Brexit

Shadow wrote:I think it would have felt democratic if each MP voted as their constituency did in the referendum, then it would have passed and everyone could have felt fairly represented.

I'm in a Tory constituency which voted Remain, but our MP followed the party line and backed A50. Feels like he's ignoring the referendum result for his constituency.

That would make sense if the referendum was based on the same method we elect MPs.

In an extreme example, you can have Labour win every vote in London, Wales and Scotland which would amount to 16,000,000 votes whilst Tories could get the 11,000,000 they got in 2015 and end up with vastly more MPs.

Each constituency is a mini election. The geographical spread is important. It's why UKIP get 4 million votes and 1 MP whilst the SNP get 56 seats from 1.4 million votes.

In this referendum, whilst there is geographical data to show voting patterns, it's the absolute number of votes that mattered. As such, an MP has to respect the national outcome rather than the local outcome.

I accept that the SNP MPs can vote no because they don't even want to be part of the UK so can claim they represent the national vote of what they eventually hope will be a separate country. However an MP who believes in the UK should vote the way the UK voted.

The whole thing of what way Labour MPs should vote is ignoring why they're in the situation they're in. Cameron referendum had no caveats such as all 4 members of the UK voting out or a super majority of 2/3 of total vote or a binding outcome etc. The rules of the game made leaving the EU possible.

I suspect any future referendums in future will be made to be binding and/or require much tougher voting rules such as 2/3 majority etc when the referendum is issued reluctantly.

Maybe they should have voted for what's actually best for the country rather than what gullible idiots were tricked into voting for.

But as the referendum results came in, the breakdown was per-constituency just like a General Election.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_r ... um/results

I know hypothetically it could mean it wouldn't get through parliament, but we knew well ahead of time (we knew as soon as the vote was counted) that this wasn't the case.

Grumpy David wrote:

Shadow wrote:I think it would have felt democratic if each MP voted as their constituency did in the referendum, then it would have passed and everyone could have felt fairly represented.

I'm in a Tory constituency which voted Remain, but our MP followed the party line and backed A50. Feels like he's ignoring the referendum result for his constituency.

That would make sense if the referendum was based on the same method we elect MPs.

In an extreme example, you can have Labour win every vote in London, Wales and Scotland which would amount to 16,000,000 votes whilst Tories could get the 11,000,000 they got in 2015 and end up with vastly more MPs.

Each constituency is a mini election. The geographical spread is important. It's why UKIP get 4 million votes and 1 MP whilst the SNP get 56 seats from 1.4 million votes.

In this referendum, whilst there is geographical data to show voting patterns, it's the absolute number of votes that mattered. As such, an MP has to respect the national outcome rather than the local outcome.

I accept that the SNP MPs can vote no because they don't even want to be part of the UK so can claim they represent the national vote of what they eventually hope will be a separate country. However an MP who believes in the UK should vote the way the UK voted.

The whole thing of what way Labour MPs should vote is ignoring why they're in the situation they're in. Cameron referendum had no caveats such as all 4 members of the UK voting out or a super majority of 2/3 of total vote or a binding outcome etc. The rules of the game made leaving the EU possible.

I suspect any future referendums in future will be made to be binding and/or require much tougher voting rules such as 2/3 majority etc when the referendum is issued reluctantly.

Utter bollocks.

The referendum was advisory and I elect an MP to represent me in parliament.

To leave the EU, parliament has to vote on it. And I absolutely expect MPs to represent their constituents not people from other constituencies.

The whole referendum was about "taking back control", but you think Scottish or Bristolian should ignore their constituents in favour of what people in Sunderland thought?

Shadow wrote:But as the referendum results came in, the breakdown was per-constituency just like a General Election.

See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_r ... um/results

I know hypothetically it could mean it wouldn't get through parliament, but we knew well ahead of time (we knew as soon as the vote was counted) that this wasn't the case.

Those aren't the same boundaries an MP has. They're quite a bit larger. As an example, Wandsworth in your link includes Tooting and Putney merged together along with possibly a bit of Battersea. So certainly 2 and likely 3 different MPs represent that one voting boundary. Lambeth will have similar merged constituencies. As would everywhere in England, Wales and Scotland because the boundaries are the local council boundaries, not MP boundaries. The only exception was Northern Ireland which did use MP boundaries.

Data analysis suggests if it did map MP constituencies, it would go 408 leave and 242 remain. A much larger swing for leave than 52%/48% would have you assume.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

Moggy wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Shadow wrote:I think it would have felt democratic if each MP voted as their constituency did in the referendum, then it would have passed and everyone could have felt fairly represented.

I'm in a Tory constituency which voted Remain, but our MP followed the party line and backed A50. Feels like he's ignoring the referendum result for his constituency.

That would make sense if the referendum was based on the same method we elect MPs.

In an extreme example, you can have Labour win every vote in London, Wales and Scotland which would amount to 16,000,000 votes whilst Tories could get the 11,000,000 they got in 2015 and end up with vastly more MPs.

Each constituency is a mini election. The geographical spread is important. It's why UKIP get 4 million votes and 1 MP whilst the SNP get 56 seats from 1.4 million votes.

In this referendum, whilst there is geographical data to show voting patterns, it's the absolute number of votes that mattered. As such, an MP has to respect the national outcome rather than the local outcome.

I accept that the SNP MPs can vote no because they don't even want to be part of the UK so can claim they represent the national vote of what they eventually hope will be a separate country. However an MP who believes in the UK should vote the way the UK voted.

The whole thing of what way Labour MPs should vote is ignoring why they're in the situation they're in. Cameron referendum had no caveats such as all 4 members of the UK voting out or a super majority of 2/3 of total vote or a binding outcome etc. The rules of the game made leaving the EU possible.

I suspect any future referendums in future will be made to be binding and/or require much tougher voting rules such as 2/3 majority etc when the referendum is issued reluctantly.

Utter bollocks.

The referendum was advisory and I elect an MP to represent me in parliament.

To leave the EU, parliament has to vote on it. And I absolutely expect MPs to represent their constituents not people from other constituencies.

The whole referendum was about "taking back control", but you think Scottish or Bristolian should ignore their constituents in favour of what people in Sunderland thought?

I assume you think that the 9 MPs who voted No despite their (not quite accurate) constituency voting Leave are people who should resign? Not only are they not representing their local council boundaries but they are not representing the national vote either.

Excusing it as advisory is an awful reason for voting No. We were told that the outcome would be respected but advisory excuse goes against this.

As it was local council wards, not MP boundaries, I think the boundary argument is weak, most MPs would agree that the national result trumps the local result as Remain MPs who backed Remain as did their constituencies felt compelled to vote in the direction of national vote.

Would you have felt the same way had AV referendum or Scottish referendum worked and MPs tried to block it? I'm sure many people who make the argument you're making would be outraged if there was even a single MP voting against the national result.

MPs should vote based on both how their consistency voted and what they see is the right thing for the country.

strawberry float sake there is loads of stuff if you asked everyone if we should or shouldn't do it you would get a result that would be against what we do but because it is the right thing to do you do it.

Just because lots of people voted for a heap of lies doesn't mean parliament should follow a slip majority pm they should take the advise from it as a way the country is leaning but also take into consideration economic impacts etc. And if it is wrong to vote leave such as Cornwall and wales that basically survives because the eu then yeah they should vote stay.

Being massively pig headed about "da people have spoken" is idiotic when it was a slim majority and it has been well documented many of the reason people voted for were lies and that there is a great deal of regret for some who wish they hadn't voted as they did.

Grumpy David wrote:I assume you think that the 9 MPs who voted No despite their (not quite accurate) constituency voting Leave are people who should resign? Not only are they not representing their local council boundaries but they are not representing the national vote either.

Where did I say anybody should resign?

They should have respected their constituents but there is also an argument for protecting the country against itself. If an MP truly feels that leaving the EU is going to lead to massive hardship for their constituents then they would have an argument for voting against the Bill. That of course would work the other way if an MP thought remaining would lead to massive hardship, I doubt there are many that thought that though, seeing as how most MPs wanted to remain.

We don't live in a direct democracy, MPs are paid to make decision on behalf of people using their best judgement. If the government had wanted the people to make the final decision then they shouldn't have set it up as advisory or passed a law that the referendum itself was the trigger for Article 50.

Your side wanted parliamentary sovereignty, why bitch and moan about it when you get it?

Excusing it as advisory is an awful reason for voting No. We were told that the outcome would be respected but advisory excuse goes against this.

Where did I "excuse it as advisory"?

I brought that up as you said that an MP "has to respect the national outcome rather than the local outcome". Which is bollocks, they do not have to do that, they are not paid to do that and the way the referendum was set up meant that they didn't have to do that.

As it was local council wards, not MP boundaries, I think the boundary argument is weak, most MPs would agree that the national result trumps the local result as Remain MPs who backed Remain as did their constituencies felt compelled to vote in the direction of national vote.

Do you honestly believe that with a 51.89%/48.11% split, that Parliament should have voted 100% for triggering Article 50? That would feel like democracy to you?

A lot of Leave voters seem very upset that Parliament would dare to do its job. The mocking of "ReMoaners!" who dare speak their mind, the outrage over the people taking it to court, the calls of "enemies of the people!" against the judges and now the bullshit about the MPs that voted against triggering it. All while Leave supporters are getting absolutely everything going their way. It's absolute madness.

Would you have felt the same way had AV referendum or Scottish referendum worked and MPs tried to block it? I'm sure many people who make the argument you're making would be outraged if there was even a single MP voting against the national result.

It would be more interesting to find out if you would have stopped criticising the EU and become a good little European if the vote had gone against you?

To answer you though, I doubt there would have been many widescale moans if AV had gone through. I certainly wouldn't be moaning about it if the bill went through exactly the way I wanted it but some MPs voted against. Why would I?

Scotland is nothing to do with me, I live in England and it is not up to me to decide on Scotland's future. Again, I can't see I would care if some MPs voted against the way I felt while it breezed through Parliament exactly the way I wanted it. Why would I?

There may well have been people outraged if a single MP voted against AV or Scottish independence if the referendums had gone the other way. People moan about all sorts of things. So?

Without clear and blatant lies, Leave does not win. It really is simple as that.

Its the biggest miscarriage of justice in this countries history, and I fully expect an enquiry years down the line when its far too late.

People can call me a 'remoaner', I'd rather be that than a gullible idiot!

My local MP (Tory) campaigned for Remain but voted Leave. Clearly someone voting for something she does not believe in because shes too scared for her job. She has lost all credibility in my eyes, and I will be doing everything in my power to get her replaced. She has a slim majority and I dont see that getting stronger.

Theresa May faces public backlash over hard Brexit, poll finds
Just 35% of British public in new ICM survey would back Britain leaving the EU without agreement with other states

A clear majority of the British public oppose Theresa May’s uncompromising Brexit negotiating position and are not prepared for the UK to crash out of the EU if the prime minister cannot negotiate a reasonable exit deal, according to a new poll.

In a sign that public support for the government’s push for a hard Brexit is increasingly precarious, just 35% of the public said they backed Britain leaving the EU without an agreement with other states. The UK would then fall back on to World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs, which MPs and business leaders have claimed would devastate the economy.

The survey – conducted by ICM for the online campaigning organisation Avaaz on the day the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50 – suggests May would face a considerable backlash if Britain crashed out of the EU on WTO terms. In a welcome boost for soft Brexit campaigners, over half (54%) of those surveyed backed either extending negotiations if a satisfactory deal could not be reached, or halting the process altogether while the public was consulted for a second time.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Tom Brake, said the findings proved the government’s position was indefensible.

Of the 54% of people who opposed the government’s position, 34% said May should continue negotiating. A further 20% backed halting the process pending a second referendum on the terms of the deal, an option backed by the Lib Dems and a cross-party group of MPs including the Labour MPs David Lammy, Heidi Alexander and Ben Bradshaw, as well as the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas.

Brake said: “Our best hope of stopping a ruinous hard Brexit that nobody voted for and few want is if the public rally round to fight it, as Brexit grows more unpopular. That means uniting many who voted leave but now want to avoid the economic catastrophe of quitting the single market, and who want to protect those European citizens who contribute so much to Britain’s economy and society.”

Bert Wander, Avaaz’s campaign director, said the results showed May was at odds with the public over Brexit, and called for the House of Lords to ensure that Britons had the right to force May to continue negotiating.

“Two-thirds of the public don’t want Theresa May dangling us over the Brexit cliff without a safety net and the Lords can intervene and save us from that fate. We need the right to send May back to Brussels if all she brings us is a bad deal for Britain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

If people genuinelly think 52% of people still want Brexit, they are strawberry floating deluded. They are no longer the majority, and basically only were for that one day. It was a day with mass flooding in Remain areas.

Garth wrote:

Theresa May faces public backlash over hard Brexit, poll finds
Just 35% of British public in new ICM survey would back Britain leaving the EU without agreement with other states

A clear majority of the British public oppose Theresa May’s uncompromising Brexit negotiating position and are not prepared for the UK to crash out of the EU if the prime minister cannot negotiate a reasonable exit deal, according to a new poll.

In a sign that public support for the government’s push for a hard Brexit is increasingly precarious, just 35% of the public said they backed Britain leaving the EU without an agreement with other states. The UK would then fall back on to World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs, which MPs and business leaders have claimed would devastate the economy.

The survey – conducted by ICM for the online campaigning organisation Avaaz on the day the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50 – suggests May would face a considerable backlash if Britain crashed out of the EU on WTO terms. In a welcome boost for soft Brexit campaigners, over half (54%) of those surveyed backed either extending negotiations if a satisfactory deal could not be reached, or halting the process altogether while the public was consulted for a second time.

The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Tom Brake, said the findings proved the government’s position was indefensible.

Of the 54% of people who opposed the government’s position, 34% said May should continue negotiating. A further 20% backed halting the process pending a second referendum on the terms of the deal, an option backed by the Lib Dems and a cross-party group of MPs including the Labour MPs David Lammy, Heidi Alexander and Ben Bradshaw, as well as the Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas.

Brake said: “Our best hope of stopping a ruinous hard Brexit that nobody voted for and few want is if the public rally round to fight it, as Brexit grows more unpopular. That means uniting many who voted leave but now want to avoid the economic catastrophe of quitting the single market, and who want to protect those European citizens who contribute so much to Britain’s economy and society.”

Bert Wander, Avaaz’s campaign director, said the results showed May was at odds with the public over Brexit, and called for the House of Lords to ensure that Britons had the right to force May to continue negotiating.

“Two-thirds of the public don’t want Theresa May dangling us over the Brexit cliff without a safety net and the Lords can intervene and save us from that fate. We need the right to send May back to Brussels if all she brings us is a bad deal for Britain.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... are_btn_tw

I can't see how the public can rally against it to stop it from happening. The government will just dismiss those rallying as the millions who voted to remain. Even if five million people took to the streets around the country May can just sit there and say well they are just some of the 16 million who voted to remain. That's why the government could ignore the petitions that were signed by millions because they can justify it by convincing themselves that more people want out as the referendum stated.

DML wrote:If people genuinelly think 52% of people still want Brexit, they are strawberry floating deluded. They are no longer the majority, and basically only were for that one day. It was a day with mass flooding in Remain areas.

Holy gooseberry fool is this true? I had no idea. This could've changed strawberry floating everything.

Qikz wrote:

DML wrote:If people genuinelly think 52% of people still want Brexit, they are strawberry floating deluded. They are no longer the majority, and basically only were for that one day. It was a day with mass flooding in Remain areas.

Holy gooseberry fool is this true? I had no idea. This could've changed strawberry floating everything.

It's a poor argument to blame flooding, unless you can somehow prove that it stopped millions of Remain votes - which you can't because it's ridiculous.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments for Remain supporters to use, let's not cheapen them by grasping at straws and blaming the weather.

DML wrote:If people genuinelly think 52% of people still want Brexit, they are strawberry floating deluded. They are no longer the majority, and basically only were for that one day. It was a day with mass flooding in Remain areas.

I enjoy having discussions on twitter over brexit, and sometimes the only response i get is 52%.

"so are you enjoying the more expensive fuel, worse pound value and goods costing more?"

52%

Qikz wrote:

DML wrote:If people genuinelly think 52% of people still want Brexit, they are strawberry floating deluded. They are no longer the majority, and basically only were for that one day. It was a day with mass flooding in Remain areas.

Holy gooseberry fool is this true? I had no idea. This could've changed strawberry floating everything.

Parts of london were flooded, yes. Also there were delays on just about every tube line on the day too

Thinking about it, that UKIP guy did once blame flooding on the gays. Maybe voting Remain makes it rain harder than man on man anal sex?

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Shadow wrote:I think it would have felt democratic if each MP voted as their constituency did in the referendum, then it would have passed and everyone could have felt fairly represented.

I'm in a Tory constituency which voted Remain, but our MP followed the party line and backed A50. Feels like he's ignoring the referendum result for his constituency.

That would make sense if the referendum was based on the same method we elect MPs.

In an extreme example, you can have Labour win every vote in London, Wales and Scotland which would amount to 16,000,000 votes whilst Tories could get the 11,000,000 they got in 2015 and end up with vastly more MPs.

Each constituency is a mini election. The geographical spread is important. It's why UKIP get 4 million votes and 1 MP whilst the SNP get 56 seats from 1.4 million votes.

In this referendum, whilst there is geographical data to show voting patterns, it's the absolute number of votes that mattered. As such, an MP has to respect the national outcome rather than the local outcome.

I accept that the SNP MPs can vote no because they don't even want to be part of the UK so can claim they represent the national vote of what they eventually hope will be a separate country. However an MP who believes in the UK should vote the way the UK voted.

The whole thing of what way Labour MPs should vote is ignoring why they're in the situation they're in. Cameron referendum had no caveats such as all 4 members of the UK voting out or a super majority of 2/3 of total vote or a binding outcome etc. The rules of the game made leaving the EU possible.

I suspect any future referendums in future will be made to be binding and/or require much tougher voting rules such as 2/3 majority etc when the referendum is issued reluctantly.

Utter bollocks.

The referendum was advisory and I elect an MP to represent me in parliament.

To leave the EU, parliament has to vote on it. And I absolutely expect MPs to represent their constituents not people from other constituencies.

The whole referendum was about "taking back control", but you think Scottish or Bristolian should ignore their constituents in favour of what people in Sunderland thought?

I agree with Moggy. The fact MPs and the government didn't act like this was an issue is embarrassing. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would have occurred if more areas voted Remain and more people voted Leave?

When I saw the notification that you had quoted me I never expected that.

bear wrote:

twitter.com/hullaudiovisual/status/827799279934767105

Good God almighty, is nothing safe?

For anyone interested.

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/2/13/14596212/sonos-uk-prices-increase-brexit

Sonos’ most affordable speaker, the Play:1, is increasing in price from £169 to £199; the midrange Play:3 is going up from £259 to £299; while the top-of-the-line Play:5 used to cost £429 and will now set you back £499. The biggest increases, though, are hitting the Connect line, which allows users to hook up their existing speakers to streaming music sources, and are getting a 25 percent price bump. You can check out the full list of changes here.

twitter.com/mshelicat/status/831986148088102914

- lowest unemployment rate in 11 years.

I was concerned that the lower value of the pound might make a large dent in the figures but it seems immigration is holding up nicely.

Screw any of the older crowd who get red faced about it; I'm the one who will have to pay for their state pension entitlements and I'll be damned if I'm paying the huge tax increases that will be levied on me if we have a reduction is new workers coming into the UK. Who do they think is going to pick up the tab if receipts to the exchequer drop? That's beside the fact that were are not enough of my generation to fill the labour gaps they will be leaving.