[hibeejim21]

Just a point regarding our elected representatives - some people have made the point that Parliament doesn't belong to Boris, it belongs to the people. Our sickening elected representatives have made a mockery of that principle recently, by ignoring THE people's vote to leave the EU and then deliberately voting down any move to leave under any circumstances. Most of the Commons were elected on the promise to leave, most of the Commons voted to trigger Article 50, but when it comes to the crunch, the majority lily-livered little darlings are desperate to remain in the EU.

That is what all the hoo-ha is about and that is why I have no time for the Houses Of Parliament. Boris and Jeremy are a complete waste of time and space, one frighteningly antagonistic and one frighteningly docile. I disagree with the next two, but at least Jo and Ian show a united front for what they believe in.

How is it possible to ignore the peoples vote AND trigger article 50 ?

Labour made it clear they couldn't support May's deal from the start. The ERG branch of the tory party wouldn't either because they want "no deal". There is a majority there for a deal with the EU but may refused to budge lest she offend the balance of her own power, that's gone now and boris is trying to force "no deal" through by quite disgraceful tactics.

I agree with you about parliament being not fit for purpose though and think that although the opposition have acted in the national interest in preventing "no deal" they really should have got their acts together earlier. But I guess it was difficult to do that with our style of politic and without knowing what kind
of brexit the government were going to follow.

The real problem was that Cameron inflicted on Britain a referendum without defining what Brexit meant. I think another vote is the only way to repair that.

[0762]

I must endorse that last line Jim. As commented in some of my previous threads, I have a continued sense of despair and frustration at there not being a second referendum on leaving Europe.
Leave politicians portentously state that the wishes of the people of Britain must be respected but they inflate the wish of a small majority of the people of GB, and totally dismiss a very great majority of the wish of the Scottish people. Furthermore, the average voter, in most of our populace, understood very little about the implications of leaving the EU. They were told lies, told little and were misled!!! There is a question of unlawfulness (yep, that word crops up again and again!!) attached to the leave campaign, a campaign that was allegedly heavily funded by so-called "dark money" with a shady organisation called Cambridge Analytica also exposed and challenged by a parliamentary investigative committee and filmed removing all damning evidence in boxes. The motives for leaving were questionable anyway - my simple explanation is that the UK establishment does not like anything "cramping their style"!
My understanding is that the referendum was advisory only but it was so badly managed by a govt/people who don't do referenda very often that they should've consulted officials in a country like Switzerland, the "referendum capital of the world", to glean proper ground rules incl the realisation that the result was not unanimous and therefore NO CHANGE would apply for obvious reasons!!! THE STATUS QUO WOULD PREVAIL AND A LONG TERM FIASCO WOULD BE AVOIDED AFTER GOOD ADVICE FROM SEASONED PRACTITIONERS OF REFERENDA AND HOW TO MANAGE THEM PROPERLY!!!
Three years have passed, even without the retrospective influence on the result of these factors mentioned. That is ample time for a normal unforced change of view among the voters.
I know it is a big wish but I feel that there should be 1. Far more scrutiny applied to referenda 2. A cap on monetary support 3. A neutral agency to inform and educate, to some extent, the voters about the specific issue of a referendum 4. A review of the proceedings after the vote and, if it is found to be grossly questionable or abusive, a re-run of the referendum after the negation of the result. Neutrality of the members of such a review agency could be assured by their own record of historical impartiality.

[hibeejim21]

Panic over !!!

Boris is building a bridge between Scotland and northern Ireland....He is going to get the EU to pay for it too no doubt.

---

Looking at those "yellowhammer" papers (sneakily changed to worst case scenario instead of base) NO responsible parliament should be sitting back and just letting any of that happen to its poorest and most vulnerable.

The late labour minister Nye Bevan called the tories "vermin". Nothings changed.

[ritchiebaby]

"How is it possible to ignore the peoples vote AND trigger article 50 ?"

It's easy, Jim, and it's all to do with timing.
1. In June 2016 voters in the Referendum voted to leave the EU (it was mandatory for the Government to carry out the decision.)
2. In March 2017 Article 50 was triggered.
3. In June 2018 Parliament passed the Withdrawal Act.
All hunky-dory so far, then
4. Draft Withdrawal Deal was put forward to the Commons in November 2018 by Mrs May.
5. Since then every positive step to move things along has been thwarted and we've ended up with the current shambles.

I'm not into the blame game towards individuals and their parties, but it is very clear to me that Parliament is doing everything it can to firstly delay our exit, followed by an obvious intention to eventually stay in the EU.

[0762]

I think you should read my thread #83 again re the whole ethical process of managing a referendum and doing it properly!!! I'll "shout to the heavens" until more n more people start scrutinising and dissecting the whole issue of how referenda should be managed and organised properly (millions n millions of folk have already done that and concluded likewise!!!) against lotsa people who are still applying a "first past the post" mentality that has predominated the Brexit debate for years ad nauseum. I'm convinced if 50.5% of the leave vote had actually been recorded in 2016 instead of 52%, lotsa "first past the post" protagonists would still be preaching the same shit - absolutely nuts and that is exactly what it is!! The whole referendum was a f###### sham, pure n simple!! As for Article 50 being signed off, well that should never have happened anyway because a proper post referendum assessment of this "opinion poll" would've rejected the result as normal practise!! This was an utter sham run by a political party with an agenda attached to a govt, a bunch of f###### amateurs when it came to running a referendum that was as important to the country as the 2016 one!! Lastly, the People's vote that Jim refers to is what I'd call a democratic "approval vote" by the people on whatever Brexit version is finally proposed and remaining in the EU should be an option for every voter to consider on the voting form.

[ritchiebaby]

I don't need to re-read your post to ascertain that you are annoyed and frustrated about the way the EU Referendum was run, but in early 2016 there was no doubt before the vote that the UK Government would accept the majority result and act on it. I have no disagreement against your points regarding future rules, but you can only go with the rules in place at the time.

The main reason for being in favour of changing the electoral system is that it would guarantee minority parties a greater say in limiting the excesses of the majority party. But you only have to go back to 2010-2015 to see where that led. Plus the MPs would actually have to reach a compromise on many issues - litttle chance of that happening in the present climate.

[0762]

The end conclusion is the hope that a people's vote will eventually be called Ritchie - not perfect but it gives the "Brexit movement" a chance to rubber stamp whatever Brexit deal is proposed to be foisted on the country OR it is not endorsed by the people and the status quo prevails! Of course, that will never be the end of it with extremists like Farage preaching his poison but it gives the voting populace the chance to say yay or nay on this issue once and for all after gleaning most of the facts re Brexit and observing the crass behaviour of lotsa political morons in the process.

[St Charles Owl]

The end conclusion is the hope that a people's vote will eventually be called Ritchie - not perfect but it gives the "Brexit movement" a chance to rubber stamp whatever Brexit deal is proposed to be foisted on the country OR it is not endorsed by the people and the status quo prevails! Of course, that will never be the end of it with extremists like Farage preaching his poison but it gives the voting populace the chance to say yay or nay on this issue once and for all after gleaning most of the facts re Brexit and observing the crass behaviour of lotsa political morons in the process.

But even if there was another referendum, and even if it did produce a result that was conclusive, would that be the end of it or would there be a call for more public votes on the topic every few years?? I am sure you know where I am going with this, but the point of a referendum is to produce a result and put the subject to bed, one way of the other. There are many reasons why the first one should not have stood or been acted upon but there are also other referendums that people are clamouring for, what rules should we have on those or will a simple majority again be the deciding decision?

[hibeejim21]

Referendums are a good instrument for democracy but not in the chaotic fashion that Cameron set the Brexit vote up for. He reduced a hugely complex issue to a binary choice to save his own parties arse. The Scottish referendum result was accepted, but the landscape has changed completely now and a clear case is there for a re-run. There is also a clear case for politics in England changing too, whether its devolved powers for areas of England or a change of the electoral system or shock of horrors an actual workable constitution.

If there's another referendum I'll take 52/48 happily. Will of the people and all that.

[0762]

Tell this to that hypocritical LibDem leader, Jo Swinson, Jim!! Note the democrat part of her political party's title - never a democrat from a Scottish perspective, just another unionist moron who is "out of touch" with the Scottish electorate together with that non-entity of a Scot LD leader, Willie Rennie!!