You need to read posts. You know full well that I never said all MP's were in favour of a referendum, but under our democratic system motions are debated then a vote is taken in parliament. The outcome of the vote clearly voted in favour of a referendum by a huge majority that bothered to vote. I fail to see how you cannot understand how democracy in the UK works. The age of voting should not be lowered to include 16-17 year olds.
I do read posts, and remember very clearly you saying that Boris would be the next leader of the Tory party. I also understand very well the function of the Whips office. Want a bit of promotion, then do as you are told. You can have an opinion on voting age, but when decent arguments are put forward to allow the 16-17 year olds to have their say, to disallow it purely on cost is not how the country should be run.
If the government had used pressure from the whips or indeed during the run up to the referendum it was credit to those brave MP's and cabinet ministers that defied Cameron and Osborne. Most 16-17 year olds do not have the interest or the knowledge to form a useful opinion, note I said most not all. Apparently the percentage of young people that actually bothered to vote in the referendum was much higher than previously thought, so even with the young voting in high numbers they leave side still won handsomely. Out is out, stop the whinging.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/w...ants-great-britain-eu.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...gentine-peso-to-become-2016-s-worst-performer Two bits of grim reading about the aftermath of the Brexit vote from across the pond. But I don't suppose the Brexiteers will worry about either.
It is not whinging to be asking the question 'what happens now'. Due to an election manouvre Cameron called a referendum which was unnecessary. A referendum conducted in a country which is not used to them, and which did not contain the qualifying conditions used in countries which are used to such things - minimum turnout, 50% support from the complete electorate, minimum support in all regions (the latter condition found in Switzerland). The result was a massive own goal for the political system of this country - with even the leaders of Brexit distancing themselves from the consequences of their actions, and their lies. So, what happens now ? Whilst the House of Commons will not overturn the result directly, they may well be waiting for circumstances to change - giving them a pretext for doing so. The fact is that the only politician in Britain with a clear mandate to follow is Nicola Sturgeon. In order to remove EU. law from the statute book in Scotland the agreement of the Scottish Parliament is necessary - to override this means the annullment of the devolution act - in other words the stripping of powers from the Scottish Parliament. Is any PM. going to take this step and consequently go into the history books as the politician who killed Britain ? And for what reason would they be killing Britain - because of less than a million Poles ? Or because of a half baked illusion of sovereignty which would no longer be British but only English and Welsh ? The only good outcome of the inevitable loss of Scotland and N. Ireland, would be that you will have to plant Trident in the Thames or the Avon.
You cannot seriously challenge the validity of the referendum. There was ample debate, scrutiny and amendments to make it a suitable method of deciding on the EU. The Scottish have a democratic right to determine where they think their best future lies. They would have huge hurdles to get past to encourage enough people to vote to leave the UK. You don't seem to like democratic processes.
Superbly put.. you have my vote Cologne ..... Let us not forget either that it was a Tory Party that set us on that route... really well thought out........... I have yet to see any hint of a strategy for the future. How on earth would anyone get elected on that mandate???
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-way-for-federal-union-says-all-party-group Panic setting in in England's Corridors of Power? Looking at the proposed 'shared UK functions' to be under the control of 146 MPs in the House of Commons, this does little more than retain the likelihood of N. Ireland, Wales and Scotland being in the minority, and under the control of the numerically senior 'partner'. Not for me...
You cannot have it both ways - if you credit the MPs with the decision to have non legally binding referendum you also will have to accept their right to overturn it after an election that changes it. I repeat I do not think it will happen but you would have to accept it as democratic.
It was a non legally binding referendum but it is unthinkable that parliament would not respect the will of the people. That is why all prospective PM candidates, Corbyn and Farron have all stated Brexit is Brexit. If there was an election everything would be up in the air which is why there is absolutely no chance of having one, certainly not before article 50 had been invoked and the boundary changes had taken place. I expect our fixed parliament will run its course.
Unthinkable for Tories maybe. Parliament can legitimately consider whether the referendum was conducted in an honest and true manner and decide to test it's result in the country at large. Labour, Lib Dems, SNP and in fact all parties bar the Tories would be likely to campaign on a reverse the referendum ticket. It would be the only thinkable way for Labour to get into power in the next few years. You may think the Tories can survive but they have a very slim majority and it would take only a handful of hard line Remain Tories to not support the government for there to be an election forced by failure to command a majority. Doubtful - but not at all impossible.
Yes doubtful, but stranger things are going on. 20 Tory MPs say they will leave if Leadsom becomes PM. Ukip say that if May is elected it will be the death of Brexit. I for some reason have the belief that what a politician might say in public is not always what he will say in private. Tonight Hammond is having dinner with some of his counterparts from the EU. The German Foreign minister is saying we must find a way to help the UK in it's current crisis. I can see lots of twists and turns to come.
Not just unthinkable for the Tories but also most other MP's. It is for the fairies to think there will be a challenge to the legitimacy of the referendum. Most MP's are decent people and will uphold the will of the people. There may well be a vote in parliament on the final conditions of Brexit but all outcomes will definitely result in Brexit. I doubt if any Tories would dare oppose the united Tory government especially under the control of May as PM. They would be de-selected a.s.a.p. Theresa May always was a eurosceptic but chose remain to further her career, although she must have thought remain would win. She did not foresee Osborne would make a fool of himself and Johnson and Gove would instigate a civil war that both would lose.
Well there is a surprise. I thought you would have wanted to address the comments that May will spell the death of Brexit.
The last time I looked UKIP were not in government, they have only one MP, just a bit less than the Lib Dems. Now we have Brexit secured what one of their members says is immaterial. You really should not believe everything you read.
You do not have Brexit secured. If you remember Cameron said he would lodge the Article 50 the day after the referendum if he lost. He didn't. I wonder why?
Agreed -- most MPs are decent and will uphold the will of the people - if it can be established what that really is - and it may well not be a 37.5% support of Brexit - a General Election would tell us the real will of the people - we are used to General Elections and don't get sidetracked by utter lies from Brexit people. So May is a eurosceptic eh? - and Loathsome was a eurosupporter. Boris in truth was a supporter but tried to become PM on the back of his hypocrisy. Oh dear - t seems MPs are not at all the honest folk we lovely electorate think they are. There are many twists and turns to come before we leave the EU -if we do.
Just wondering how this actually works in practice: negotiate the best deal we can then put it to parliament to affirm it then invoke Article 50? Or invoke Article 50 and suffer whichever agreement the EU let us brexit with? If it's the former and we can't get a deal that is good enough for the UK then we remain for the foreseeable future, yes? If it's the latter who is to say that we will get a deal that is to our benefit over theirs? Indeed, why should they let us? Either way it's ridiculous.
