Maybe. Or you could create one. But this was a national issue rather than a constituency one so constituents in those constituencies may well be democratic enough to understand their MP was supporting the democratic will of the nation, and therefore a fit and proper representative to re-elect.
The names in red are the “good ones” by this mentality (Caroline Flint for one speaking out passionately for Brexit in debate yesterday)
A casual look at that list by the uninitiated might suggest the opposite: what is it: white crosses on the doors on the white names and burning crosses through the letterboxes of the others?
Not when representing their constituents' view. We don't need red herrings used as an excuse to utterly destroy the public's democracy. Either they represent views correctly or they are unfit to be representatives who are simply representing their own view.
Whatever; they are MPs elected for the Labour Party in 2017 from Leave-voting constituencies. They all voted for a referendum to take place, then voted to activate Article 50, and then stood on a manifesto promising to deliver what their constituents voted for.
This is their hypocrisy.
At least 5 of them voted for Brexit by supporting the first deal negotiated by the government and will presumably do so for this one.
What would you have then do? You don’t seem to agree with the deals in offer, so in the eyes of people like you they are damned either way.
It's worth repeating again. That first draft deal wasn't Brexit so those who voted for it were voting against Brexit. This one is better, but hardly ideal. The question is whether it persuades enough that it's better than no deal as a starting point.
What would you have MPs do?
Sit in their hands and wait for the clock to tick past 11pm in Oct 31? That’s what stooge parliaments like the Russian Duma or any tin pot pseudo democracy would do.
Targeting of our representatives whether it’s lists like the above, or intimidation including that of Leadsom and Rees-Mogg and his son yesterday by protesters are despicable.
As well as being utterly misplaced.
I would have them decide uncontroversial bread and butter decisions by themselves, but canvass constituents' opinions on matters decided by the constituency, and take note of national opinion when dealing with subjects decided nationally and represent those views. Only if debate implies a change of mind was appropriate should they explain why they are voting otherwise. I would have them follow through on processes they were willing to get started and not renege. I'd have them put themselves up for possible reelection if they disagree with their constituency. I'd have them not try every trick in the book to thwart the people's declared will, including dragging law courts into political matters. I'd have them accept a nation is only fit to call itself a democracy if the people's opinion is what counts. That'll do for starters.
Ichi; //What would you have MPs do?//
This isn't question for them to make parliamentary decisions such as whither the NHS? or the size of the arms budget, this is an entirely different matter, this is exceptionally the result of a referendum & it behoves these people to obey the wishes of their constituents, which is also, what they indicated to them, they would do when they stood for election.