke that alleged law up thread?

We are going to act in what we feel is in the best interest for you, and therefore cancel the ref.

However, if you have a copy of the Code of Conduct to which you refer, happy to be corrected.
*
Google is your friend* 

Thank you, ContinuityError. However, it is not I who brought in the reference to the alleged Code of Conduct to back up what I was saying. It was TwoFingers. I do not think TwoFingers is correct and explained why.

Love this banter with you but please read the original posts again.

Singing I do not think TwoFingers is correct* and explained why.
*but could not be arsed to do a basic fact check before making this assertion...
it's really not hard to find It's under 'Duties of Members'.

I reiterate: "in the interests of..." does not translate to "doing what they are told".

Parliament handed the decision directly to the people and was duty bound to act on their decision.

Legally, it was an advisory referendum. In my mind, there's a direct conflict between acting on the decision of the people and acting in the interests of the nation, which is why I believe the referendum should not have been called. Of course, I do not expect you to agree with this.

Morning all. Two fingers accuses me of political bias whilst trotting off the old trop - Tories = austerity, destruction of the NHS etc. Austerity was only initiated because of the dire straights the country was in after 13 years of labour. We are now in a better place so able to spend and recoup what has had to be cut back in the past 9 years.
Did anyone see Andrew Neil on Wednesday night interviewing the shadow health sec.? He questioned the Labour idea that a Tory government would sell us all down the river for a US trade deal and cost the NHS £500m a week. Which is plainly ridiculous. First of all no responsible politician would agree to such a stupid trade deal and secondly the figure assumes all our drugs come from the US so we would have to pay these prices for everything. He had the author of the report they have been quoting on his lunch time programme on Thursday where he questioned the figures but really didn't have time to drill down on them. Pity.

I'll have a cup of the excellent coffee please.

Just catching up. Small point of order. If you believe in Representative Democracy, as I do, the MPs "acting in the best interests of the Nation" is the SAME as "representing the wishes of their constituents and the country at large" because the whole point of Democracy is that the people are better judges of the Nation's interest than the ruling elite.

Any narrative which strays from this basic precept strays towards limiting the franchise and rule by wealth and position.

Thank you, Two Fingers. It actually reads:

6.Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

The italics are mine.

It's fair to say you believe the referendum should not have been called. However, it was. MPs offered it, having first voted it into law. David Cameron's government should have prepared for both results in a binary referendum. It did not. In fact, he stopped the Civil Service from preparing for that eventuality. His arrogance and negligence were astounding. Still. Leave won. You are correct that strictly speaking, the referendum was advisory and not binding in law. David Cameron's foolhardiness again. He said - in the shiny £9m brochure - "This is the people's decision. The Government will enact what you decide", and the electorate voted on the basis of that promise. In good faith. MPs for Labour and Conservative Parties stood on manifestos promising to uphold the results of the referendum. They passed the legislation authorising notification of Article 50 (thank you, Gina Miller) by an overall majority.

They then proceeded to argue and bicker and strain every sinew to swerve the result of the referendum, their own manifesto promises, and their own legally binding votes subsequently, all the while quoting Burkean principles as a way of subverting the country's decision.

But you know all this as well as I do.

If MPs thought that remaining in the EU was indeed "in the interests of the nation of the whole", why did they commit to a referendum in the first place? Why did they promise to honour the result? Why did they pass the subsequent legislation enshrining the decision in law?

Why have they never - at any stage - never exercised their "special duty to their constituents"?

The tally of contemptible MPs is high - on both sides of the House. Some have stepped down voluntarily. I'm hoping enough of the remaining wasters will fall on 12 December.

Perhaps then, we - as a country - can start to move forward and address the real issues that beset us everyday.

two fingers - not this old chestnut the referendum was only advisory again! All referendums are advisory in the UK Parliament voted to enact it and voted to enact A50.

Howabout - you said it so much more pithily than I did! Thank you.

Doubletrouble, fully agree.

For what it's worth, I agree with John McDonnell insofar as I would also like to live in a country with enough prosperity for all of us to live decently. Where I part company from him is that I don't think making the country bankrupt first is the most sensible way to go about it.

VeryGenuinequestions

Only 1 Labour front bencher went to public school (you’ll have to dig a bit).

What type of school did Johnson, Goldsmith and Rees-Mogg go to?

SingingLily

Probably best not to tell other people to just Google things - stones and glasshouses and all that.

Especially when it takes you longer to request a link than it does to actually find out for yourself

Continuity, your labouring a point here

It doesn't wash with me because grammar schools were set up to improve social mobility and there they all are, sat on the front benches of power, and they want to kick that ladder away.

Glad to bring some happiness into your day, ContinuityError. I thought your original post was lighthearted and responded accordingly. Just as I thought Arse's posts were serious and now I know they are just for laughs.

Loads of good Labour people went to Oxbridge - Cooper, Milibands x 2, Starmer, Blair obvs, loads of them. And then there's Abbot. And you'd want clever people running the country. It's a bit of a problem that Corbyn/McDonnell didn't, in spite of Corbyn at least having a great start in life.

VeryGenuinequestions

When you start defining the “elite” as people who went to a grammar school, then that’s a massively broad definition that will take in a substantial proportion of the the country (and was actually my point, although maybe I didn’t spell that out enough).

It doesn't wash with me because grammar schools were set up to improve social mobility

Grammar schools failed to improve social mobility in the past and according to research from Durham University they currently have a negative effect on social mobility and don’t increase the attainment level of their pupils.. So from that point of view, it’s not unreasonable to phase our selective schooling.

And here's the counter-argument.

www.tes.com/news/grammar-schools-are-revolutionary-disadvantaged-pupils

I'm in favour of grammar schools for that reason. What I don't like is that availability of grammar school places is often - not always, but often - dependent on where you live.

It's selective-schooling-by-postcode and that does discriminate against those who would benefit the most.

There are a few holes in that TES piece though - it uses median household income rather than free school meals as a measure of disadvantage, but this ignores that below median household income families can include low paid but well-educated families - not the traditional definition of “disadvantaged”. Plus grammar schools import the highest attaining kids from the neighbouring non-selective areas, so comparing the numbers of children going on to Oxbridge from grammar schools to those from neighbouring areas is skewed.

What I don't like is that availability of grammar school places is often - not always, but often - dependent on where you live.

There are no grammar schools in Wales or Scotland, and vast swathes of England have no state selective schools at all.

You can thank labour for the lack of grammar schools & the (blindingly obvious) outcome of the remaining grammar schools becoming a postcode-dependent elitism 🤷🏻‍♀️

I was lucky to live in Lincolnshire when I started secondary school so did the first 3 years of secondary at a grammar - went to a Scottish comp for the last few years & it was awful. The grounding I'd got from the grammar is what carried me through the latter of my education - I'd have been fucked if it hadn't been for that.

There are no grammar schools in Wales or Scotland, and vast swathes of England have no state selective schools at all.

Precisely.

Whereas in relatively wealthy Buckinghamshire, all Year 5s sit the 11+ unless they specifically opt out.

Selection by post code.

I rest my case.

If grammars and private schools in fact conferred educational advantage then we would surely have better politicians.

The more pressing issue atm is that the state of the housing market and the squeeze on middle incomes both via wage differentials and taxation are such that education and / or hard work is becoming of limited value. Under these circumstances there comes a point where it makes little difference whether the elite inherit or are appointed via socialist or capitalist patronage.

The unitary authority cities in Devon still have grammar schools. They are not super selective, taking the top 25% of 11+ entries, except Colyton which takes only the top 10%, but many primary schools don't encourage children to take the 11+. The result is a skewed achievement/ability profile in the rest of the local secondary schools so they are de facto secondary moderns. The comprehensives locally are huge with rural catchments, and while I am sure they try, there isn't much inspiration or ambition from among the teaching faculties for students.