ChatterBank0 min ago
Mp Admits He Will Defy His Own Leave Constituency
he wont honour the referendum results of his constituents, what a mess our politics are.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. 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.
Once elected an MP may not be prevented from voting/supporting how they wish, but morally must take into account of voters' views as otherwise they are not representing them democratically as the role is meant to be. Where discussion in the House convinces them to vote otherwise they should afterwards explain why, or risk being considered an inadequate representative in the future.
The moral issue in this specific case and more generally.
In the specific case: was this MP in Parliament when the Commons voted to hold the Referendum, and, if so, did he vote for or against?
If he voted for[i then he has the obligation not to uphold the result and not try to thwart it. If he voted [i]against] then his current stance is consistent with his original position and I, personally, would respect him for that.
The wider issue: the people who oppose Brexit and want to reverse it believe that Brexit is bad for the country, or for themselves, or both, but they come in separate moral categories. The first and more numerous group despises the Brexit majority and wants to put the stupids back in their place. Naturally they disguise this contempt with rationalisations of varying degrees of sophistication: "the referendum was only advisory", "it was never a simple binary choice anyway", "the facts have changed", "now that they're aware of the complexities..." etc etc etc. This group is doing an "Up yours" to half the electorate, much like Hillary describing Trump voters as fifty per cent "losers" and fifty per cent "deplorables". The less numerous group are so convinced (I believe) of the damage that Brexit will cause that they think they have a moral duty to save the sinners from themselves despite the democratic implications of overturning the referendum result. The analogy I would use for that group is those parents who see their young teenage daughter fall for an obvious undesirable: they "know" that a marriage will end up in misery and betrayal, and do everything in their power to break the relationship up at the known cost of breaking their daughter's heart in the short term. This was the stuff of Victorian novels, wasn't it: young heiress wooed by seductive adventurer; father pays fortune hunter to leave immediately with no goodbyes etc.
In the specific case: was this MP in Parliament when the Commons voted to hold the Referendum, and, if so, did he vote for or against?
If he voted for[i then he has the obligation not to uphold the result and not try to thwart it. If he voted [i]against] then his current stance is consistent with his original position and I, personally, would respect him for that.
The wider issue: the people who oppose Brexit and want to reverse it believe that Brexit is bad for the country, or for themselves, or both, but they come in separate moral categories. The first and more numerous group despises the Brexit majority and wants to put the stupids back in their place. Naturally they disguise this contempt with rationalisations of varying degrees of sophistication: "the referendum was only advisory", "it was never a simple binary choice anyway", "the facts have changed", "now that they're aware of the complexities..." etc etc etc. This group is doing an "Up yours" to half the electorate, much like Hillary describing Trump voters as fifty per cent "losers" and fifty per cent "deplorables". The less numerous group are so convinced (I believe) of the damage that Brexit will cause that they think they have a moral duty to save the sinners from themselves despite the democratic implications of overturning the referendum result. The analogy I would use for that group is those parents who see their young teenage daughter fall for an obvious undesirable: they "know" that a marriage will end up in misery and betrayal, and do everything in their power to break the relationship up at the known cost of breaking their daughter's heart in the short term. This was the stuff of Victorian novels, wasn't it: young heiress wooed by seductive adventurer; father pays fortune hunter to leave immediately with no goodbyes etc.
There will be mayhem and chaos in the commons if no deal looks like happening. They will through everything at stopping it. They started by Bercow allowing an amendment when others had been told they couldn’t. The frightened people have started (tbh they started earlier but now in earnest) to show their true yellow colours.
The majority of MPs are too frightened of hard work to want it so will do everything in their power to stop no deal. Unless something drastic happens I doubt very much we will leave on no deal.
The majority of MPs are too frightened of hard work to want it so will do everything in their power to stop no deal. Unless something drastic happens I doubt very much we will leave on no deal.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.