EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Presumably to campaign for an independent Scotland.

They're the only ones I can think of that had that on their ticket as their long-term vision, stated that they'd consider it back on the table should the referendum go that way, and still got all their votes with that stuff front and centre.

thing ..... taped to a pencil

Thank your lucky fucky stars, this is more than the schools are getting.

She will make a thoroughly suitable pm has nice hair and gchq do a superb job and are not as dull at parties as the nasty rumours would have you believe.

Most democracies have a mandate of 60-70% for significant constitutional change, specifically to allow for the occasional bout of hysteria from the electorate.

I was recently surprised to find out this is true. Probably a good idea :-/

I'm going to write to my MP with a request that she campaigns/votes against any triggering of Article 50 for the forseeable future. My reasons are roughly as follows (I'd be interested in your thoughts):

1. She represents her constituents, who voted 3:1 to remain. She is not required to change her view (she was previously "in") to reflect that of a nationwide referendum (and she would be morally deficient to do so), especially when...
   
2. The majority was relatively small. This qualifies a lot of the other reasons; if the majority had been large (>2/3, for example) then there would be a stronger argument that we should simply muddle through the following issues.
   
3. The campaigns, especially the Leave campaign, were riddled with factual inaccuracies from which the key Leave campaigners retreated almost instantly apparently in the knowledge that they were incorrect.
   
4. A large number of those who voted Leave apparently now regret their decision
   
5. The Leave campaign presented 2 incompatible views ("Britain unchained, globalisation, less regulation vs. Fortress Britain, protectionism, anti-immigration), which means that...
   
6. There is no possible model for Brexit that satisfies all or even most of those who voted Leave i.e., there is no mandate for any specific course of action.
   
7. The impact on the British economy has already been ruinous.
   
8. The current negotiating stance of the EU means that very little can be established before Article 50 is triggered, leading to yet further instability.
   
9. The process of renegotiation is completely uncharted and will take years and countless worker-hours that could be dedicated to more worthwhile things.
   
   

Thoughts?

Stolen and sent to my local MP.

Voting out for disliking the EU for genuine hard to change reasons: Fair enough.

Triumphalism with a result that may worsen existing issues in the UK in human rights / citizen issues and so on...hmmmkay?

Tories ain't fans when it comes to anti austerity or reform of the UK democracy system.

Bitching about the EU and being free of it means you are also free of the good things of it. EHRC. Funds for underdeveloped regions. More negotiation clout. Cheap study fees abroad.

And so on.

ECHR is separate to the EU. We could leave that it we wanted - although given we were instrumental in creating it, it'd be churlish in the extreme.

Correct. But to fulfill some leave campaign wishes the UK has to leave the eec. Eu common market is free eu ppl movement...

If that happens the UK could leave the EHRC. May doesn't like human rights much. It's not super likely but ffs it's been a mess so far.

Jack of Kent blog (continues to be) interesting on the point of an act of parliament/vote in parliament going to be a requirement to enact article 50, and the three current cases (Mischon de Reya etc) in progress to ensure said vote.

Would the MP's vote against the best interest of their constituents, but inline with their wishes expressed during the referendum (albeit based on "LOOK AT THE FORRIN!", rather than a balanced review of the implications of Brexit)?

too many points to address... velocio - what exactly constitutes as a mandate? and how would one suggest that our society makes decisions? if one gives power to the losers / runners-up then you get a mess like italy in which clear cut decisions are never made and uncertainty constantly looms (yes brexit does cause mid-term uncertainty, although the certainty will eventually solidify once businesses re-establish relationships with the uk)

Good point, I'd probably add that in a closing paragraph. This is a discussion I've had with Brexiteers to point out that I've not yet met a Remainer who hasn't recognised the need for EU reform and hoped that a large Leave minority would make the case for that reform.

I'm not denying the idea of a mandate, nor the semantic or political meaning of one.

My issue is that, generally, if a politician declares that they have a mandate then it is usually a very good indication that they do not.

A mandate, authority given to politicians, understood by the people, is a strong thing. It demands action. It holds sway.

If one has a mandate... one can get on with the job at hand sure of that fact.

If one doesn't have a mandate... one will try to convince others that they do.

This government does not, but it will try it's best to convince others that they do.

Also... a mandate, like trust itself, is a variable thing.

Theresa May was probably elected with a good majority in her local area, on local issues.

She probably has a strong mandate to get some roads resurfaced and to help ensure the local hospital gets some love from central government.

But just as one can trust a Doctor with your medical secrets, it doesn't mean trust is total. I wouldn't trust my Doctor to hold a ladder whilst I climb up it... he's a doddery old guy, and his mind is sharp but my trust is limited to the context in which it is given.

The only mandate Theresa May has stems from her constituency, and her party. She has a mandate to fix some local stuff, and to represent the Conservative party in government.

But... that is not a mandate of the people, as a Prime Minister, as a leader. Because no-one voted for their local MPs with her in mind as the leader.

And if you are going to say, but hey... people only vote locally for a representative. Sure, but it's also true that they vote with the leader in mind. Hence the personality cult, hence the issues with Labour at the moment wherein the party is unelectable to government as the leader is not someone that the people want to have as a Prime Minister.

Theresa May, and the Conservative government, at this moment do not hold a mandate of the people.

It's that simple.

For the politicians who lied the most, then?

So, in the interest of accountability will you insist to your MP that proportional representation and the abolishment of the lords is a priority for you and should be for the government?

Decentralise? But all Brexit will do is centralise power back to Westminster among fewer representatives who will be no more accountable than they were before.

Are you sure you know how this politics thing works?

Ignore the troll.

They only registered to troll.

That is, if someone has registered and they only take part in this thread and nothing else, and are basically just posting inflammatory things rather than actually engaging... then it's just a troll. I'll delete them, just ignore them.

When I hear Theresa May say "Together we will build a better Britain" my testes shrink and go ice cold.

I would insist on PR in the house of lords with elected peers and FPTP in the commons. In addition to this i like the idea of introducing a MP recall law, thereby forcing a by-election in a given constituency if let's say 35-40% of the constituents sign a petition. but that's just my dystopian christmas wish list

sure westminster isn't perfect in its current format, but why top that with another imperfect legislative body ie the eu? by leaving and encouraging other nations to leave the eu, we as a population have the opportunity to tackle a wide range of issues at the root and hopefully thereafter reconstruct a more suitable multi-nation cooperative pact for europe. It's not like the eu is the be all and end all, what matters is peaceful and diplomatic cooperation with other nations.

we as a population have the opportunity to tackle a wide range of issues at the root.

Which is in the UK, not the EU.

and hopefully thereafter reconstruct a more suitable multi-nation cooperative pact for europe.

'It's not perfect, so bin it and start from scratch.'? Seriously? That's the stupidest idea I've heard in a long time, and I've been following the American presidential nomination campaigns...

100k members in the conservative party. 2 out of 3 leadership competitions have been resolved without a vote by the party members.

I was teasing a staunch Tory about this the other day.

Although in fairness they've resolve them without a vote because by the time it reaches that stage the result is clear.