4 ms·

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they

by Veen 10y ago

MPs represent constituencies in parliament. Many constituencies voted overwhelmingly to remain, which is why some MPs, especially on the labour side, felt they couldn't vote for the the bill. Some, like Ken Clark, have been pro-EU for decades and simply believe Brexit is the wrong thing to do. He opposed the referendum. If you strongly believe something to be a terrible mistake, should you support it just because it's popular? The UK isn't a direct democracy. We vote for the people who will make decisions on our behalf. I'm glad there are politicians who refuse to follow a marginally popular opinion because they believe it's wrong. That's their job.

flukus 10y ago
So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.
- Veen 10y ago
  I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
- Veen 10y ago
  I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  In representative democracies, generally the idea is to substitute someone else's judgment for your own. And then if you sufficiently dislike their judgment, vote for someone else next time. So in general, MPs should vote what they believe, and let their constituencies decide whether to return them for it.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Sadly, as we've seen in recent years, in practice this system often does not even resemble having representative government or any real accountability to the electorate. Mostly it actually resembles having a field of candidates where many voters don't much like any of them (with an inevitable "Well you should just run for office yourself then!" retort when this is pointed out), who campaign based on a tiny number of issues that will utterly dominate the voting but that are invariably determined by what is prominent in people's mind during the relatively short electoral period, and who may then proceed to do whatever they like, even to the extent of completely reversing their stated pre-election positions on those major issues for no apparent reason, with at most a possibility of subsequently losing their job as much as five years later. In many cases, even that won't happen. However, in almost all cases, issues outside the top 2 or 3 in election season don't count for much at all, even those that may significantly affect millions of people over the term of the next parliament and government. Sometimes, issues that come to dominate politics for several years -- such as the Iraq war, or the negotiations to come over what Brexit will look like -- will be mostly or completely unmentioned at election time. By the time the people have any say over those decisions at the next election, the country may already have been committed whatever the consequences or (un)popularity of the decision with the electorate. If the Brexit referendum campaigns showed us anything, it was that any pretense of elected politicians somehow being better informed or better able to make good decisions than a lot of the voters could make for themselves is laughable. The biggest sources of misinformation during the campaign were almost all senior MPs, and those on both sides repeated half-truth after arbitrary prediction after outright implausibility. The best sources of objective information and considered opinions were mostly non-political experts, and the best arguments I heard for voting one way or the other invariably came from normal people who had used the multi-month campaign window to educate themselves and form their own opinions on the issues.
ukname 10y ago
except in this case politicians gave their vote to the public. If you disagree, I would be interested in understanding why it would be ok to ask for the publics opinion, and then disregard it. You're right in that politicians are elected to represent us, but in this instance they assumed the public would vote for what they wanted.

by Veen 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

So your happy for MP's to cede your sovereignty rather than risk a popular vote? Because that's how Britain ended up in the EU in the first place.

Veen 10y ago
I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
Veen 10y ago
I don't expect a parliamentary democracy to produce perfect reaults, just better results than a tyranny of the majority. I'm a remain supporter, but that doesn't mean I think the EU is perfect. I do think that we're better off in than out though. The sovereignty issue is a red herring because if being in the EU became intolerable, we can leave. I don't believe we're in a situation where the negatives of membership outweigh the positives. Europe has been peaceful for the longest period in its history because our interests are so closely entangled. That's a good thing. Free movement is a good thing both for me personally and for the economy.
ubernostrum 10y ago
In representative democracies, generally the idea is to substitute someone else's judgment for your own. And then if you sufficiently dislike their judgment, vote for someone else next time. So in general, MPs should vote what they believe, and let their constituencies decide whether to return them for it.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Sadly, as we've seen in recent years, in practice this system often does not even resemble having representative government or any real accountability to the electorate. Mostly it actually resembles having a field of candidates where many voters don't much like any of them (with an inevitable "Well you should just run for office yourself then!" retort when this is pointed out), who campaign based on a tiny number of issues that will utterly dominate the voting but that are invariably determined by what is prominent in people's mind during the relatively short electoral period, and who may then proceed to do whatever they like, even to the extent of completely reversing their stated pre-election positions on those major issues for no apparent reason, with at most a possibility of subsequently losing their job as much as five years later. In many cases, even that won't happen. However, in almost all cases, issues outside the top 2 or 3 in election season don't count for much at all, even those that may significantly affect millions of people over the term of the next parliament and government. Sometimes, issues that come to dominate politics for several years -- such as the Iraq war, or the negotiations to come over what Brexit will look like -- will be mostly or completely unmentioned at election time. By the time the people have any say over those decisions at the next election, the country may already have been committed whatever the consequences or (un)popularity of the decision with the electorate. If the Brexit referendum campaigns showed us anything, it was that any pretense of elected politicians somehow being better informed or better able to make good decisions than a lot of the voters could make for themselves is laughable. The biggest sources of misinformation during the campaign were almost all senior MPs, and those on both sides repeated half-truth after arbitrary prediction after outright implausibility. The best sources of objective information and considered opinions were mostly non-political experts, and the best arguments I heard for voting one way or the other invariably came from normal people who had used the multi-month campaign window to educate themselves and form their own opinions on the issues.

ukname 10y ago

except in this case politicians gave their vote to the public. If you disagree, I would be interested in understanding why it would be ok to ask for the publics opinion, and then disregard it. You're right in that politicians are elected to represent us, but in this instance they assumed the public would vote for what they wanted.