The Telegraph don't seem to understand democracy any more!

[Kermit power]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Yet another attempt to try to divide the result of the referendum. The UK voted to leave the EU. The MPs have now been given three votes on the matter of leaving the EU. The first when they voted 6 to 1 to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU in which it was stated in writing that the result would be abided by.
The second was in the referendum itself, where every single politician in parliament was given the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to remain or leave, and in which the UK voted to leave.
The third vote was concerned with the triggering of article 50 by the end of march 2017.
How many more votes are going to be put in the way of respecting the UK voting public`s wish to leave the EU?
In the referendum the fact that some areas voted to leave, and some to remain is irrelevant, the overall result was that the UK would leave the EU, and meeting that requirement of the people of the UK is and should be what MP`s are focusing on now. they are already past the point where the vote of their particular constituency has any bearing on the matter.

Were you perchance the author of the Telegraph article?

In answer to your question of how many more votes will it take, the only possible response is "however many are required by our constitutional process".

The referendum was a non-binding, advisory action. Parliament would be very wrong to ignore the result of that referendum, but they would be equally wrong to press ahead without respecting the usual checks and balances of how our democracy works.

If every single MP were to vote in accordance with the way their constituency voted in the referendum at every voting stage, we'd still be leaving the EU, and the will of the people would've been represented as closely as possible at each stage of the process.

What I don't understand is why people like you and the DT columnist are so insecure over the issue? Why does a vote by 89 out of 600+ MPs make you think that the democratic process isn't going to achieve the same result as that requested by the referendum result?

All that would've happened if we didn't have this process is that Theresa May would've been forced to make a statement along the lines of "My new team and I, none of whom have any experience of doing the jobs we're now doing, are just going to have to take 6 months to figure out what's what about how the country runs, then we'll sort out this Brexit stuff".

[Elysium]

Kermit power said:

What I don't understand is why people like you and the DT columnist are so insecure over the issue? Why does a vote by 89 out of 600+ MPs make you think that the democratic process isn't going to achieve the same result as that requested by the referendum result

Interestingly the referendum act was approved with a 6:1 majority. The proportion going for and against this motion is incredibly consistent with that.

[paulrockliffe]

Elysium said:

Kermit power said:

What I don't understand is why people like you and the DT columnist are so insecure over the issue? Why does a vote by 89 out of 600+ MPs make you think that the democratic process isn't going to achieve the same result as that requested by the referendum result

Interestingly the referendum act was approved with a 6:1 majority. The proportion going for and against this motion is incredibly consistent with that.

What's the proportion got to do with it? Those that voted for it should be voting in accordance with the result. Those that voted against it have a stronger argument, but there will be some that are respecting the decision Parliament made and the decisions the people made.

Which means there are quite a few that voted for the people to decide and are now voting to ignore what the people decided. That is where the story is, regardless of any proportions.

And we should acknowledge the half of Lib Dem MPs that found ways not to vote to.

[ATG]

Don said:

Jaguar steve said:

ATG said:

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Couldn't agree more. Hard to tell the difference between the DT and the Mail these days.

That's going a bit far. The DT boils my piss regularly because I actually pay for it and when they print ste it annoys me greatly. On balance, though, the level of quality in comparison to the loo roll that is the Daily Mail is far superior.

I don't think there's any "paper" that's honestly consistently good, these days. The Grauniad is st, the Times is st, the Telegraph is often a bit st, the Daily Mail is a festering excuse for a rag, the Express is vile and The Independent plain isn't. I may be forced into trying the FT.

PITA.

I agree entirely. The FT is good in terms of sane reporting and commentary. But ... it ... is ... so ... dull.

[Don]

Kermit power said:

Just having a browse around over lunch, I came across this Tabloidesque headline on the Telegraph website.

The 89 MPs who show contempt for referendum voters"

What, you may ask, have these MPs done to deserve such an accusation?

They have dared to vote against Theresa May's amendment supporting Brexit!!!

OK, so there was a referendum. Over 50% of the voters supported leaving. On that basis, I'd expect the motion to pass, and it did. In fact it passed with a far greater margin of victory than the actual referendum did.

In this country, we vote for MPs to represent us in our constituencies, so if an MP's constituency voted in favour of remain, to my mind, that MP would be showing contempt for the referendum voters if they actually supported the amendment!

Conveniently, in the article, they not only list the 89 MPs to be publicly pilloried and shamed, they also list how their constituencies voted in the referendum.

Of those 89 MPs, a grand total of six represent constituencies who voted leave. The remaining 83 all represent constituencies who voted remain, in some cases to the tune of over 70%.

Those 6 MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave are, in my view, quite deserving of the Telegraph's accusations of showing contempt to voters, but I'd say the Telegraph itself is showing greater contempt by chucking this accusation at the MPs who voted in accordance with their constituents' democratically declared wishes.

I agree with you completely. They have represented the views of their constituents and, probably, also voted with their conscience. I can't argue with that. The minority six who voted against the views of their constituents have created a rod with which the electorate will beat them come the next election. The others not so much, IMO.

It's not like this vote will railroad Brexit, anyway.

If they vote the same way to an Act of Parliament allowing Article 50 to be invoked then Brexit is happening.

[Goaty Bill 2]

ATG said:

Don said:

Jaguar steve said:

ATG said:

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Couldn't agree more. Hard to tell the difference between the DT and the Mail these days.

That's going a bit far. The DT boils my piss regularly because I actually pay for it and when they print ste it annoys me greatly. On balance, though, the level of quality in comparison to the loo roll that is the Daily Mail is far superior.

I don't think there's any "paper" that's honestly consistently good, these days. The Grauniad is st, the Times is st, the Telegraph is often a bit st, the Daily Mail is a festering excuse for a rag, the Express is vile and The Independent plain isn't. I may be forced into trying the FT.

PITA.

I agree entirely. The FT is good in terms of sane reporting and commentary. But ... it ... is ... so ... dull.

FT any day for factual, if a bit dry, reporting.