Brexit

[PerkyLady]

Hello.
Maybe some of you will consider this a fresh topic, but I'm interested in it nevertheless.
Did you vote for or against Brexit?
And what were your reasons?
Stay well.

The number of people who seem immune to fact and logic is both astounding and depressing.

Below is from an article today about Trump voters. Remarkably similar.

Re the 498 MPs who voted to trigger art 50, it has to me remembered that MPs are supposed to represent their constituents.

So even if an MP was for remain, they technically did have to vote as their constituents did in the referendum.

The electorate are supposed to be the ultimate boss after all.

I was firmly remain, but had no vote.
@

@GlobeTrotter2000

The names of the 498 MPs who voted to leave the EU are known. So, blame them.

I’ve done some further digging and found there was actually just one leader who did this. Someone called Elizabeth Windsor approved the law on 16 March 2016. So we’ve got our culprit.

Not the MPs after all.

I voted Remain because I thought their arguments more convincing than Leave’s.

In particular I couldn’t see how any coherent version of Leave could be delivered as it was such a disparate coalition. The Singapore-on-Thames types and the Tony Benn types weren’t ever going to agree. Nor did the anti-immigration types have any good plan for how we would fix the public finances and demographic challenges of reducing immigration, especially when EU immigration was a pretty beneficial type (relatively educated, move here in their prime working age and then often move away later). The plan to replace that with closer commonwealth ties didn’t seem likely to satisfy them, as indeed it proved.

Also for all its many flaws, a lot of the anti-EU complaints were really buck-passing, and being one of the big three in a major trading bloc is a pretty good position to be in in a world that’s consolidating.

I didn't vote as my hubby was voting out and I was voting in ... so we cancelled each other out. I wanted to remain as I had a property abroad ... brexit was a disaster in this respect. Sold up in the end.

@RedTagAlan
@GeneralPeter

Several comments regards MPs:

The 2015 EU referendum act stated it was not obligatory to implement the outcome of the referendum.

If MPs are obliged to follow the result of the referendum, what as the point of the Gina Miller case which established the government did not have the authority to leave the UK based on the referendum result?

What was the point of the vote on 29 March 2019, if it was compulsory for the result of the referendum to be enforced?

The referendum was not based on a constituency vote like the FPTP in a general election, but a simple add up of those who voted leave or remain.

Full fact estimated that 406 constituencies voted leave and 242 voted remain. So, how do you explain that 498 MPs voted leave and 114 voted remain? The difference is significant.

Since the referendum in 2016, remain supporters have argued the referendum was advisory only. However, they now say it was not advisory and MPs were obliged to enact the referendum result. Very contradictory I would say.

Also, if MPs were obliged to follow the referendum result, why did many of them battle for two years from the 2017 general election to the 2019 general election to overturn Brexit? Do you not remember the extensions and the Benn Act?

In 2019, the Liberal Democrat’s stood on a manifesto to revoke article 50 and cancel Brexit. Likewise, Labour position was to have a further referendum with the option to remain. Why did do that if the referendum has to be honoured?

@GlobeTrotter2000 You are really straining to let the queen off the hook here. I don’t know why you think this is the MPs’ fault when she’s the one who agreed it.

As a remainer (who did not have a vote), to quote from you :

"Since the referendum in 2016, remain supporters have argued the referendum was advisory only. However, they now say it was not advisory and MPs were obliged to enact the referendum result. Very contradictory I would say."

I for one have never said this. I did feel at the time that many of the brexiters claims made were bad faith etc, but that's politics.

Brexit won the ref, so Brexit should have happened. They won.

However, just an add, I did feel the Scottish indy ref should have been looked at , maybe another date set for another. 20 years or whatever. That was based on Scotland voting to remain, and the switch of camapigns from " better together", to " better apart" .

There was a bit of mis-selling going on there. But that's a different thing.

@GeneralPeter

The Queen May have allowed the referendum to take place in March 2016, but where did she state that MPs must vote to leave the EU?

Also, remember that the Gina Miller case was passed in 2017 (after the Queen agree to the referendum in 2016) which compelled MPs to vote on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU.

The Queen did not take part in the parliamentary vote held 29 March 2017.

@RedTagAlan

The caveat for another referendum on Scottish independence was material change. As UK is still tied in many ways to the EU (ECHR, regulation on goods, etc), there is an argument to that UK has not fully left the EU, a material change has not occurred. However, that’s a fine line.

So, why has Scotland not held another referendum?

@GlobeTrotter2000

On 16 March 2017, after MPs had voted in support of triggering Article 50, she assented to it.

I’m trying to apply your rules here. Whoever’s fingerprints were on it last is to blame. Anyone earlier absolved.

For that matter, the law only authorised the PM to trigger. It was Theresa May who sent the letter. So maybe it’s all TM.

It’s a silly way to analyse things. Many MPs felt entirely properly that to refuse to follow the referendum result would be a constitutional violation even though on paper that was open to them. Same as the Queen.

@GlobeTrotter2000 by the way, do you apply the same blame to US electoral college members when they cast their vote?

Funny how GlobalGPT points out that the referendum was not binding.

But when we point out that the referendum was not binding, it brings up that Cameron said that he'd enact what the result was. Thereby making it binding.

It's almost as if it is trying to push a narrative...

Why? What has been better for you since the vote?

I voted Remain because I'm not stupid or racist.

First post nails it. I voted remain and have recently rejoined the EU by selling up in uk and moving there.

@MaybeNotBob

But when we point out that the referendum was not binding, it brings up that Cameron said that he'd enact what the result was. Thereby making it binding.

Cameron made the statement in the booklet sent to every household:

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

So, he thought it was binding. However, the outcome of the Gina Miller case was that the government by themselves did not have the authority to trigger Article 50, but it had to be voted upon by Members of Parliament.

Maybe read some of the other posts as it appears that not all remain supporters think the referendum was not binding. Some have suggested that MPs were compelled to trigger article 50 in accordance with the referendum result.

Not so, as evidence by fact that some MPs voted against trigger of article 50. Likewise, many MPs fought for two years to overturn Brexit by means of extensions, Benn Act.

As you have been REPEATEDLY told;
a) General Elections are not a single issue vote
b) MPs feel they have to do what they think their constituents want (when in actual fact they should do what they think is in their constituent's best interests) and so most of them thought they should abide by the result.

Obviously, they did the wrong thing, but I'm not sure quite why you lkeep complaining about it...

Why do people reply to these obvious AI/bot threads? not replying

@GeneralPeter

Many MPs felt entirely properly that to refuse to follow the referendum result would be a constitutional violation even though on paper that was open to them

So, how do you explain the attempt by many MPs to overturn Brexit for two years between the 2017 and 2019 general elections?

At one time, Boris Johnson did not have a majority. Hence extensions and Benn Act were introduced to thwart Brexit.

Watch 5 September 2019 episode of BBC Question Time.

The Liberal Democrat’s policy was to revoke
The SNP policy was to revoke
The Labour policy was to hold a second referendum with option to remain

Why did they do that if ignoring the referendum was a constitutional violation?

Clue’s in the meaning of the word ‘many’.

@MaybeNotBob

As per the remain campaign and the booklet sent out to all households, Brexit was not a single issue. A vote to leave was forecast to impact:

Security
Employment
Trade
Investment

So, the attempted argument that anti Brexit parties are not winning elections because Brexit is a single issue fails.

Globes AI has successfully destroyed another thread that could have been interesting.

That's why I agree that someone with access to a second passport shouldn't be in government, media or public services, yet remain voters allow others votes, who do not allow you the same courtesy in their country.

They send benefits abroad to save and stay below the threshold and middle class remain voters are paying their mortgages off for them with benefits a UK resident wouldn't be allowed to claim, I have seen evidence of this happening.