Brexit, what have you learnt
Discussion
feef said:
I've learned that many don't understand the fundamentals of our democratic process. I'd go so far as Ito say our MPs have forgotten too.
We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
Yup, and I think thats why the majority of MP's support remain. Leaving is not in the UK's best interests regardless of the unsubstantiated fluff that fills Brexit reasoning.We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
feef said:
I've learned that many don't understand the fundamentals of our democratic process. I'd go so far as Ito say our MPs have forgotten too.
We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
It would be a bit more convincing if these MPs, who dutifully stand up for the national interest in defiance of the wishes of their constituents on Brexit, didn't fall into line with whatever nonsense their party leadership decided on when they thought it would help their career.We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
Pastor Of Muppets said:
Leylandeye said:
Another referendum is probably the fairest way to bring this to a close and the main reason I would object is if I felt that I wanted to leave and was fearful that the previous leave vote was a fluke which might not be repeated.
Well I am pretty sure it wasn't a fluke, and the other side of that coin is that leave would (more than likely) win with an even higher majority.JuanCarlosFandango said:
I think it was well known anyway, but to me the biggest lesson is the pressing need for constitutional reform.
A more formal written constitution setting out exactly how government works. The current set up has been like a game of Mornington Crescent, with every move being decried as illegitimate by the other side then justified by reference to some obscure precedent that sounds like a jar of expensive marmalade.
A document in plain English with a clear division of powers would be a good start, and a clear limitation on powers with high thresholds for major changes.
Secondly, somehow a greater degree of separation between parliament and the executive would be helpful. Having the MP for Maidenhead parachuted in as head of government wasn't a great idea, and having the member for Uxbridge replace her on the say so of a lawn bowling club wasn't a lot better. Perhaps a directly elected head of government who is not an MP.
Thirdly we need to look at the voting system so that we don't have huge swathes of the electorate completely ignored for decades on end. I quite like FPTP for the Commons but how about balancing this out with PR for the second chamber?
Lastly I would like to really weaken the party system. Get rid of whipping, get rid of central selection and candidates dumped on safe seats. MPs should represent their constituents to government first and foremost, not represent the government to their constituents.
There's no chance of either the Conservatives or Labour favouring electoral reform. It's FPTP that keeps them in power. They'll only fiddle around the constituency boundaries.A more formal written constitution setting out exactly how government works. The current set up has been like a game of Mornington Crescent, with every move being decried as illegitimate by the other side then justified by reference to some obscure precedent that sounds like a jar of expensive marmalade.
A document in plain English with a clear division of powers would be a good start, and a clear limitation on powers with high thresholds for major changes.
Secondly, somehow a greater degree of separation between parliament and the executive would be helpful. Having the MP for Maidenhead parachuted in as head of government wasn't a great idea, and having the member for Uxbridge replace her on the say so of a lawn bowling club wasn't a lot better. Perhaps a directly elected head of government who is not an MP.
Thirdly we need to look at the voting system so that we don't have huge swathes of the electorate completely ignored for decades on end. I quite like FPTP for the Commons but how about balancing this out with PR for the second chamber?
Lastly I would like to really weaken the party system. Get rid of whipping, get rid of central selection and candidates dumped on safe seats. MPs should represent their constituents to government first and foremost, not represent the government to their constituents.
Although the maths is complicated and it returns a variable number of MPs I like the German system. Everyone gets two votes, one for the individual that they want as their constituency MP and one for the party they want to represent them nationally. Every constituency has a directly elected MP from the first vote and extra no-constituency MPs are added as needed to bring the overall balance in-line with the national second votes. All directly elected constituency MPs get a seat. But the extra MPs are only allocated to parties that achieve 5% or greater of the national vote.
rscott said:
1974nc said:
Mr Whippy said:
I’m not sure we need all that.
Clearly the EU is interfering via back channels.
That needs to stop. If our politicians are corruptible then you’re screwed.
This for me is the key. If our politicians are on the whole bought and paid for them the population are stuffed.Clearly the EU is interfering via back channels.
That needs to stop. If our politicians are corruptible then you’re screwed.
Was there any truth behind swinsons husband getting 3.5 million last year via a EU *donation*?
Then receives funding from EU of not insubstantial amount..
Obviously pro Brexit organisations will also have received EU funding.
I’ve learned that the whole democratic process is corrupt from the top down.
That, and hypocrisy is to be proud of and promoted.
GSalt said:
There's no chance of either the Conservatives or Labour favouring electoral reform. It's FPTP that keeps them in power. They'll only fiddle around the constituency boundaries.
Although the maths is complicated and it returns a variable number of MPs I like the German system. Everyone gets two votes, one for the individual that they want as their constituency MP and one for the party they want to represent them nationally. Every constituency has a directly elected MP from the first vote and extra no-constituency MPs are added as needed to bring the overall balance in-line with the national second votes. All directly elected constituency MPs get a seat. But the extra MPs are only allocated to parties that achieve 5% or greater of the national vote.
Don't have to look as far as Germany for that. Scotland use a similar methodAlthough the maths is complicated and it returns a variable number of MPs I like the German system. Everyone gets two votes, one for the individual that they want as their constituency MP and one for the party they want to represent them nationally. Every constituency has a directly elected MP from the first vote and extra no-constituency MPs are added as needed to bring the overall balance in-line with the national second votes. All directly elected constituency MPs get a seat. But the extra MPs are only allocated to parties that achieve 5% or greater of the national vote.
blueg33 said:
feef said:
I've learned that many don't understand the fundamentals of our democratic process. I'd go so far as Ito say our MPs have forgotten too.
We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
Yup, and I think thats why the majority of MP's support remain. Leaving is not in the UK's best interests regardless of the unsubstantiated fluff that fills Brexit reasoning.We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
Or is it a bit more complicated than that?
Troubleatmill said:
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it, “the people are not sovereign”.
In my view leaving the EU is bad for the UK and I think a lot of politicians are well aware of that. Not many want to be the ones responsible for putting the UK in a worse situation yet they know that they have to. Once that vote was counted, we had to leave at some point. All of the delays are turning off investors so it just needs to be done. A lot of remainers said at the time of the vote that we would never get a deal as good as we have in the EU so it was always a case of damage limitation. Nothing has changed in 3 years on that front. We need to just get on with it and deal with the fallout.
We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it, “the people are not sovereign”.
I am saying - you have to be a special kind of a s
t to say to the electorate - we want you to decide. But you are not willing to implement one of the options.toon10 said:
In my view leaving the EU is bad for the UK and I think a lot of politicians are well aware of that. Not many want to be the ones responsible for putting the UK in a worse situation yet they know that they have to. Once that vote was counted, we had to leave at some point. All of the delays are turning off investors so it just needs to be done. A lot of remainers said at the time of the vote that we would never get a deal as good as we have in the EU so it was always a case of damage limitation. Nothing has changed in 3 years on that front. We need to just get on with it and deal with the fallout.
We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
Or you could go in for further deliberation and find that half of your friends think you can smooth it over with a bit of a chat and half think you should go in all guns blazing and knock him senseless. After some discussion about it you ask for a further vote on either apologising to him or hoping he goes away.We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Or you could go in for further deliberation and find that half of your friends think you can smooth it over with a bit of a chat and half think you should go in all guns blazing and knock him senseless. After some discussion about it you ask for a further vote on either apologising to him or hoping he goes away.
All sounds a bit too democratic to me ;-)toon10 said:
In my view leaving the EU is bad for the UK and I think a lot of politicians are well aware of that. Not many want to be the ones responsible for putting the UK in a worse situation yet they know that they have to. Once that vote was counted, we had to leave at some point. All of the delays are turning off investors so it just needs to be done. A lot of remainers said at the time of the vote that we would never get a deal as good as we have in the EU so it was always a case of damage limitation. Nothing has changed in 3 years on that front. We need to just get on with it and deal with the fallout.
We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
You might go over to find out he has no issue and was simply looking your way.We all love a good analogy on here and this one isn't but... It's a bit like being in a bar with your mates and some meat head is staring at you. You ask your friends for advice and they vote that you have to go over there and ask him what the hell he is looking at. You know it's not going to end well but stalling isn't going to make it any easier. Just get over there and take that punch
Or simply put youll never know the outcome , good or bad untill you actually do it.
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
Mrr T said:
blueg33 said:
Troubleatmill said:
But - they were dumb enough to hand over the decision to the electorate in the form of a referendum.
The second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
A referendum is not binding on anyoneThe second they did that - the genie is out of the bottle - it simply must be implemented.
feef said:
I've learned that many don't understand the fundamentals of our democratic process. I'd go so far as Ito say our MPs have forgotten too.
We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
I'm surprised by the section in bold.We have a representative democracy. Our MPs are elected to act, first and foremost, in the best interests of the nation.
Second to that, they should represent their constituents, and thirdly, their party.
I've yet to hear anyone claim that Brexit is in the interests of our nation (first priority), only that it's the will of the people (second priority).
Surely that's a betrayal of our democratic process?
'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament.' Edmund Burke's Speech to the Electors of Bristol, 3 Nov. 1774.
'The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.' Sir Winston Churchill on the Duties of a Member of Parliament.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cms...
I thought it was in the best interests of the country and still do; the leavers I know also do..........that is why they voted leave.
I think, on balance, there are still more pros to membership than cons but think that situation is on the point of reversal. I expected Brexit to hit and hurt the UK, and me personally, in the short term but it's in the country's best long term interests. Three years after the ref, I'd vote the same again....... and be more confident it was the right choice this time.
Edited by Crackie on Monday 21st October 13:43
toon10 said:
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Or you could go in for further deliberation and find that half of your friends think you can smooth it over with a bit of a chat and half think you should go in all guns blazing and knock him senseless. After some discussion about it you ask for a further vote on either apologising to him or hoping he goes away.
All sounds a bit too democratic to me ;-)Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff