Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, rollover said:

Exactly, that's why Labour and Tory are splitting now and British politics is going to be redefined.

One of the major benefits of Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

MPs like to kid themselves that their constituents voted for them, as individuals, rather than their party, which is as it is supposed to be but isn't.

Most people vote for the party and have to lookup the name of their MP.

Indeed.

All these IG MPs need to stand down immediately for by-elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Indeed.

All these IG MPs need to stand down immediately for by-elections.

No, because it would be a retrospective ruling, but our political system should be changed to something more transparent and democratic.

Edited by Bruce Banner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

No, because it would be a retrospective ruling, but our political system should be changed to something more transparent and democratic.

I dont see it as a retrospective ruling. I see it as a matter of integrity.

Whilst I am all for electoral reform, and good luck to the IG; they need democratic endorsement from their constituents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GrizzlyDave said:

I dont see it as a retrospective ruling. I see it as a matter of integrity.

Whilst I am all for electoral reform, and good luck to the IG; they need democratic endorsement from their constituents.

As does Brexit, same argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I dont see it as a retrospective ruling. I see it as a matter of integrity.

Whilst I am all for electoral reform, and good luck to the IG; they need democratic endorsement from their constituents.

The precedent is that they don't so I agree with it being a retrospective ruling; MPs should be able to know the technical effects of changing parties and not be hit with having to face a by-election that, based on the precedent, they wouldn't have expected to face.

I agree that electoral reform is highly desirable but it's not right to apply it to MPs who have already changed; it might not be right to apply it until the next GE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The precedent is that they don't so I agree with it being a retrospective ruling; MPs should be able to know the technical effects of changing parties and not be hit with having to face a by-election that, based on the precedent, they wouldn't have expected to face.

I agree that electoral reform is highly desirable but it's not right to apply it to MPs who have already changed; it might not be right to apply it until the next GE.

I consider it a very fragile argument; particularly when the IGs behaviour is aiming to take some sort of moral and ethical high ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Banner said:

but our political system should be changed to something more transparent and democratic

I think the existing petition system requiring a 10% threshold to hold an election could be relevant here.

It's been used a few times recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Indeed.

All these IG MPs need to stand down immediately for by-elections.

Pointless exercise!

Government is/will be dysfunctional because it is going to lose majority = early election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rollover said:

Exactly, that's why Labour and Tory are splitting now and British politics is going to be redefined.

It's a false dawn, the two party system will ensure that the pieces will eventually settle as they were. The publics rejection of even limited proportional representation will see to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I consider it a very fragile argument; particularly when the IGs behaviour is aiming to take some sort of moral and ethical high ground.

You right from Brexit point of view, but it's a very fragile argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I dont see it as a retrospective ruling. I see it as a matter of integrity.

Whilst I am all for electoral reform, and good luck to the IG; they need democratic endorsement from their constituents.

The system is that they were personally elected, so no need to stand down.

You seem to be implying that the voters didn't know what they were voting for. How could that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The system is that they were personally elected, so no need to stand down.

You seem to be implying that the voters didn't know what they were voting for. How could that be?

Funny isn't it CofV?

Apparently one of the main arguments for Brexit is to change our political system. The moment something like the IG emerges as part of this change, Leavers don't like it.

I really wish they would make up their mind and decide what Brexit is for.

Edited by jonb2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's a false dawn, the two party system will ensure that the pieces will eventually settle as they were. The publics rejection of even limited proportional representation will see to that. 

Yes and no.

This kind of parties are populist party to change the balance on the scales, to harvest the unsatisfied and protest voters. They are common in EU.

My opinion is, this one is design to changing Brexit balance, and remove unsatisfied and protest voters form supporting Brexit as a tool for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, yelims said:

I'm sorry UK cities banning cars has little to do with EU,  here in Ireland there's been a flood of diesels from UK and last I checked we are in eu too...

The air quality in UK cities breaks the law, originating from the EU Clean Air directive.  British teenagers will have to borrow money to pay the EU fines.

British cities have dived on this virtuous new reason for new taxes on workers, in the form of low-emission zones.  It's absolutely perfect because no-one can argue against helping all the poor children dropping dead due to poor air quality.  But the legal basis of it is the EU clean air directive.

It's quite likely the car trade is directing diesels to more rural locations like ROI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I consider it a very fragile argument; particularly when the IGs behaviour is aiming to take some sort of moral and ethical high ground.

We do have a system of representative democracy not plebiscitary democracy. An MP is there to exercise judgement and you can do that as an MP of whatever stripe. You may say that on political grounds they should subject themselves to an election, but I think this is a weak argument; on constitutional grounds I can't see any argument for by elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By elections of course aren't mandatory but since a lot of people vote for an MP based on the party they represent then it's probably the decent thing to do. See Carswell.

My guess is that if they don't they will be punished by the electorate at the next opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

By elections of course aren't mandatory but since a lot of people vote for an MP based on the party they represent then it's probably the decent thing to do. See Carswell.

My guess is that if they don't they will be punished by the electorate at the next opportunity.

    I see what you’re saying but I think you are wrong. You in the UK are not used to political system change, so called democracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I consider it a very fragile argument; particularly when the IGs behaviour is aiming to take some sort of moral and ethical high ground.

That's veering towards a "two wrongs don't make a right" scenario IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Funny isn't it CofV?

Apparently one of the main arguments for Brexit is to change our political system. The moment something like the IG emerges as part of this change, Leavers don't like it.

I really wish they would make up their mind and decide what Brexit is for.

That only holds water if you're talking to someone who takes the view that any change is good.

I don't have a problem with MPs splitting off to form a new party, but it is a fact that they no longer represent what their electors voted for when they won their seats. Yes, we vote for the candidate and not the party but the party that candidate represents and supports is a very important aspect of a candidate. Therefore there is a reasonable case for a by-election. The MPs operated in the system we had at the time, it would be in bad faith to force one on them (whether or not you think those MPs acted in poor faith or not). There is a good argument for changing the system so that leaving a party forced a by-election, and this helps demonstrate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The system is that they were personally elected, so no need to stand down.

You seem to be implying that the voters didn't know what they were voting for. How could that be?

The system is that they are parliamentary candidates for Lab/Tory; and stand therefore on the party manifesto. Furthermore Heidi and Anna both explicily states they would work to deliver brexit on their election campaign so constituent voters knew explicitly what they stood for. Or not as the case may be as they are breaking the precise electoral commitments they made before they were voted into office.

very thin ice.

47 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Funny isn't it CofV?

Apparently one of the main arguments for Brexit is to change our political system. The moment something like the IG emerges as part of this change, Leavers don't like it.

I really wish they would make up their mind and decide what Brexit is for.

I’m all for change, but this is not the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

The system is that they are parliamentary candidates for Lab/Tory; and stand therefore on the party manifesto. Furthermore Heidi and Anna both explicily states they would work to deliver brexit on their election campaign so constituent voters knew explicitly what they stood for. Or not as the case may be as they are breaking the precise electoral commitments they made before they were voted into office.

very thin ice.

I’m all for change, but this is not the way.

That's not the system. It is in some other countries but in the UK you vote for a person not a party. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.