UKC

Apologies for yet another EU exit thread, but I thought I would pose a slightly different question.

The referendum was only advisory, so any decision to make an article 50 application needs to go before Parliament.

We know that a majority of MPs campaigned on the remain side.

My question is, should MPs

A) accept that the leave side 'won' the referendum and support an article 50 application.

B) vote in accordance with the referendum results for their constituency, effectively acting as a delegate.

C) vote for whichever side they have campaigned for.

D) try and get a feel for the mood of the constituency at the time of the vote and judge if it has changed from referendum day.

I plan to ask my own MP about this. She is a remain campaigner in a moderately strong exit area.

In reply to The New NickB:
Good questions and of course some action here is may have some effect, unlike, unfortunately, the petition etc.

I think I would go an combination of D and A "lite". At the least the result means there will be some change in the relationship between the UK and EU, whether this means the nuclear article 50, or a period of discussion and perhaps a reassessment of the while situation is unclear. I hope some new proposal that meets the leavers saner demands but allows us some sort of continued membership is possible, particularly they are now rowing back from limiting immigration, spending moment on the NHS and exiting the trade area. This may require a new referendum in a year or so.

Edit: I have a fairly virulent leaver MP, so his response will be interesting.

In reply to The New NickB:
Not much mystery about what my SNP MP will do

In reply to The New NickB:

My MP just resigned as Shadow Arts and Culture Secratary, so that should sort everything out.

In reply to The New NickB:

C)

It will mean some MPs losing their seat in the next election, probably to UKIP, but its one of those life changing decisions they will have come into politics for and so worth the personal sacrifice. A lot of MPs will get away with voting against the referendum as I expect a lot who voted in the referendum for Brexit will not vote in the general election (unless whipped up into a frenzy) plus a lot of Brexiters are already feeling a bit let down

In reply to The New NickB:

MPs should either support the motion or abstain.
They should not oppose the motion unless a general election or another referendum is called before the vote takes place. Anything else is undemocratic.

In reply to The New NickB:

Mine's the sainted Jeremy, I think we all know what he should do.

In reply to stevieb:

But are they not elected to represent their constituency since it is meant to be a free vote?

Difficulty is that I don't know if the referendum was broken down into parliamentary constituencies.

Also with the vagaries of how the boundaries were drawn up it might lead to some odd results.

Otherwise Scottish MPs would pretty well all have to vote against what they know their electors want.

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Send in his resignation as everyone else has?

In reply to The New NickB:

I'd say they have to accept the will of the people and should not impede it.

To flip it around, lets say the majority of MP's wanted out of Europe but we voted to stay in. Then they took us out anyway, there would be uproar.

In reply to m0unt41n:

I think that rather limits the acceptable outcomes, don't you?

In reply to The New NickB:

Our Local (Tory) MP is a remainer and being of mixed British / Iraian parentage I'm not surprised she wanted nothing to do with the Brexit campaign and its anti immigation rhetoric - that played on the fact that a lot of people had difficulty in differentiating between the words immigration and Immigrant!.

Her views did not reflect the way our constituency voted - even though she is from the local area.

I'm not a Tory supporter, but I'm glad that she opposed Brexit. She appears to be doing a good job as a local MP.As she was a new MP at the last election - though taking over from a tory incumbent - I'll be interested in seeing how loyal she is to a Brexit dominated leadership when it emerges, as that will indicate whether she's got principles or just wants to advance up the greasy pole!

In reply to m0unt41n:

MPs are elected to represent their constituents, not comply with their every wish.
I don't agree with the decision.
I don't think we should have had a referendum without at least defining in basic terms what LEAVE meant e.g. inside or outside the EEA.
And I think if we had a snap general election, and the lib dems won 330 seats, then the referendum can be ignored.

But otherwise, I think the referendum must be honoured.

In reply to m0unt41n:


it isn't, it is local authority boundaries, so unless there is some further breakdown, there would have to be a bit of guess work in quite a few constituencies.

Given the closeness of the vote, that could be interesting.

In reply to Tyler:

I guess personal ambition is important, my MP is 57, only a fairly recent MP (2014 by-election) and may be happy to retire at 60-61 and let someone new fight the UKIP threat.

In reply to The New NickB:

Very good questions. I think D sounds like the best compromise, but I'm glad I won't have to grapple with such decisions myself.

What this referendum has brought to light (among other things) is no less than a crisis of British democracy itself.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


The will of which people? are you suggesting that SNP MPs should vote to leave?

In reply to The New NickB:


Well they could either except the will of the majority of the UK that voted, or just care about Scotland and try and block it.
If they managed this, then you would have to wonder about democracy when 4 million UKIP voters got 1 MP, and had no strength in parliament to protect "their" referendum win when 1.4 million Scottish voters can swamp them with 55 more MPs. (this isn't a pro UKIP post BTW)

My opinion is that this would be dangerous and would actually strengthen UKIPs cause when they should be disappearing as their mandate has been and gone and they won.

I don't know what the answer is

In reply to The New NickB:


Indeed. Even in just England, 53.4% of the 70% of people of voting age who happened to be UK or Irish citizens living in the UK, many of whom have now realised how blindly they've been led, does not represent "the people".

In reply to The New NickB:

I am a supporter of bremain but accept we lost. Option a is the right one I'm afraid - as much as I hate to say it.

In reply to m0unt41n:


I would say that they should represent their constituency, but also be aware that some proportion of their constituents who voted "remain" will now be thinking that it's only fair to accept the overall decision. Hence I'd consider it reasonable for an MP for a strongly "remain" area to vote to stay in, but unless there are really significant further developments, I'd expect a leave vote from MPs from more marginal areas. I'd also consider it reasonable for SNP MPs to vote to stay in given that representing the interests of Scotland as a whole is pretty much their main shtick.

In reply to The New NickB:


There is no way any MP should voting against their conscience on this matter (on both sides), it's too important. If they do it proves what everyone has being saying about politicians for years (venal, self-serving etc).

In reply to Ramblin dave:

It'll be interesting to see if this a whipped vote but do MPs always vote based on what their constituents want?

In reply to Tyler:


I think it's an incredibly difficult decision (unless you happened to be a Leave supporting MP in a strong Leave constituency).

In reply to The New NickB:



The overall will of the whole electorate. I'm suggesting the SNP realise they are just another party in Britain and they should stand aside and abstain if they are unwilling support the exit. They seem to be under some illusion Scotland is already independent and they can do what they like, they can't do anything.

In reply to Trevers:

No it isn't. They will know their own mind, they will know the referendum was gerrymandered by lies and they will, by then, have seen the cost which expect will have changed the opinions of a lot of voters.

In reply to The New NickB:

Somewhat to my dismay my MP was on the leave side so I guess that A and C are effectively the same thing, he can't do B because due to the way that the results were declared we don't know how his constituency voted. I will ask him to consider D but know that it is not going to happen. I will also make it clear that he is expected him to honour the assurances that he gave regarding what would happen in the event of an out vote.

In reply to The New NickB:

I think part of the issue with the referendum was people's lack of power, believing they had no say in politics and general dislike of all things political, and somewhat of a protest vote.

To have the vote and then it not being acted upon will on confirm this I'm afraid.

Why they didn't set a margin 60/40 to come out I don't know. water under the bridge, I can't see a way not to come out, as much as I'd like to say.

Even if we did stay now we're f*cked as the EU would be able to impose anything they wanted on us.

Utter shambles the lot of it!!

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

If the SNP vote leave they will not be representing the views of the Scottish people.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I've always been a supporter of a more proportional electoral system, even if that does give some parties I don't like much, a bit more representation. The fact remains though, the vote will be carried out by current MPs, elected by the current system.

I can't remember if / how UKIP campaigned when we were given a vote on electoral reform.

In reply to The New NickB:

I hope my MP will act in the best interests of his constituents and the UK in general. If at the time of the vote it looks as if the UK might break up, or some other serious harm would result of voting to initiate exit then I'd expect MPs to work out what was in the best interests of the country as a whole.

In reply to The New NickB:


Do you think that UKIP would have risen to have such influence under a PR system? I feel that FPTP has allowed communities to be marginalised and ignored, and allowed protest parties to gain power through scapegoating and through repeated failure.

In reply to The New NickB:

My MP is Amber Rudd - I think she has her eyes set on No 10 for the time being.......

In reply to Trevers:

I think you probably have a point, but it is very hard to put numbers to it.

In reply to The New NickB:


UKIP were in favour of a more proportional system than FPTP. Not surprising really, given their successes in European elections and lack of success in UK Parliamentary elections.

In answer to your original question, I think the answer has to be A. For all that it's not the outcome I hoped for, it's the outcome we've got and I think has to be respected. One of the main drivers for the Leave campaign was the sense of disconnect between the elected Westminster elite and the poor bloody infantry in the rest of the country (leaving aside the fact that Johnson and Gove are as much a part of the Westminster elite as anyone). Not abiding by the result of the referendum would simply underline the idea that politicians don't give a stuff about their voters. I don't think that's a healthy situation to be in at all - it means it becomes legitimate to question every single democratic institution and process we have, and for the many flaws, I still prefer democracy to the alternatives.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

There would be, and if the opposite does happen there will be. What I'm saying is this is an important enough decision for them to be prepared to face the wrath of the electorate. A referendum isn't required to invoke Article 50, if this was anywhere near to being a sensible idea this would have appeared in some/all party's manifestos before and could do at any point in the future. As it is it has been brought to the fore by a minority of half baked politicians who have managed to tap into resentments about several, unrelated things. We may as well have had a referendum on disbanding the army, it's only used for wars and is expensive; if you fed the people enough lies it could have been carried!

In reply to The New NickB:

It really is a shambles. Since the referendum was not made legally binding then should not MPs first and foremost just reflect the wishes of their constituents.

Either the government just bangs Article 50 through without asking Parliament on the basis it is abiding by the result or it is put to a vote and MPs must then represent their constituents wishes. Although heaven knows how they are meant to work that one out.

To expect MPs representing Scotland or anywhere that there was a sizeable (whatever that means) majority to Remain to vote to Leave or Abstain would be nonsense.

It was either a binding referendum or it was not. Cameron having made the mess has now ducked out of it and everyone else seems to be hiding, pointing the finger or resigning, or all three.

In reply to m0unt41n:


Boris Johnson failing to turn up in the Commons today being a case in point. He's a coward, on top of everything else.