Who's the real "traitor to the people"...

Eloise

Absolutely conforming to your rules I would push this back one layer. If we are talking blame I would point the finger at both sides of the Brexit campaigns who failed to give the population reasonable, accurate and reasoned arguments for and against (contrast with the Scottish referendum it seems).

As for the Vote I think its is the responsibility of Parliament to respect the will of the electorate-who in this case are not those that voted them into Parliament but those that voted for Brexit. It was a stay or go vote. The result was go. As such they should feel a duty to get a 'good Brexit' as they perceive it but I think they would be utterly wrong to block or obstruct it.

I think that answers your question.

Bruce

MPs are perfectly entitled to vote against it, that's how the system is designed to work. Their constituents can make up their own mind at the next election on how they feel about the way their representative voted. Its a shame we are not allowed to deselect them though, as I think that might encourage a few to actually vote the way their constituents voted.

On a theoretical level, my understanding is that representative democracy (i.e. what we have in the UK) implies that MPs should vote according to what they think will benefit their constituents most, all things considered, employing their own expertise and judgement to reach a decision.  This is different than acting as mouthpieces for their constituents.  That's the difference between representative democracy and more direct forms.

I haven't studied constitutional law, but that's my understanding.  As such, I think technically the answer to the question in your first paragraph is yes, they'd be right to oppose it.  This is especially so because the referendum was technically advisory, rather than directive.

But in practise, things just aren't like that.  The practical political reality means that, for better or for worse, voting against triggering A50 would be at best a protest vote.  That means the technical issue is moot on a practical level.

Eloise,

In talking to my friends and colleagues who voted to Leave, it wasn't a potential reduction in the standard of living that determined their choice. It was mainly immigration. But there were other factors as well. Standard of living was an issue with many considering it will rise after Brexit. Recovery of Sovereignty and National Law, and concern over the future collapse of the EU to name but a couple more.

However, in my opinion it is the duty of an MP to represent the views of his constituents. But this has responsibilities and conditions attached.

In my case,  a small margin of voters, voted to remain. In August, my MP stated that he would seek to influence the Government to find the least worse solution to Brexit. In other words, he was going to vote to trigger A.50 regardless of what influence he had had. I am not happy with his proposed course of action.

The referendum went ahead despite blatant lies by the Leave campaign. Voters were mis-led. The outcome was very close. MPs are now in an impossible situation. On the one hand they know how the voting went. On the other they don't know how the voting would have gone if people had been properly informed about our £££ contribution to the EU and £££ benefits of being part of the EU. In the absence of a re-run, I consider that MPs should take into account their perception of what's best for their constituents when voting whether to trigger A.50

The Government should also recognise that the referendum was about leaving the EU. There was no voting option about leaving the Single Market or any of the other "bits" of the EU. Given the narrow majority 48/52 to Leave, I consider that MPs have a duty to debate and seek to place conditions on the Government regarding the terms of our departure, should they vote to trigger A.50. An "all-out" leave scenario would be a betrayal of any recognisable form of democracy.

In two years time, MPs will be given a vote. In the absence of a second referendum, they should vote in the best interests of their constituents. The vote should be whether to "Leave on the basis of a Proposed Agreement" v "Remain". The vote should NOT be on the basis of "Leave on the basis of a Proposed Agreement" v "Leave Anyway".

Democracy is undergoing a very difficult and severe test.

Don Atkinson posted:

However, in my opinion it is the duty of an MP to represent the views of his constituents. But this has responsibilities and conditions attached.  

A question though Don, is it the responsibility to act directly on what their constituents say, or should he act for what they believe will be the best outcome for them?

In other words if their constituents voted to leave with the thoughts it will reduce immigration, but the MPs considered opinion is that leaving the EU will do very little to reduce immigration but would lead to a much poorer standard of living (let's say for example we talk about Sunderland - people want to reduce immigration but if Nissan left they would be up the creek); should the MP still back Brexit or should they fight it?

This is a very tricky one for MPs because they will be aware of how their constituents voted in the referendum and so could, arguably should,  represent those views in voting on the bill about Art 50.  They could also follow their party line on which Conservatives and Labour leaderships seem to agree that the result of the referendum should be respected.  If the former was a 'Remain' outturn Conservatives and Labour MPs have a conflict between party and constituency interests.  And, of course, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the referendum, where some of the assertions by the campaigners on both sides have proven false so MPs might be tempted to think that their constituencies might have voted differently, and on different issues, had they known what they do today.

That said, I suspect the bill to trigger Art 50 will be passed with a big majority because MPs with doubts will argue, with some justification, that the terms of exit have yet to be negotiated.  So I think there will be some kicking-the-can-down-the-road and Parliament will wait until the government comes back with the, as currently planned, 'take-it-or leave' choice when negotiations are done.  That's when it will get really interesting.

[@mention:12970396060785205] I agree with you that the Article 50 bill will pass smoothly, no one is wanting to rock the boat too much. 

Surely though we should remember this was a national vote, not a regional constituency by constituency one. In my eyes then MPs should not be representing the way their particulatr constituency voted; that is just a convenient subdivision of the national poll that is actually irrelevant in this case. It could just as easily be divided up by county, or district council or any boundary you care to use.

In my view they should be acting in the national interest as legislators but with the overall national decision as their guide, not their local one.

Dave***T is correct: The legal duty of an MP is to represent the interests of the population of Britain.

From www.parliament.uk
"The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and can propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. This includes asking government ministers questions about current issues including those which affect local constituents."

i.e. if MPs believe that Brexit is in the interest of the public, then it's their duty to vote for Article 50; if MPs believe that Brexit isn't in the interest of the public, then it's their duty to vote against Article 50.

It's actually very clear.

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

However, in my opinion it is the duty of an MP to represent the views of his constituents. But this has responsibilities and conditions attached.  

A question though Don, is it the responsibility to act directly on what their constituents say, or should he act for what they believe will be the best outcome for them?

In other words if their constituents voted to leave with the thoughts it will reduce immigration, but the MPs considered opinion is that leaving the EU will do very little to reduce immigration but would lead to a much poorer standard of living (let's say for example we talk about Sunderland - people want to reduce immigration but if Nissan left they would be up the creek); should the MP still back Brexit or should they fight it?

However, in my opinion it is the duty of an MP to represent the views of his constituents. But this has responsibilities and conditions attached.

The referendum went ahead despite blatant lies by the Leave campaign. Voters were mis-led. The outcome was very close. MPs are now in an impossible situation. On the one hand they know how the voting went. On the other they don't know how the voting would have gone if people had been properly informed about our £££ contribution to the EU and £££ benefits of being part of the EU.In the absence of a re-run, I consider that MPs should take into account their perception of what's best for their constituents when voting whether to trigger A.50

Hi Eloise, I have done a Cut&Paste of my post above. I have highlighted my key thoughts.

I am appalled at the way TM is behaving. Ignoring the 48.1% who voted to remain and their legitimate concerns about the economy. Ignoring the lies on which the Leave vote was won. Planning to "control" immigration - not eliminate it as per the Leave campaign and many of its voters placed their ballot. Refusing a Parliamentary debate and vote to trigger A.50 until forced to do so by the Supreme Court and then without any grace whatsoever. The list goes on !

Huge posted:

From www.parliament.uk

"The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and can propose new laws as well as raising issues that matter to you in the House. This includes asking government ministers questions about current issues including those which affect local constituents."

It's actually very clear.

I'd say that the use of both concerns and interests actually equivocates on the point in question.

To represent the concerns of constituents means roughly to say what constituents would want said.

But things which are in the interests of constituents could be things they're not concerned about.

I'm surprised that my MP is able to get his Weetabix into his mouth without an adult to help, so goodness knows how he can decide how to vote on something like this. In the end, 99% will very likely just follow the whip. 

Eloise, you have asked a very fundamental question in relation to democracy.

The "man-in-the-street" wants to Leave the EU. He's not totally sure he actually wants to leave and he's definitely not sure why he wants to leave. He's aware he has been fed a load of lies and deceit just before he made up his mind to leave. But he believes he must stick with his principle of leaving and therefore wants his representative in parliament to vote to leave.

His representative in parliament doesn't want to leave. He is aware of the lies and deceit and is convinced that the "man-in-the-street" will be worse off if we do leave.

The representative decides to ignore the "unwise" wishes of the "man-in-the-street", claiming that he is acting in good faith for the better good of the "man-in-the-street".

This not Representative Democracy. It's probably Dictatorship.

However................

In our democracy, the man in the street doesn't normally get to say what he wants. The Representative gets to say what he intends to do, and the man in the street gets to choose from a small number of representatives that he hopes will closely match his aspirations.

A referendum is an unusual exception to our normal procedures and there isn't much precedence for its use. Hence the bloody mess we're in at the moment.

I keep wondering what we would do if the referendum had been about whether we should launch an unprovoked attack on Poland in order to stop immigration...............

For the avoidance of doubt, I consider there is insufficient basis for Leaving the EU, never mind the Single Market or the plethera of other EU derivatives and in view of the lies and deceit I consider the referendum should be set aside as null and void.

if we (stupidly) decide to continue down the Leave route, I consider it will be totally wrong of the Gov to adopt an extreme position. By a very small majority we voted to leave the EU. We didn't get to vote on the Single market or anything else. We should leave the EU and nothing else.

And we shouldn't invade Poland.

The thing is, if we leave the EU and nothing else - primarily the single market and the customs union - we have the challenges but without influence, which in some ways is worse than the status quo. 

If Cameron hadn't been so spineless we would never have had this unneccessary referendum in the first place. Our MPs are elected to make these decisions and should have done what we pay them to do. So going forward they should vote on what they believe - probably. Nobody knows the true facts - it's a leap in the dark for everyone, MPs and the public. 

Of course, what's done is done. But for the next few years it's going to cost millions and distract the whole of Government from more pressing issues. 

OK I'm going to go against the grain here, I think my constituency MP (Michelle Donelan) is actually quite good!

Hungryhalibut posted:

 - probably. Nobody knows the true facts - it's a leap in the dark for everyone, MPs and the public. 

That is a one of the main points. We had lies on BOTH sides not just the leave campaign. The issue is far too complex for even the so called experts to predict the future. All the remain camp could do was tell us how disastrous it would be if we leave but I never heard one positive comment about remaining. For me remaining was nothing more that more of the same old B S, something I personally could stomach no more of. As for influence, we have none anyway, in or out, look at Cameron's pathetic attempt to negotiate a revised deal to persuade voters to remain before the vote. He came back from Brussels with a face like a smacked ar*e having been told in no uncertain terms to shut up and do as you are told and you wonder why people voted leave.

Cameron's problem was didn't have a big enough handbag, or he didn't know how to use it. The only thing I ever admired Maggie Thatcher for (not her handbag, but the result of her negotiation with it) 

Southweststokie posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

 - probably. Nobody knows the true facts - it's a leap in the dark for everyone, MPs and the public. 

That is a one of the main points. We had lies on BOTH sides not just the leave campaign. The issue is far too complex for even the so called experts to predict the future. All the remain camp could do was tell us how disastrous it would be if we leave but I never heard one positive comment about remaining. For me remaining was nothing more that more of the same old B S, something I personally could stomach no more of. As for influence, we have none anyway, in or out, look at Cameron's pathetic attempt to negotiate a revised deal to persuade voters to remain before the vote. He came back from Brussels with a face like a smacked ar*e having been told in no uncertain terms to shut up and do as you are told and you wonder why people voted leave.

We only had lies on the Leave side.

The main positive comment that I heard from the Remain side was that it wouldn't be a disaster if we remained.

We had a lot of influence and respect. At least in the aviation industry and the construction industry and I suspect in many others.

I agree with your comments about Cameron.

Given that so many people consider the issue of leaving v remaining is too complex, I consider it would be best to instruct MPs to vote according to their considered opinion as to what's best. Not along party lines, but as individuals.

Far better to do this than plough on with an irreversible change based on the gut-reaction of about 40% of those eligible to vote

Don Atkinson posted:

Southweststokie posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

 - probably. Nobody knows the true facts - it's a leap in the dark for everyone, MPs and the public. 

That is a one of the main points. We had lies on BOTH sides not just the leave campaign. The issue is far too complex for even the so called experts to predict the future. All the remain camp could do was tell us how disastrous it would be if we leave but I never heard one positive comment about remaining. For me remaining was nothing more that more of the same old B S, something I personally could stomach no more of. As for influence, we have none anyway, in or out, look at Cameron's pathetic attempt to negotiate a revised deal to persuade voters to remain before the vote. He came back from Brussels with a face like a smacked ar*e having been told in no uncertain terms to shut up and do as you are told and you wonder why people voted leave.

We only had lies on the Leave side.

The main positive comment that I heard from the Remain side was that it wouldn't be a disaster if we remained.

We had a lot of influence and respect. At least in the aviation industry and the construction industry and I suspect in many others.

I agree with your comments about Cameron.

Don

I'm not making any claims, either way, but as you're so vehement in your condemnation of the Exit camp's lies, and your claim that the Remain gang may have exaggerated but told no lies, what's your response to the article in the Huffington Post?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...need_b_12191462.html

Regards

Leaving aside the question of when exxageration becomes falsehood, and what may or may not have been deliberate deceipt - on the part of both sides - it should be remembered that Brexit hasn't happened yet and won't for at least two years, so even now things are predictions, though with the benefit of hardening knowledge of what is involved.

i have been following this and other similar threads, on and off. Apologies if what i say below has already been aired.

In my view, the fundamental question is how much of the Brexit referendum result was influenced by the various campaigners, on either side. You could argue that there was rubbish uttered by both sides.

and in my view, my answer to the above fundamental question is that it seems a large % of voters -- especially on the "leave" side had a strongly pre-formed view on EU (because of a plethora of issues that affected them locally -- negatively in their view). I believe the "leave" campaigners merely tapped into this sentiment and won. Of course this is just a view -- i cant prove it -- but i sense it from various interviews with votes on the "leave" side especially. Sentiments remain very strong.

if an MP doesn't agree with the sentiments of his constituents, either he is wrong or they are. The way forward would i guess be for the minister to meet his constituents and argue his/her case -- in whatever way possible. I don't believe its good democracy for the MP to passively "represent" his constituents if he doesn't agree with their views -- without at least trying to engage with them to explore both sides of the case. However, i am well aware that for some highly charged related issues, such as immigration -- this approach is probably very difficult and may be considered "naive".

Bottom line is that i sense tricky times ahead -- but of course i will be very happy to be proved wrong...

enjoy

ken

Hungryhalibut posted:

I'm surprised that my MP is able to get his Weetabix into his mouth without an adult to help, 

ken c posted:

i have been following this and other similar threads, on and off. Apologies if what i say below has already been aired.

In my view, the fundamental question is how much of the Brexit referendum result was influenced by the various campaigners, on either side. You could argue that there was rubbish uttered by both sides.

and in my view, my answer to the above fundamental question is that it seems a large % of voters -- especially on the "leave" side had a strongly pre-formed view on EU (because of a plethora of issues that affected them locally -- negatively in their view). I believe the "leave" campaigners merely tapped into this sentiment and won. Of course this is just a view -- i cant prove it -- but i sense it from various interviews with votes on the "leave" side especially. Sentiments remain very strong.

if an MP doesn't agree with the sentiments of his constituents, either he is wrong or they are. The way forward would i guess be for the minister to meet his constituents and argue his/her case -- in whatever way possible. I don't believe its good democracy for the MP to passively "represent" his constituents if he doesn't agree with their views -- without at least trying to engage with them to explore both sides of the case. However, i am well aware that for some highly charged related issues, such as immigration -- this approach is probably very difficult and may be considered "naive".

Bottom line is that i sense tricky times ahead -- but of course i will be very happy to be proved wrong...

enjoy

ken

Politicians can ignore the view of their constituents at their peril. Come the next general election the ignored people will vent their spleen!

Southweststokie posted:

Politicians can ignore the view of their constituents at their peril. Come the next general election the ignored people will vent their spleen!

Hi SWS,

I understand that a disproportionate number of OAPs voted to Leave.

In which case, come the next General Election, a fair number of those who voted "leave" will be dead or so "ga-ga"that they won't remember what their MP did. So I can't see too many MPs being concerned on either count