Off Topic Political Debate

You have illustrated my point perfectly. Referendum and democracy do not mean the same thing and the latter is frequently used inaccurately with the assumption that it confers rightness on the user.

 

Of course referendum and democracy are different things, nobody is arguing otherwise. The point I was making is the elected representatives in parliament freely decided not to use a vote in parliament to decide on our membership but to resort to a UK referendum. This was a democratic decision which gave the subsequent referendum its validity. The referendum idea had been promised for several years and was clearly mentioned by the Tories in their manifesto prior to the 2015 election. I cannot see any gaps in the path of accepted UK democratic norms.

 

None of this confusion about 'will of the people' or 'advisory only' referendums would have arisen if we hadn't introduced referendums into our political system. They seem completely inappropriate to our current political arrangements. We have MP's precisely to decide these things.
Whether we like it or not, we elect MP's who then choose to vote in debates mostly as the Whips instruct them (no reference to constituents there) or occasionally (a free vote) on a matter of conscience - no reference to constituents there either, formal or informal. The only time I have ever heard of an MP reflecting the views of (her) constituents was to consult her local party committee - not much democracy there in my opinion.
Therefore it seems to me entirely reasonable that MP's can (in fact if they are truly responsible, they should, 'cos it's their job) vote any which way they believe on any motion put before them. Now suppose, just for arguments sake, that prior to initiating Article 50, the Govt, for all its spin, present a picture that leads a majority of MP's to conclude that leaving is a big mistake, what should they do ?

Perhaps off the subject, but nevertheless...
The key point is to me however, is that by choosing to leave the EU, we give ALL the bargaining power to the EU, who can simply reject ANY proposal we put forward and insist on any proposal they wish that suits them. One thing is certain - they don't feel they owe us any favours. I don't think the Brexiteers outside Westminster actually grasp this point.

 

It was the MP's themselves that freely voted to abdicate their responsibilities and hand it to the people in the form of the European Union Referendum Act 2015. They had ample opportunity to resist, change, amend or oppose this act as a small minority of MP's did. The act was subsequently passed with a massive majority which gave the referendum its validity both legally and morally.

The Brexiteers, such as myself, have no doubt the aims of the EU will be to cause the UK as much difficulty as possible. They are trying to frighten any other member from daring to question the benefits of remaining part of this failing club. Despite this I am confident we can succeed once we shake off these losers.

 

Before refering to anyone as being 'losers' or 'belonging to a failing club' you may like to consider the following: The EU. (plus Norway, Switzerland and Iceland) accounted for 25.4% of World output in 2014 - compared to a figure of 22.5% for the USA. EU. household spending power was also considerably higher than that of the USA. - The EU. accounted for 28.5% of all consumer spending in 2014. If you add to that the fact that Europe is better at redistributing its wealth than the USA, then you have the idea that the EU. is actually the most successfull economic entity that the World has ever seen.

 

Many tens of millions in Southern Europe, especially the 50% unemployed amongst the young in Spain would firmly disagree with 'success' tab. The Euro has proved to be a disaster, Many commentators, including George Soros state that EU collapse is now 'practically irreversible'.

 

I agree totally with your point on referendums and the role of MPs. Parliament is there to question, debate, investigate, challenge and scrutinise policy and laws relating to national and international issues. These select people have specifically been entrusted with the responsibility of doing so, precisely to ensure someone is responsible. And with that responsibility there is a sense of duty. None of this applies to the general public and therefore to leave single policy decisions in the hands of individuals who feel no sense of greater obligation beyond their own personal prejudices and motivations, is precisely why we've elected to have a parliament in the first place. A fundamental point lost on some. And in case anyone reading this feels I'm belittling the intelligence of the general public, you've completely missed the point! If tomorrow we had a referendum on Capital Punishment, you would see an even greater swell of public opinion towards having the death penalty than you had for Brexit. Thankfully, such a notion will NEVER be entertained by any British government and rightly so in a modern and civilised society. Sometimes the reason we entrust decision-making to our MPs is to save us from ourselves.

 

Our elected MP's decided to abdicate responsibility away from themselves and trust the people in the form of a referendum. Seems clear enough to me. They had plenty of opportunity to question, debate, investigate, challenge and scrutinise policy, which they duly did. Some were not convinced with the argument for, but clearly most were.

 

I agree with the bit in bold They did indeed abdicate that responsibility. And that's what's most shameful about the premise of a referendum. Let's hope they don't do it with capital punishment.

 

Try as I might, I cannot recall any opposition whatsoever on this forum re: UK MP's decision to give the public the right to have a referendum until after the subsequent result was announced..........

 

They will never do it with capital punishment, thankfully we do not have a far right government.

I'm not certain but I think the MP's are out of sync with the public on assisted suicide. I was most surprised, and disappointed, with the large amount of opposition in the recent vote in parliament.

May I quickly state I don't need any volunteers for myself quite yet, thanks

 

I'd say that in the event of such a referendum, a Yes vote would only be accepted if it reflected the wishes of at least 60% of the whole roll rather than just a majority of the actual vote. Whether or not that would be made clear prior to the vote is anyone's guess though.

 

I wouldn't trust a referendum on anything in a country where the mail and the sun are the 2 most read newspapers.

 

I honestly can't think of a national daily that is worth reading - not one of them prints the truth without distorting it.

 

I know what you mean, The Guardian is full of absolute biased tosh, especially from Polly Toynbee, one of the old lefty BBC brigade.

 

Has Juncker lost the plot?

Can somebody tell him it is probably not a good idea to keep insulting Trump especially now he is President elect. I'm not sure if he needs re 'revisit his negotiation skill set' or simply lay off the booze.

 

He's only saying what every European leader, apart from Putin, thinks. What he said was that this poses risks for the relationship between the EU. and the USA, and that Trump has no idea about the workings of the EU. Angela Merkel mumbled something broadly diplomatic, Sigmar Gabriel was nearly as forthcoming as Juncker - but the reality is that, according to polls, only about 4% of Germans wanted Trump to win. So the best you can expext is a 'grin and bear it' from all quarters.

 

Not very sensible to say what you actually think when at some stage the EU will be looking for co-operation in many areas, but hey, this may only help the Brits.

 

"...you're not laughing now.."

I'd say he's not quite right about that - the laughter doubtless changed to raucous cheering at the thought of no more him...