Brexit negotiations

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:MPs are not bound by how their constituencies voted on brexit. It was a referendum which was meant to advise parliament but in no sense does it bind the MPs to vote the way their constituents voted.

MPs often ignore what their constituents want. The most obvious example would be the free votes held in the past on the death penalty.

You are correct in what you say but there clearly was an overwhelming Brexit vote in the Parliamentary constituencies of all political persuasions that it was clear what the country wanted, even though the actual overall total vote was quite close in itself.

30% of Tory constituencies, 40% of Labour constituencies and 100% of the minority party constituencies (apart from 2 LD) voted to Remain at the original referendum so it's clear that if these MPs wanted to represent their electorate they would and should decline the party Whip.
Moreover, Augusts independent poll showed that 113 constituencies that originally voted Leave have now switched to Remain so what's the story with those MPs? Shouldn't they also decline the party Whip?

Well yes they should because they are clearly putting party politics ahead of the wishes of the people that elected them.

So taken your percentages as stated that leaves 70% of Conservative and 60% of Labour constituencies voted for Brexit.

In the 2015 General election Conservatives won 330 seats (or 231 for Brexit) and Labour (or 139 for Brexit)

As there are 650 seats in Parliament that totals (including the two Lib Dem seats you mention voted for Brexit) 372 seats for Brexit and only 278 for Remain or roughly 57% to 43% in favour for Brexit.

A clear and unequivocal mandate from the country.

As for poll predictions, they have been notoriously wrong in recent years - not least in predicting the outcome of the referendum!

The only known mandate MP's have is how their constituents actually voted when they did.

The only way to gauge the final right of leaving the EU is by putting the final result of the country's negotiation to leave again to the country to vote on.

That's what I'd try to make happen if I were an elected MP of any party and whether I supported Brexit or not.

Not sure about your logic here when the point was about whether or not MPs should represent the wishes of their constituents or be told by their party that they should go against what their constituents have asked them to do.
Even with your dodgy figures it means that 278 MPs defied the wishes of their constituents and if the polls are accurate, or even if they are 10% out - which is highly unusual as the average error margin is 2% - it means that currently the majority of MPs in this country are going along with Brexit against the wishes of their constituents.

Are you are arguing that opinion polls have been notoriously wrong in recent years and yet the EU membership opinion poll was unquestionably right?  

The passing of time is an interesting factor too. The parties are insisting on carrying through the views expressed in an opinion poll that took place two years ago but times have changed so why the fixation with pushing through a marginal historical opinion poll?

I used your figures you moron!

The 278 MP's which include the 'rebels' and the rest of the minor party's who voted to remain, still couldn't overturn a the majority 372 MP's in Parliamentary votes - so nothing would change you muppet!

Even if we used your dreamt of figure of a 10% switch from Brexit to remain for all the MP's then the 372 following the Brexit mandated by the public would drop by 37 to 335 and conversely the rebels and the representing Remain constituencies (as per the referendum) would increase by 37 to 315 and the Brexit mandated by the public vote would still remain!

The opinion polls at the time of the referendum predicted a Remain result - so how could I possibly be arguing that they were "unquestionably right" ffs???

Finally elections are held to give the winner of them a period of time to carry out their manifesto, that period of time in this country is usually five years for MP's (four years for local councillors).  You don't call elections every two years because nothing would ever be achieved in that time.  Similarly referendums aren't voted on every two minutes for the same reason.

Like it or not - and you clearly don't - the public have voted and given Parliament a mandate for Brexit.  Even if all the MP's whose constituents didn't vote for Brexit formed a united opposition, they would still be in a considerable minority in Parliament and could not stop the will of the people as voted for in the referendum.

Even in your make believe world a further 10% of Brexit voting constituency MP's now somehow believed they should be against it, there would STILL be a majority in Parliament carrying out the peoples will of the Brexit vote.

Until a further public vote is made on Brexit no polls can say for certain that the majority of people still mandate it - or not.

A referendum on the final decision made between the Government and the EU would give the public the chance to mandate that they still wish to leave or reject the terms and wish to remain.

And that is what I would hope all MP's whether they support Brexit or Remain would wish to do as then everybody will have their chance to have a final say on the matter and willingly or not accept the final outcome.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Sluffy wrote:

xmiles wrote:MPs are not bound by how their constituencies voted on brexit. It was a referendum which was meant to advise parliament but in no sense does it bind the MPs to vote the way their constituents voted.

MPs often ignore what their constituents want. The most obvious example would be the free votes held in the past on the death penalty.

You are correct in what you say but there clearly was an overwhelming Brexit vote in the Parliamentary constituencies of all political persuasions that it was clear what the country wanted, even though the actual overall total vote was quite close in itself.

30% of Tory constituencies, 40% of Labour constituencies and 100% of the minority party constituencies (apart from 2 LD) voted to Remain at the original referendum so it's clear that if these MPs wanted to represent their electorate they would and should decline the party Whip.
Moreover, Augusts independent poll showed that 113 constituencies that originally voted Leave have now switched to Remain so what's the story with those MPs? Shouldn't they also decline the party Whip?

Well yes they should because they are clearly putting party politics ahead of the wishes of the people that elected them.

So taken your percentages as stated that leaves 70% of Conservative and 60% of Labour constituencies voted for Brexit.

In the 2015 General election Conservatives won 330 seats (or 231 for Brexit) and Labour (or 139 for Brexit)

As there are 650 seats in Parliament that totals (including the two Lib Dem seats you mention voted for Brexit) 372 seats for Brexit and only 278 for Remain or roughly 57% to 43% in favour for Brexit.

A clear and unequivocal mandate from the country.

As for poll predictions, they have been notoriously wrong in recent years - not least in predicting the outcome of the referendum!

The only known mandate MP's have is how their constituents actually voted when they did.

The only way to gauge the final right of leaving the EU is by putting the final result of the country's negotiation to leave again to the country to vote on.

That's what I'd try to make happen if I were an elected MP of any party and whether I supported Brexit or not.

Not sure about your logic here when the point was about whether or not MPs should represent the wishes of their constituents or be told by their party that they should go against what their constituents have asked them to do.
Even with your dodgy figures it means that 278 MPs defied the wishes of their constituents and if the polls are accurate, or even if they are 10% out - which is highly unusual as the average error margin is 2% - it means that currently the majority of MPs in this country are going along with Brexit against the wishes of their constituents.

Are you are arguing that opinion polls have been notoriously wrong in recent years and yet the EU membership opinion poll was unquestionably right?  

The passing of time is an interesting factor too. The parties are insisting on carrying through the views expressed in an opinion poll that took place two years ago but times have changed so why the fixation with pushing through a marginal historical opinion poll?

I used your figures you moron!

The 278 MP's which include the 'rebels' and the rest of the minor party's who voted to remain, still couldn't overturn a the majority 372 MP's in Parliamentary votes - so nothing would change you muppet!

Even if we used your dreamt of figure of a 10% switch from Brexit to remain for all the MP's then the 372 following the Brexit mandated by the public would drop by 37 to 335 and conversely the rebels and the representing Remain constituencies (as per the referendum) would increase by 37 to 315 and the Brexit mandated by the public vote would still remain!

The opinion polls at the time of the referendum predicted a Remain result - so how could I possibly be arguing that they were "unquestionably right" ffs???

Finally elections are held to give the winner of them a period of time to carry out their manifesto, that period of time in this country is usually five years for MP's (four years for local councillors).  You don't call elections every two years because nothing would ever be achieved in that time.  Similarly referendums aren't voted on every two minutes for the same reason.

Like it or not - and you clearly don't - the public have voted and given Parliament a mandate for Brexit.  Even if all the MP's whose constituents didn't vote for Brexit formed a united opposition, they would still be in a considerable minority in Parliament and could not stop the will of the people as voted for in the referendum.

Even in your make believe world a further 10% of Brexit voting constituency MP's now somehow believed they should be against it, there would STILL be a majority in Parliament carrying out the peoples will of the Brexit vote.

Until a further public vote is made on Brexit no polls can say for certain that the majority of people still mandate it - or not.

A referendum on the final decision made between the Government and the EU would give the public the chance to mandate that they still wish to leave or reject the terms and wish to remain.

And that is what I would hope all MP's whether they support Brexit or Remain would wish to do as then everybody will have their chance to have a final say on the matter and willingly or not accept the final outcome.

You're a bit thick aren't you?
And not very good at reading.
Or understanding.
You don't understand the difference between partial referendum of a section of the voting public and a referendum which requires all eligible voters to participate. Around 3 million ex pats were denied the vote that they are entitled to in an election so it was a partial referendum, not a proper referendum.
You don't understand that that particular opinion poll - the referendum - is being used as a "mandate" whilst you simultaneously decry all other opinion polls - a point you have spectacularly misunderstood above. And FYI analysis of predictions against the actual results have proven that the average variance is 2% despite the attempts to denigrate polls in the media.
You don't understand that opinions change and that the people are systematically being denied their voice.
And you don't understand that the question I raised was about party dogma v free vote.
Perhaps you should leave politics to the grownups although TBF you were close to the issue when you touched on the free vote on the death penalty in one of your earlier lectures.

lusty, with respect on the ex-pats issue I believe you're plain wrong. Since by definition ex-pats do not live in the UK they aren't likely to be materially affected by Brexit and frankly shouldn't have a say in matters about a country in which they no longer reside.

Put it this way, my mother was Scottish and I was born in Glasgow but we moved to Manchester when I was two years old. As a result when there was a referendum concerning Scottish independence from the UK I, like many other Scots born people living elsewhere did NOT get a vote and frankly I believe that was right.

Now, as to people's opinion changing on Brexit. I think it should be noted that those who most strongly favoured leaving the EU were the over 60's, in other words the part of our population least likely to have to live with the consequences in the long term. In my humble opinion when you look at the demographics in terms of age the young and middle aged were solidly in favour of remain and frankly I think it's a travesty that both groups will now pay the price for their forebear's short sighted 'Little England' thinking.

Basically Farage and the rest of the Brexit crowd played on fear, ignorance and outright bigotry with lots of help from the Murdoch owned papers and websites. Unfortunately though, this is a democracy and whether we agree or not the majority of voters said Leave. Whether they still feel that was right or not is for the moment beside the point. Article 50 was invoked and whether or not we like it we're out of the EU next year.

Finally, as to the assertion we should have a vote or referendum on the final deal. This is a moot point since there won't be a deal. There is no way the other 27 members of the EU will unanimously ratify anything that appears to treat Britain well. We'll be out and using WTO rules only no matter how hard May and her colleagues try to make us believe otherwise.

Frankly this is going to be a disaster for the UK and our kids will pay for it for years. But sadly the truth is we brought it on ourselves not just with the referendum but with the way our media and our people have spoken about Europe and it's inhabitants for the last several decades.

wanderlust wrote:You're a bit thick aren't you?
And not very good at reading.
Or understanding.
You don't understand the difference between partial referendum of a section of the voting public and a referendum which requires all eligible voters to participate. Around 3 million ex pats were denied the vote that they are entitled to in an election so it was a partial referendum, not a proper referendum.
You don't understand that that particular opinion poll - the referendum - is being used as a "mandate" whilst you simultaneously decry all other opinion polls - a point you have spectacularly misunderstood above. And FYI analysis of predictions against the actual results have proven that the average variance is 2% despite the attempts to denigrate polls in the media.
You don't understand that opinions change and that the people are systematically being denied their voice.
And you don't understand that the question I raised was about party dogma v free vote.
Perhaps you should leave politics to the grownups although TBF you were close to the issue when you touched on the free vote on the death penalty in one of your earlier lectures.

There's no point trying to enlighten those that chose not to see, is there?

Quite frankly you've got the same problem Bread has - everybody is wrong apart from you, that you believe you are somehow far smarter and superior to everyone else and you dismiss everybody else's facts, opinions and general replies you don't agree with, with distain and personal abuse.

You come across as an obnoxious 'know it all' on the forum, which I hope for your own sake is just an act you put on for here and not how you are in real life - but I suspect it isn't.

You're entitled to your views and opinions no matter how wrong or self focused they may be but in reality all you are doing is simply demonstrating your closed mind and sheer ignorance to how things are, in this case being the free and democratic elected representation of this country (the mother of all Parliament's remember!) and how it governs based on the mandate given to it by the people - simply because it isn't giving YOU the result YOU want.

You simply act like a very spoilt (and nasty) child who cant get his own way instead.

Sluffy wrote:

wanderlust wrote:You're a bit thick aren't you?
And not very good at reading.
Or understanding.
You don't understand the difference between partial referendum of a section of the voting public and a referendum which requires all eligible voters to participate. Around 3 million ex pats were denied the vote that they are entitled to in an election so it was a partial referendum, not a proper referendum.
You don't understand that that particular opinion poll - the referendum - is being used as a "mandate" whilst you simultaneously decry all other opinion polls - a point you have spectacularly misunderstood above. And FYI analysis of predictions against the actual results have proven that the average variance is 2% despite the attempts to denigrate polls in the media.
You don't understand that opinions change and that the people are systematically being denied their voice.
And you don't understand that the question I raised was about party dogma v free vote.
Perhaps you should leave politics to the grownups although TBF you were close to the issue when you touched on the free vote on the death penalty in one of your earlier lectures.

Quite frankly you've got the same problem Bread has - everybody is wrong apart from you, that you believe you are somehow far smarter and superior to everyone else and you dismiss everybody else's facts, opinions and general replies you don't agree with, with distain and personal abuse.

You come across as an obnoxious 'know it all' on the forum, which I hope for your own sake is just an act you put on for here and not how you are in real life - but I suspect it isn't.

You're entitled to your views and opinions no matter how wrong or self focused they may be but in reality all you are doing is simply demonstrating your closed mind and sheer ignorance to how things are, in this case being the free and democratic elected representation of this country (the mother of all Parliament's remember!) and how it governs based on the mandate given to it by the people - simply because it isn't giving YOU the result YOU want.

You simply act like a very spoilt (and nasty) child who cant get his own way instead.

Amateur psychologist now or have you been reading the tea leaves?

Anyway some good Brexit reporting this week:

EU tells May the Chequers plan won't work and has just 4 weeks to avoid a no deal - I thought JRM's "Chequers Goes Pop" line was amusing albeit for different reasons.

Hungarian leader Viktor Orban sides with May and reckons some EU leaders want to "punish" the UK.

Macron attacks the leading Brexiteers and accuses them of lying to the British public. Quote "This is all the more true because they left the next day, so they didn't have to manage it"

And to top it off, a leaked Tory internal memo says Theresa May will be forced to "stand down soon after March 2019". The dossier also detailed the pros and cons of potential successors.

Something I have always wondered is, what if there is a second referendum, but on whether we accept the EU offer or not. Why do some people think the default for no acceptance, will be to stay with the EU ?
Surely, if the deal is refused, we carry on to a no deal, and still come out of the EU ?

gloswhite wrote:Something I have always wondered is, what if there is a second referendum, but on whether we accept the EU offer or not. Why do some people think the default for no acceptance, will be to stay with the EU ?
Surely, if the deal is refused, we carry on to a no deal, and still come out of the EU ?

We all want a no deal Brexit but in here has become a toddlers playground with some posters now Glos.

I don't know why Sluffy and Nat bother as it's better to leave the remoaners to it!

It's better to stay out

I learned this a while ago KP, and that's why you won't see any actual opinions on the topic, from myself.

gloswhite wrote:Something I have always wondered is, what if there is a second referendum, but on whether we accept the EU offer or not. Why do some people think the default for no acceptance, will be to stay with the EU ?
Surely, if the deal is refused, we carry on to a no deal, and still come out of the EU ?

Does anyone think that the default is to remain in the EU? I've never heard anyone say that before.

The option of staying in was taken away by the Government last year (illegally I believe) and now  a no-deal scenario seems likely - or does it? Some people say that May will make last minute further concessions and the no deal thing is just hype so they can say she saved the day.

As for us remainers, we post on here because the only developments in the negotiations point to more and more misery down the road on top of the misery it has caused already. If there was any good news about Brexit whatsoever the leavers would be all over it, but there isn't - that's the real reason we don't hear from them.

Obviously if there is anything at all positive to say about the way the Brexit negotiations are going we'd love to hear it because we all need cheering up.

Anything? Anything at all?

Two words Wander, two words...

karlypants wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Something I have always wondered is, what if there is a second referendum, but on whether we accept the EU offer or not. Why do some people think the default for no acceptance, will be to stay with the EU ?
Surely, if the deal is refused, we carry on to a no deal, and still come out of the EU ?

We all want a no deal Brexit but in here has become a toddlers playground with some posters now Glos.

I don't know why Sluffy and Nat bother as it's better to leave the remoaners to it!

It's better to stay out

I don’t think all leave voters do want a no deal though Karly, that’s the issue. What leaving means has never been properly defined.

karlypants wrote:Two words Wander, two words...

The two words that describe the benefits of brexit are fuck all.

Theresa May: EU must respect UK in Brexit talks. Result

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45604230

It's clear xmiles & wanderlust want our PM to roll over and do things to suit the EU.

Good on her for standing her ground. We're British, we don't let other countries dictate to us.

Xmiles & wanderlust should fuck off to France, it's clear they are kindred spirits.

She’s just completely ballsed up the negotiations, Chequers was never going to be accepted - not even her own cabinet accepted it. She’s too weak to come up with a feasible solution as she’s more bothered about staying in power.

If you want to put up with sub standard leaders then move to Belarus.

T.R.O.Y wrote:She’s just completely ballsed up the negotiations, Chequers was never going to be accepted - not even her own cabinet accepted it. She’s too weak to come up with a feasible solution as she’s more bothered about staying in power.

What a load of shite. She's there to get the best deal for the UK, if that takes time then so be it.

Weak she most definitely isn't. Perhaps she's finally learning a trick or two from my hero, Maggie T.

I’ve never liked Theresa fucking May. She’s a bloody remainer so how is she going to get the best deal for th UK when she really wants to stay in?

Time to boot her out and have a PM that supports brexit 100%.

She knows full well the best deal isn’t leaving the single market, but she’s pandering to the right in her party to stay in power. If she was stronger she’d fuck them off and do what she believes is right for the country.

One ‘I’ve got nothing to lose’ speech achieves nothing but impress a couple of tabloids.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Xmiles & wanderlust should fuck off to France, it's clear they are kindred spirits.

No that is what brexiteers like Nigel Lawson do.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiPpOTUtM7dAhVPWX0KHQo7BSAQFjADegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Farticle%2Fleave-boss-nigel-lawson-seeks-french-residency-xfqvm968g&usg=AOvVaw1nPjya_v0a60qpJgSP-HWH

luckyPeterpiper wrote:lusty, with respect on the ex-pats issue I believe you're plain wrong. Since by definition ex-pats do not live in the UK they aren't likely to be materially affected by Brexit and frankly shouldn't have a say in matters about a country in which they no longer reside.

Put it this way, my mother was Scottish and I was born in Glasgow but we moved to Manchester when I was two years old. As a result when there was a referendum concerning Scottish independence from the UK I, like many other Scots born people living elsewhere did NOT get a vote and frankly I believe that was right.

Now, as to people's opinion changing on Brexit. I think it should be noted that those who most strongly favoured leaving the EU were the over 60's, in other words the part of our population least likely to have to live with the consequences in the long term. In my humble opinion when you look at the demographics in terms of age the young and middle aged were solidly in favour of remain and frankly I think it's a travesty that both groups will now pay the price for their forebear's short sighted 'Little England' thinking.

Basically Farage and the rest of the Brexit crowd played on fear, ignorance and outright bigotry with lots of help from the Murdoch owned papers and websites. Unfortunately though, this is a democracy and whether we agree or not the majority of voters said Leave. Whether they still feel that was right or not is for the moment beside the point. Article 50 was invoked and whether or not we like it we're out of the EU next year.

Finally, as to the assertion we should have a vote or referendum on the final deal. This is a moot point since there won't be a deal. There is no way the other 27 members of the EU will unanimously ratify anything that appears to treat Britain well. We'll be out and using WTO rules only no matter how hard May and her colleagues try to make us believe otherwise.

Frankly this is going to be a disaster for the UK and our kids will pay for it for years. But sadly the truth is we brought it on ourselves not just with the referendum but with the way our media and our people have spoken about Europe and it's inhabitants for the last several decades.

Well, I am an ex-pat, but I am a British Citizen. So where do I stand ? In Germany I cannot vote in their Elections because I am a Foreigner. I am British so I can still vote in the English Elections. Why should I be allowed to do that, and also why should I have been allowed a vote in the Referendum I hear you say ? It's simple. I paid in to the UK all the time I worked there. I still pay NI contributions in to the UK even though I live and work in Germany. I moved here based on an agreement of free movement in Europe. With that in mind it meant I could go and work in any of the other 27 Countries if (like it did in the UK) the shit hits the fan. Now, because of a load of older people and a load of xenophobic, easily tricked people (by that I mean morons like the guy from Barnsley who was on TV and said he voted leave because of all the Pakistanis and Indians coming in to the Country) if I lose my job here I am now forced to either find something here or move back to the UK. I have lost the chance to find work in one of the other EU Countries. Oh, and that's not being selfish thinking that way, it's simply being mightily pissed off that my life could be impacted by a decision that I could have no say in. That's the point, us ex-pats are MORE affected by this than anyone who lives in the UK, because 99% of the people who voted leave, probably even 100% had no interest to work overseas anyway. They just fucked it up for everyone else, and whilst I am on a bit of a rant, 52/48 is not "the peoples will". It is pretty much half of the vote and in an Election would not be a majority that would give you power, so it's bullshit anyway, and Referendum by definition is an opinion gathering excercise.

Rant over