50 mps going to vote no to article 50

[Obelix]

Let me ask the remain voters.

Let us suppose that the vote had gone your way, but that the UK government had decided to honour those who voted to leave by making arrangements to withdraw from the customs union (and the EU internal "single" market) but retain voting rights at the council and representation in the European Parliament.

Would you judge that the result of the referendum had been honoured in this case?

 

Yes.

 

Because the referendum was consultative and nothing more. It made no requirement on the Government at all to act, save but to consider the result.

[sgtkate]

I've no problem getting on with it...they just can't decide what "it" is...

 

I think they have. The vote said leave the EU. So we are. It wasn't a vote for lets leave the EU but stay a part of some of it. Whether that's what people *thought* they were voting for or whether they were voting for this mythical thing of being a member of the club while paying no membership fees and only following the rules that suit us matters not. The referendum said leave the EU so lets leave and deal with the bucket of excrement that awaits us. Faster we do that, faster we can get in the shower!

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 15:51 ----------

 

Yes.

 

Because the referendum was consultative and nothing more. It made no requirement on the Government at all to act, save but to consider the result.

 

We are on the same side as far as Brexit is concerned and is that your *real* view that if the result had been to stay in and the government took us out of the Court of Justice for example that you'd be totally cool with that because it was only consultation after all? I don't believe that.

[unbeliever]

Yes.

 

Because the referendum was consultative and nothing more. It made no requirement on the Government at all to act, save but to consider the result.

 

Okay fair enough. Thank you for the direct answer.

In which case it was surely a grave error for so many of our leaders to promise faithfully to act on the referendum result and thereby personally bind themselves to it.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 15:52 ----------

 

 

We are on the same side as far as Brexit is concerned and is that your *real* view that if the result had been to stay in and the government took us out of the Court of Justice for example that you'd be totally cool with that because it was only consultation after all? I don't believe that.

 

I do. Obelix has been quite consistent on this. I just didn't fully understand until now.

Edited November 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[Petminder]

Are you suggesting that everyone who voted "exit" wanted total separation from the EU?

 

That was the offer from both sides so it would be odd if a leave voter thought otherwise. The only people that appear to not know what the vote was about are the remoaners.

[Obelix]

We are on the same side as far as Brexit is concerned and is that your *real* view that if the result had been to stay in and the government took us out of the Court of Justice for example that you'd be totally cool with that because it was only consultation after all? I don't believe that.

 

No I wouldn't because that would be a stupid and nonsensical thing to do. The question asked though was if the hypothetical situation was consistent with the referendum and the answer was yes.

[Flexo]

Meh. Just be 48% in EU, 52% out.

 

Perhaps... out of closer political union and out of the Euro. In for Europol, Single Market and harmonising regulations. Change benefits rules so new arrivals need to contribute NI before they can claim - this would allow the flexibility in the labour market while allaying many concerns expressed by the public.

[Obelix]

In which case it was surely a grave error for so many of our leaders to promise faithfully to act on the referendum result and thereby personally bind themselves to it.

 

I'd have thought that was obvious - the moment people (politicans) started to move towards the we will do what the vote tells us to it was going to get exceedingly messy. Direct referendum democracy only ever works for small city states of tiny Swiss cantons - anything larger than that and it tends to get excessively messy.

 

You want a direct binding vote? Require that any referendum meets three conditions. 1. A simple yes/no question. 2. at least half of the electorate must vote for the carrying option and 3. that option must be carried by 2/3 of the vote.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:39 ----------

 

Change benefits rules so new arrivals need to contribute NI before they can claim

 

We can do this NOW.

 

FFS look at the way the Dutch do it. This is one of the classic half truths that the exit side spun and the remain side failed to address.

[unbeliever]

I'd have thought that was obvious - the moment people (politicans) started to move towards the we will do what the vote tells us to it was going to get exceedingly messy. Direct referendum democracy only ever works for small city states of tiny Swiss cantons - anything larger than that and it tends to get excessively messy.

 

It's not like we have referenda every day. It's perfectly reasonable to have the odd one.

 

You want a direct binding vote? Require that any referendum meets three conditions. 1. A simple yes/no question. 2. at least half of the electorate must vote for the carrying option and 3. that option must be carried by 2/3 of the vote.

 

Okay cool. The question would be "shall we stay in the EU?". If half the electorate vote and 2/3 of those voting vote yes, then we stay, otherwise we leave.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:46 ----------

 

 

We can do this NOW.

 

FFS look at the way the Dutch do it. This is one of the classic half truths that the exit side spun and the remain side failed to address.

 

I don't actually want to do this as I'm not having people starving in the streets even if they're undeserving, but since it's come up....

Can we do it without substantially changing benefits entitlements for UK citizens?

[Obelix]

It's not like we have referenda every day. It's perfectly reasonable to have the odd one.

 

 

 

Okay cool. The question would be "shall we stay in the EU?". If half the electorate vote and 2/3 of those voting vote yes, then we stay, otherwise we leave.

 

---------- Post added 15-11-2016 at 16:46 ----------

 

 

I don't actually want to do this as I'm not having people starving in the streets even if they're undeserving, but since it's come up....

Can we do it without substantially changing benefits entitlements for UK citizens?

 

You don't get to ask the question that way. You always ask the question to make it so that it's difficult to change the status quo as well you know.

 

As far as I know yes we could do it without affecting UK recipients entitlement.

[unbeliever]

You don't get to ask the question that way. You always ask the question to make it so that it's difficult to change the status quo as well you know.

 

Why?

What makes most sense to me is a balanced referendum such as the one we had.

I would ask you to justify the bias requirement and the direction of that bias.

 

Also, I would point out that there was no status quo. There was either leave or continue the process of integration.