Brexit: Now What? Part II

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I don't mind them having a parliamentary vote to rubber stamp the decision made by the voters. Parliament voted to hold a referendum and they are now morally, if not constitutionally, bound to accept the result.

While I mostly agree I would think that if the MPs are morally bound to accept anything then its the result of their own electorate. If you represent a constituency that voted to stay then would you agree you should vote against to represent the views of the people who voted for you?

 

[ceptimus]

While I mostly agree I would think that if the MPs are morally bound to accept anything then its the result of their own electorate. If you represent a constituency that voted to stay then would you agree you should vote against to represent the views of the people who voted for you?

That would be okay with me. Is there a proper breakdown by constituency? I've seen reports of 'voting areas' but I'm not sure if they are the same thing.

Based on the 'voting area' breakdown, if MPs were to do that then the referendum result would be duly rubber stamped as it seems there were many more voting areas that voted leave than voted remain.

The problem with that method is the same one we sometimes get in elections; the very recent USA presidential election being an example: the 'one vote per constituency' result could fall the opposite way to the 'popular vote' (total of all voters). I think if this did ever happen in a national referendum then the popular vote should trump (no pun intended) the vote broken down by constituency.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That would be okay with me. Is there a proper breakdown by constituency? I've seen reports of 'voting areas' but I'm not sure if they are the same thing.

Based on the 'voting area' breakdown, if MPs were to do that then the referendum result would be duly rubber stamped as it seems there were many more voting areas that voted leave than voted remain.

The problem with that method is the same one we sometimes get in elections; the very recent USA presidential election being an example: the 'one vote per constituency' result could fall the opposite way to the 'popular vote' (total of all voters). I think if this did ever happen in a national referendum then the popular vote should trump (no pun intended) the vote broken down by constituency.

Well the next question might be whether any mp is morally bound to do something they think will be a disaster for their constituency or is anathema to them.

If I was an mp I dont think I would ever vote in favour of slavery or racial segregation no matter how many wanted it. Id argue they elected my intelligence and judgement not just my rosette.

 

[Belz...]

I don't mind them having a parliamentary vote to rubber stamp the decision made by the voters. Parliament voted to hold a referendum and they are now morally, if not constitutionally, bound to accept the result.

Isn't that a bit moving the goalposts? You now admit that the referendum wasn't binding. Why not just say so instead of trying to say it's binding "morally" (which is to say, not at all)?

It seems reasonable to expect the MPs to vote with their constituency, however.

 

[ceptimus]

Well the next question might be whether any mp is morally bound to do something they think will be a disaster for their constituency or is anathema to them.

If I was an mp I dont think I would ever vote in favour of slavery or racial segregation no matter how many wanted it. Id argue they elected my intelligence and judgement not just my rosette.

You were the one that suggested MPs should vote according to the wishes of their electorate.

When I agreed that would be an okay solution in most referendums (including the Brexit one) you're now taking the opposite view that MPs shouldn't vote so as to represent the views of their constituents.

You've now fallen back to the same position as most other posters in this thread: 'democracy is fine as long as it delivers the result that I want.'

 

[ceptimus]

Isn't that a bit moving the goalposts? You now admit that the referendum wasn't binding. Why not just say so instead of trying to say it's binding "morally" (which is to say, not at all)?

It seems reasonable to expect the MPs to vote with their constituency, however.

Yes. Does anyone have the constituency breakdown? If, as I believe, it doesn't generate the opposite result of the actual referendum, then I'm fine with that.

It would probably result in some hilarious instances of 'leave' MPs having to vote to remain and vice versa.

If we're agreed that such a vote would be acceptable (assuming the votes-by-constituency figures are available) then there would be no point in actually holding the vote as everyone would be fully aware in advance of exactly how each MP would vote - the result would be a foregone conclusion.

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm glad you're finally beginning to own up to your anti-democratic stance: 'democracy is fine, as long as I get what I want.'

I favour a representative democracy, and it hasn't given me much of what I want for a good long while. Not since 1980, really.

You like this referendum result because it gave you the answer you wanted. You know damn' well a re-run wouldn't give you that so you would deny one to the people. I would have denied them the first because I don't favour the wisdom of mobs.

 

[CapelDodger]

It seems reasonable to expect the MPs to vote with their constituency, however.

It may seem reasonable, but is it responsible if the MP believes that to do so would do serious damage to the nation as a whole? I myself think not.

 

[ceptimus]

I favour a representative democracy, and it hasn't given me much of what I want for a good long while. Not since 1980, really.

You like this referendum result because it gave you the answer you wanted. You know damn' well a re-run wouldn't give you that so you would deny one to the people. I would have denied them the first because I don't favour the wisdom of mobs.

I don't know damn well that a re-run wouldn't deliver the same result - and neither do you.

In any case endless re-runs are just another way of rejecting democracy unless it delivers the result you want.

I voted in favour of a more proportional voting system in the last referendum (for me) before the Brexit one. However, the majority of voters in that referendum voted the opposite way and I respect their democratic choice, even though I think it was the wrong choice. You should do the same.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You were the one that suggested MPs should vote according to the wishes of their electorate.

When I agreed that would be an okay solution in most referendums (including the Brexit one) you're now taking the opposite view that MPs shouldn't vote so as to represent the views of their constituents.

You've now fallen back to the same position as most other posters in this thread: 'democracy is fine as long as it delivers the result that I want.'

No, I said if they are bound to anything then it's to their constituents rather than the majority. And it seemed you agreed, so I've now moved onto the next question on whether they are bound to anything.

It seems to me it would be fairly trivial to create an example of where it would be more moral to oppose the majority vote than to go along with it.

In fact you already suggested that in the case where adhering to what you constituent wants doesn't give the right result then you would want them to go against their constituent's wishes and vote with the overall majority.

So it seems either way it's a case of whether the ends justify the means.

 

[abaddon]

Yes. Does anyone have the constituency breakdown? If, as I believe, it doesn't generate the opposite result of the actual referendum, then I'm fine with that.
It would probably result in some hilarious instances of 'leave' MPs having to vote to remain and vice versa.

If we're agreed that such a vote would be acceptable (assuming the votes-by-constituency figures are available) then there would be no point in actually holding the vote as everyone would be fully aware in advance of exactly how each MP would vote - the result would be a foregone conclusion.

You are fine with that so long as it gets the result you want?

I don't know what that is, but it certainly isn't democracy.

 

[Aepervius]

I don't know damn well that a re-run wouldn't deliver the same result - and neither do you.

Actually we do. When you pretended the result would be the same if voted today, a claim you never provided evidence, we provided you with polls showing that people changed their minds over the last months, enough to revert the vote. It was quoted and linked. But just as your waffling about not obeying the NON binding referendum is anti democratic, while it is quite clear you are the only one thinking that, I expect you fully to find some excuse why that poll and similar does not count.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't know damn well that a re-run wouldn't deliver the same result - and neither do you.

Of course it wouldn't. What would the Leave campaign consist of? The £350m a week is out, of course, so it would basically be "Vote Leave for two more years of this followed by god knows what". And then there's the demographic imperative.

In any case endless re-runs are just another way of rejecting democracy unless it delivers the result you want.

Insisting that the June referendum was a sacred act because it returned the result you want is self-serving. Would you feel the same had it gone the other way? Nobody can know.

I voted in favour of a more proportional voting system in the last referendum (for me) before the Brexit one. However, the majority of voters in that referendum voted the opposite way and I respect their democratic choice, even though I think it was the wrong choice. You should do the same.

Don't waste your time telling me what I should do. I'm certainly not rolling over for the mob on something as important as EU membership, any more than I'll roll over for the Daily Mail, the Express, the Torygraph and the whole Murdoch stable, separately or in concert.

 

[wobs]

That would be okay with me. Is there a proper breakdown by constituency? I've seen reports of 'voting areas' but I'm not sure if they are the same thing.

Based on the 'voting area' breakdown, if MPs were to do that then the referendum result would be duly rubber stamped as it seems there were many more voting areas that voted leave than voted remain.

The problem with that method is the same one we sometimes get in elections; the very recent USA presidential election being an example: the 'one vote per constituency' result could fall the opposite way to the 'popular vote' (total of all voters). I think if this did ever happen in a national referendum then the popular vote should trump (no pun intended) the vote broken down by constituency.

May would vote for triggering Article 50, and yet her constituency voted remain.

For most other MPs, I believe its the other way around.

We vote for who goes into Parliament to make important decisions that are for the best for our country. To vote for Brexit would not be for the best, but what some want (albiet a majority in an adviory referendum).

So is the good of the country more or less important than what those people want?

 

[ceptimus]

You are fine with that so long as it gets the result you want?

I don't know what that is, but it certainly isn't democracy.

I already explained my reasoning on this matter.

 

[MCel58]

I already explained my reasoning on this matter.

The problem is that your view of democracy seems to be based on a popular democracy model and not on a parliamentary democracy model where we vote in an election representatives (MPs) to either govern or to hold the government to acccount. We also have a constitutional monarch who actually asks the leader of the winning party to form the government on their behalf which is why the government is her majesty's government. It is up to the parliament then to behave in a manner,and to pass legislation, that is in the best interest of the country not just the majority of the country but for all whether they voted for the winning party or not.

The only way that the referendum could have been mandatory is if it had explicitly stated in the act that it was. It did not and I am sure that the cabinet would have received that advice from the civil servants involved in the actual writing of the act. It is the act and the advisory papers of the act itself that is important not the words of anyone in the parliament or any leaflet that may have been circulated during the referendum. One of the problems with a parliamentary democracy is it needs an informed electorate and if the only information that people get is basically propaganda from the press or the parties or other pressure groups and the electorate do not take time to read first the bills, follow the debates and then read the acts and it's papers in full and to understand what they are actually being asked to do (if they then disagree they should both petition parliament and contact their MPs) then people will feel misled. Many people in the U.K. now seem to expect Rupert Murdoch and his stable of newspapers to interpret this key information for them.

However, as a basic principle, referendum are advisory as for them to be otherwise would undercut the role of parliament in our democratic system and centuries of practice in our unwritten constitution. In our democracy people only have a real voice in an election and that is actually quite a limited voice as it is only to elect representatives who will lead the country on our behalf, we have very little say in what that leading should be about unless you are a party member in which case you may get some say in priorities for the manifestos. So unless you are actually thinking about leading a revolution to overthrow the role of parliament, then the Brexiteers should actually do what they said they wanted and allow the practice of sovereignty in the U.K. by letting the sovereign parliament decide based on our constitution and model of democracy.

 

[McHrozni]

I found this relevant:

https://www.ft.com/content/f1efaed2-abea-11e6-9cb3-bb8207902122

Some 85 per cent of those who voted to leave the EU said they wanted to control immigration; as did 55 per cent of those who voted for Britain to remain. Around 12 per cent were undecided.

At the same time the report found that more than nine in 10 people wanted Britain to have access to the European single market — regardless of how they voted.

(...)

Some 49 per cent thought freedom of movement for EU citizens should be kept if it enabled the UK to keep free trade — with 51 per cent opposed — roughly in line with how the public voted on June 23.

Herein lies the conundrum Theresa May finds herself in. Half the electorate wants Single market access even if it means permissible immigration, the other half is prepared to starve in order to keep Europeans out of UK.

Short of EU accommodating her and giving extraordinary and ultimately self-destructive deal, she will alienate half of the country. I do wonder what can UK offer to EU that would make EU even remotely contemplate the deal Theresa is promising:

Mrs May has always rejected that binary terminology, insisting that she will be able to achieve a tailor-made arrangement for the UK involving both immigration controls and good trade deals.

Of course good trade deals isn't anywhere near single-market access, but that is what makes her a regular lying politician.

McHrozni

 

[ceptimus]

Parliament voted to delegate the decision to the voters. How many times did you hear the PM and other MPs spout, 'let the people decide'?

 

[McHrozni]

Parliament voted to delegate the decision to the voters.

So, another referendum then?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Parliament voted to delegate the decision to the voters.

And the SNP were the only party with the sense to oppose that nonsense.