I vill zay dis only once. MP's are more or less guaranteed a certain amount of votes in constituencies (that is why they have been carved up that way over the years), if the referendum had been a party thing then you wouldn't get much change but, since it was not (officially) party oriented then MP's will see a chance to gain votes by seeming to listen to the people of their constituency and coming over as a person of the people. Simplified answer but more or less to true.
Agree in principle, but as far as I can tell sitting here in my foreign climes, I don't think there's enough support for Remain for that to happen. But maybe I'm wrong.
Sorry nozzer, the questions you ask are valid and deserver a better answer than I am fit to give at this time of night (after a few beers), the point is there doesn't have to be a massive support for remain, just more than for leave. That will make said MP's think they can win some extra/un-decided votes next time.
Drinking? On a Sunday? I am ashamed of you, heathen! I'm still not sure the point in bold is true. But happy to leave it there. In principle I'm open to any idea that sees us remain (within reason, of course).
Scotland Wales and N Ireland are separate nations with their own assemblies and governments. In a decision and change to the status quo of such magnitude, all nations should vote yes or else no change happens. This is what happens in Australia and Canada. Cameron was asked before the referendum and the Pratt insisted on a simple majority. This important safeguard to avoid secession whatever decision was thereby ignored.
UKIP and their millionaire donors are now throwing their weight behind Leadsom seeing her as the most ardent Brexiteer who promised to trigger article 50 the soonest. Can you imagine her being the most effective negotiator when the other side knows exactly her position and her keenness to move out in 2 years whatever the cost ? There has been a lot of hot air and frankly rubbish said about democratic accountability during the referendum. What can be less democratic than having a whole new government (which is what this new Tory leader election is) imposed on a country of 60 million people, 4 nations by a group of 150,000 mostly old shire counties right wing folk who hanker after the british empire and a bygone never to come back age? A government led by Leadsom which the population would never have elected in a million years. If we do have a Leadsom PM with Farage as key adviser and other right wingers as key ministers (or even May for that matter) I don't ever want to hear about democracy and parliament being sovereign in this country. The future of the country and generations is literally being decided by a group of unrepresentative people who are as much detached from current reality as it is possible to be! The Chinese politburo would have nothing on this current process.
Do Welsh, Scottish an NI MP's have a say on English matters and vote in parliament on issues that will effect people in England? The three UK nations with devolved powers and their own parliaments get a better deal per head than those in England as far as I know?, surely the English electorate should have a say in Scotland's future within the Union considering the Scots had a say in whether England(as part of the UK)remained or left the EU?
Brexit betrayer demanded THREE top jobs in Government Boris Johnson told staff he was a 'fool' to have ever trusted Michael Gove Comes as Gove announced he would be standing in race to be Tory leader Insider said Johnson feared Gove’s team would launch smear campaign Gove had said he wanted ‘triple crown’ role in a Boris-led Government
That Scotland has a say in the affairs of England is because there is no separate parliament for England.That issue is well known (the west Lothian question after tam Dalyell who asked the question during the devolution debate). But this is not Scotland's fault. It is fact that Scotland is a nation and a country. A union of countries should not drag another country into a seismic decision against its will. Do people not see the irony of using that argument against the EU and yet ignore it for the UK?
I wouldn't happily give power to a single one of the back-stabbing opportunistic bastards if I had the choice. This is the eternal dilemma - the people who pursue power are exactly those who should never be let anywhere near it.
Hilarious in it's sheer idiocy. He's now arguing that EU freedom of movement is racist. Also that Remain was the racist vote, as 'many' supposedly voted Remain because they didn't want more non EU black faces arriving. Go figure.
So had it have been down solely down to the Scottish electorate numbers that voted in the referendum whether England remained or left the EU that would be fair to English people?, if remain had won Sturgeon would be telling the Brexiteers that the people have spoken and democracy prevailed, but because things never went their way they want to now go it alone. The whole political system is ****ed and unbalanced within the UK, if Scotland do vote to go it alone fair play to them, but they should be told the same message Cameron got in Brussels "there's no turning back" if it goes tits up. If(as has been said at the last Scottish independence referendum)by financial experts that them leaving would have a detrimental effect on the 3 remaining nation remaining in the UK why shouldn't all 4 have a say on whether Scotland can leave? Leaving the EU(if it actually happens)has completely messed up the UK functioning as a whole. I personally think there'll be another referendum or an act of parliament will be voted on that overturns the leave vote in the interests of the country(UK).
I agree with this. We (the UK) has been dragged into this without a plan. Up the creek without a paddle. The irony in this referendum was that no one asked the sensible question or it got lost amidst the bickering, the lies and the slander. If we are get out of the EU, and not trade freely with this huge market, what is the plan? What will the immediate consequences and the next important steps? The leave camp had no plan of their own except telling lies such as putting the money saved into the NHS and the Germans will not impose tariffs because they sell more cars to us. This country has parliamentary sovereignty and the trigger should be passed by parliament and the MPs. Not the prime minister or a group of negotiators. May said it will be next year, other candidates say at the end of the year. Plenty of time to reflect, to discuss, to pass before parliament or even to put to the general election to give legitimacy to the new government. When people realise all the consequences of Brexit and still want it then fair enough. I think the uk as a union is doomed. We came close to breaking up last year (50-50 at one stage) but the die is cast. The SNP will just choose the right time. We will be left with England and Wales.
The edge of irony cuts both ways though here, tbf. If those of us who wanted to stay were happy to go with the EU decisions as a whole because it's a union - then we have to accept the UK's decision as a whole - because it's a union. I'm still vehemently opposed to the decision of course, but on different grounds to the separate nations debate.
The plan seems simple. slash corporation tax. borrow lots of money.... hope to **** passporting of financial services is possible. The EU have laid down a CLEAR timeline for us as we are incapable. They have said January we must trigger this to negotiate to be gone prior to next EU elections. I am hearing a lot of "EU HQ" type roles are being strongly bid on already across europe. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brexit-spa...rs-after-uks-ouster-eu-deputy-pm-says-1568561
Some people are suggesting that Exit has to be via "Acts of Parliament. Was membership via Acts of Parliament?.
