By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
To hold the Referendum was voted through Parliament with a massive majority .
Some MPS must have voted for that then voted not to trigger the result . I hope they are named and shamed in 2020 .
Or quite possibly, most agreed that this was a decision that should be referred to the people and so a massive majority voted for the referendum.
Then having got the results of the referendum, some MP's noted that their constituents vote to remain, and so voted accordingly in the Article 50 vote.
Note that the referendum was ~ 52% in favour and 42% against, whereas the article 50 vote was 498 to 117 or 81% to 19%. Perhaps they should name and shame any MP that votes against the will of their constituents?
Or quite possibly, most agreed that this was a decision that should be referred to the people and so a massive majority voted for the referendum.
Then having got the results of the referendum, some MP's noted that their constituents vote to remain, and so voted accordingly in the Article 50 vote.
Note that the referendum was ~ 52% in favour and 42% against, whereas the article 50 vote was 498 to 117 or 81% to 19%. Perhaps they should name and shame any MP that votes against the will of their constituents?
I do not understand your point. A referendum is what it is where the constituency is in fact the whole country. Surely it is hypocritical to vote for a referendum and its implication and then use the excuse that you will vote as an MP as your parliamentary constituency voted.
Also the percentage for brexit cannot be equated to the percentage of MPs voting for article 50 for the simple reason constituencies are not all the same size. Have you a figure of how individual constituencies voted
I do not understand your point. A referendum is what it is where the constituency is in fact the whole country. Surely it is hypocritical to vote for a referendum and its implication and then use the excuse that you will vote as an MP as your parliamentary constituency voted.
Also the percentage for brexit cannot be equated to the percentage of MPs voting for article 50 for the simple reason constituencies are not all the same size. Have you a figure of how individual constituencies voted
[Post edited 8 Feb 2017 17:24]
My point is the vote passed in the house by a majority of 82% whereas the referendum was only 52% so what's the problem?
I merely pointed out that some MP's may have voted in accordance with the majority view of most of their constituents, knowing that it wouldn't affect the overall result anyway.
Democracy doesn't work by the winners getting full control for the term of the government, the opposition still play a role in parliament in trying to make the government accountable if in nothing else. There is no reason to suggest it should be any different in the way we extract ourselves from the EU - yes we voted to go, but all parties have a right to have a say in the terms of the new agreement
Nigel Farage is a campaigner (a successful one granted) he is not part of the government or likely to be in a position to decide where any money goes . He spoke for no one except himself , he wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign ...
My point is the vote passed in the house by a majority of 82% whereas the referendum was only 52% so what's the problem?
I merely pointed out that some MP's may have voted in accordance with the majority view of most of their constituents, knowing that it wouldn't affect the overall result anyway.
Democracy doesn't work by the winners getting full control for the term of the government, the opposition still play a role in parliament in trying to make the government accountable if in nothing else. There is no reason to suggest it should be any different in the way we extract ourselves from the EU - yes we voted to go, but all parties have a right to have a say in the terms of the new agreement
My problem is that you are not comparing like with like. Because constituencies are of different size it would be quite easy to create a situation where the total vote was ~ 52% in favour and 42% against, whereas the constuency representatives vote in favour was 81% to 19% in favour and nobody voted against the result of the constituency vote
Take 5 groups that voted
190 10 190 10 190 10 0 175 0 175
The total vote was 540 380 for or 60% to 40% in favour of whatever Now it can be seeen clearly that should the representive of two of the groups vote against the wishes of their group, say group 1 and 4 then the vote in favour by the representatives would still be 60-40 although two voted against their constituents. It is simplistic to say anything can be inferred from the comparison alone
My problem is that you are not comparing like with like. Because constituencies are of different size it would be quite easy to create a situation where the total vote was ~ 52% in favour and 42% against, whereas the constuency representatives vote in favour was 81% to 19% in favour and nobody voted against the result of the constituency vote
Take 5 groups that voted
190 10 190 10 190 10 0 175 0 175
The total vote was 540 380 for or 60% to 40% in favour of whatever Now it can be seeen clearly that should the representive of two of the groups vote against the wishes of their group, say group 1 and 4 then the vote in favour by the representatives would still be 60-40 although two voted against their constituents. It is simplistic to say anything can be inferred from the comparison alone
[Post edited 8 Feb 2017 21:54]
"52% in favour and 42% against"
Perhaps you should leave the statistics alone after 8pm.
If it's quite easy to create a 81% to 19% vote without anyone voting against their constituency why are leavers wanting to name and shame the 19% as if they've gone against the democratic will when in reality they're just following the decision of the majority that elected them, which is their duty?
Nigel Farage is a campaigner (a successful one granted) he is not part of the government or likely to be in a position to decide where any money goes . He spoke for no one except himself , he wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign ...
Sounds like a very private and retiring individual.
Perhaps you should leave the statistics alone after 8pm.
If it's quite easy to create a 81% to 19% vote without anyone voting against their constituency why are leavers wanting to name and shame the 19% as if they've gone against the democratic will when in reality they're just following the decision of the majority that elected them, which is their duty?
I think that is what I said. The 52 42 was not mine just copied what was printed originally
Nigel Farage is a campaigner (a successful one granted) he is not part of the government or likely to be in a position to decide where any money goes . He spoke for no one except himself , he wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign ...
That doesn't mean he didn't influence the vote ...
My problem is that you are not comparing like with like. Because constituencies are of different size it would be quite easy to create a situation where the total vote was ~ 52% in favour and 42% against, whereas the constuency representatives vote in favour was 81% to 19% in favour and nobody voted against the result of the constituency vote
Take 5 groups that voted
190 10 190 10 190 10 0 175 0 175
The total vote was 540 380 for or 60% to 40% in favour of whatever Now it can be seeen clearly that should the representive of two of the groups vote against the wishes of their group, say group 1 and 4 then the vote in favour by the representatives would still be 60-40 although two voted against their constituents. It is simplistic to say anything can be inferred from the comparison alone
[Post edited 8 Feb 2017 21:54]
You can always come up with figures like yours where results would be worse, but the fact remains that the vote was passed with a much higher majority than was returned in the referendum and yet there still seems to be a bit of a witch hunt against those who voted in line with their constituents wishes.
Good to see Tone still doing/saying what he's told for his 30 pieces of silver.
Here's a link to the very interesting BBC documentary from last week on the EU by their Europe editor Katya Adler and a short accompanying piece on what she found when travelling around Europe. Pretty clear she thinks the EU, as it stands, won't survive much longer.
"That said, few Europeans are happy with the Union the way it is now. The cry for change is deafening. As is the demand for less bossiness from Brussels. EU power-brokers have a choice: to sink or swim differently, and more in harmony with what the people of Europe want."
I cannot stand those that say we need another vote etc......
No, we voted, and under our voting system, even if we don't like the outcome, the result, (to paraphrase JFH) is the result.
If it went the other way, I would not be wailing and gnashing my teeth, I'd just say "I don't like it, but fair enough".
Now toxic Tone is sticking his beak back into things..... go away and disappear you useless excuse for a past leader!
Agree.
I voted Remain but just want to get on with it now.
And I don't know why people lock horns so much on this topic.
I can see arguments both for and against leaving and just felt at the time that the reasons to stay outweighed the reasons to go - although there were and are good reasons to go.
Let's just get on with working out how to best do it.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
