Crosswords3 mins ago
Brexit
The people wanted it. Their elected representatives didn't. Isn't that the whole problem?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ludwig. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//'MPs were elected on a pledge to remove the country from the EU'
Were they? Even the ones who were outwardly Pro-EU?//
You can breathe out now, Zacs.
Yes they were. The two main parties (who took 80% or thereabouts of the seats) had in their manifestoes a commitment to see the UK’s exit from the EU. Those “outwardly pro-EU” candidates who stood for those parties should therefore either have (a) put aside their Europhile views and supported their party on the issue or (b) stood as either Independents or for a party which supported our remaining (e.g. the LibDems). When they accepted their candidature for their party that does not come with a caveat that allows them to later ditch that party’s commitments. They are voted in because of the party they stood for not because voters liked the cut of their jib.
Lest you’re in any doubt, here’s the Tory Manifesto:
https:/
“We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe.”
And Labour’s effort (buried in Chapter 2, page 23):
https:/
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU,”
There were provisos for a smooth departure (particularly in Labour’s manifesto) but you questioned whether MPs were elected on a pledge to ensure the UK left the EU and quite clearly those standing for Labour and the Conservatives were.
Were they? Even the ones who were outwardly Pro-EU?//
You can breathe out now, Zacs.
Yes they were. The two main parties (who took 80% or thereabouts of the seats) had in their manifestoes a commitment to see the UK’s exit from the EU. Those “outwardly pro-EU” candidates who stood for those parties should therefore either have (a) put aside their Europhile views and supported their party on the issue or (b) stood as either Independents or for a party which supported our remaining (e.g. the LibDems). When they accepted their candidature for their party that does not come with a caveat that allows them to later ditch that party’s commitments. They are voted in because of the party they stood for not because voters liked the cut of their jib.
Lest you’re in any doubt, here’s the Tory Manifesto:
https:/
“We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe.”
And Labour’s effort (buried in Chapter 2, page 23):
https:/
“Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU,”
There were provisos for a smooth departure (particularly in Labour’s manifesto) but you questioned whether MPs were elected on a pledge to ensure the UK left the EU and quite clearly those standing for Labour and the Conservatives were.
' Those “outwardly pro-EU” candidates who stood for those parties SHOULD therefore either have (a) put aside their Europhile views and supported their party on the issue or (b) stood as either Independents or for a party which supported our remaining (e.g. the LibDems)'
But....erm....they didn't. Which does nothing but reinforce me questioning your assertion that MPs weren't elected on a pledge to remove the country from the EU. The results of the votes over the past few days have underlined this.
But....erm....they didn't. Which does nothing but reinforce me questioning your assertion that MPs weren't elected on a pledge to remove the country from the EU. The results of the votes over the past few days have underlined this.
"How can you 'vote to leave with the best possible deal', when you admit no one knew 'how things would go'?"
How is that a problem ? One is an end goal, or aim, the other is the detailed route there. Seriously ? You don't realise that ? No wonder you are argumentative. (As your "garbage" insult shows.) Please, go and have that nap.
How is that a problem ? One is an end goal, or aim, the other is the detailed route there. Seriously ? You don't realise that ? No wonder you are argumentative. (As your "garbage" insult shows.) Please, go and have that nap.
Zacs is absolutely right: there was no knowing what on earth sort of Brexit was going to be on offer at the time of that election, so both parties committee in it had to be said in fairly bland terms to do the decent thing.
A Brexit without a deal will be anything but smooth and orderly. And labour was committed to work closely with the EU and build a new relationship: which arguably it IS trying to do. Whatever you think of Corbyn, and I don’t think much, their position has been consistent.
It comes back as ever to the same thing: Brexit is being held to ransom by Brexiters.
A Brexit without a deal will be anything but smooth and orderly. And labour was committed to work closely with the EU and build a new relationship: which arguably it IS trying to do. Whatever you think of Corbyn, and I don’t think much, their position has been consistent.
It comes back as ever to the same thing: Brexit is being held to ransom by Brexiters.
//' Those “outwardly pro-EU” candidates who stood for those parties SHOULD therefore either have (a) put aside their Europhile views and supported their party on the issue or (b) stood as either Independents or for a party which supported our remaining (e.g. the LibDems)'
But....erm....they didn't.//
Precisely. Which confirms a contention I voiced a few days ago in that (in more ways than one) they are dishonest. They stood on a pledge to enable Brexit (under the cloak of their respective parties) when they had no intention of finally doing so. People are entitled to believe that when they vote for a candidate standing under a political party's label that, if elected, he or she will support that party's commitments. Neither main party has withdrawn that commitment (as far as we know).
But....erm....they didn't.//
Precisely. Which confirms a contention I voiced a few days ago in that (in more ways than one) they are dishonest. They stood on a pledge to enable Brexit (under the cloak of their respective parties) when they had no intention of finally doing so. People are entitled to believe that when they vote for a candidate standing under a political party's label that, if elected, he or she will support that party's commitments. Neither main party has withdrawn that commitment (as far as we know).
-- answer removed --
Avatar Image Hopkirk Everyone should take careful note of what their own MP is doing, and vote accordingly next time.
Ours is being a good girl.
To right, Hopkirk. Ours is being a good girl to.
https:/
Ours is being a good girl.
To right, Hopkirk. Ours is being a good girl to.
https:/
NJ, MPs weren’t elected on a pledge to remove us from the EU. Do you seriously think that voters went to the ballot box when they knew their MP was Pro EU and thought ‘well, I’ve put my X next to the candidate who I expect to deliver Brexit because I know they’ll honour my wishes, even though they’re Pro EU’
C’mon. Let’s keep it real, eh!
C’mon. Let’s keep it real, eh!
I know this will bring the usual rhetoric out of the woodwork but when people voted Leave, did they understand the process it involved? As I recall there was little/no information about the process, the main factor seemed to be written on the side of a bus.
Those talking about a 'majority' voting Leave, would you be happy to have a a referendum on capital punishment and stand by the decision of the majority, whatever it was?
Those talking about a 'majority' voting Leave, would you be happy to have a a referendum on capital punishment and stand by the decision of the majority, whatever it was?
"NJ, MPs weren’t elected on a pledge to remove us from the EU."
Yes they were (see the above party manifestos on which they stood).
"Do you seriously think that voters went to the ballot box when they knew their MP was Pro EU and thought ‘well, I’ve put my X next to the candidate who I expect to deliver Brexit because I know they’ll honour my wishes, even though they’re Pro EU’"
Yes. That's what they are entitled to expect. The fact that party manifestos seem not worth the paper they are written on should not alter those expectations. What else have voters to go on? With particular regard to the 2017 election there was one big issue facing politicians which was bound to dominate the incoming Parliament. It wasn't an insignificant policy decision buried on page 94. It followed an "advisory" referendum and the electorate was entitled to know what the intention of the new Parliament was on that important issue. If either of the main parties had stood on a "No Brexit at all" platform I imagine they would have lost shed loads of votes. But they didn't. There were perfectly reasonable alternatives for those candidates who were pro-EU but they chose the dishonest route.
Yes they were (see the above party manifestos on which they stood).
"Do you seriously think that voters went to the ballot box when they knew their MP was Pro EU and thought ‘well, I’ve put my X next to the candidate who I expect to deliver Brexit because I know they’ll honour my wishes, even though they’re Pro EU’"
Yes. That's what they are entitled to expect. The fact that party manifestos seem not worth the paper they are written on should not alter those expectations. What else have voters to go on? With particular regard to the 2017 election there was one big issue facing politicians which was bound to dominate the incoming Parliament. It wasn't an insignificant policy decision buried on page 94. It followed an "advisory" referendum and the electorate was entitled to know what the intention of the new Parliament was on that important issue. If either of the main parties had stood on a "No Brexit at all" platform I imagine they would have lost shed loads of votes. But they didn't. There were perfectly reasonable alternatives for those candidates who were pro-EU but they chose the dishonest route.
