RugbyRebels

Len wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:
Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

Mellsblue wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Edinburgh in Exile wrote:
I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

Which is why referenda shouldn't be the norm. Would parliament have ever bought the lie printed in the side of that bus?

A 52 - 48 result in a referendum needs viewing in the light of the press that the UK has.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:
All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

Which is why referenda shouldn't be the norm. Would parliament have ever bought the lie printed in the side of that bus?

A 52 - 48 result in a referendum needs viewing in the light of the press that the UK has.

I'm not going over it again but there were lies aplenty on both sides.

Mellsblue wrote: I find it strange that May is whining if she moans about being legally forced consult parliament but the devolved parliaments are merely trying to make political gains if they moan about not having to be legally consulted. Seems to me that view is very much taken from a Remainer's stand point.

All the noise coming from govt is that the wording of the bill will be tighter than a Scotsman who has lost his wallet. Of course, there's quite a high chance they'll balls up the wording.

Are you talking about another legal challenge? I'm not sure I'm happy about the judiciary having so much power that they can decide on the minutiae of the legislature's day to day running. The separation of powers runs both ways. The ruling is that parliament must vote on article 50, how that process is managed is the sole domain of the govt and parliament as far as I'm concerned. The statement made by, I think, Lord Neubetger explicitly stated this was a decision solely on whether article 50 should be subject to a vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I haven't read the report so there may be more to it. I'd be disappointed if there were.

Sandydragon wrote:It will be interesting to see which MPs vote in support of the views of their constituents and which stick to their own beliefs.

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Len wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Len wrote:
Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Sandydragon wrote:

Len wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Which for me highlights why we should have taken the sensible approach that other countries use when holding important referendum that will bind the government by having a minimum % of turnout or a target threshold that is more than 50% +1. The Brexit mob would have been in uproar if they had reached 56% and not got enough vote, but at least they would have understood the target before hand and if (say) 60% of the voters voted to leave then there would have been fewer arguments over legitimacy.

it also highlights the stupidity of holding a referendum where one of the options is too vague. Remain was obviously a vote for the status quo, but what did leave actually mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or a protest vote to scare the EU elite? Before a referendum, the leaders of the out campaign should be been told to present an actual plan that people could actually vote against.

Sadly, Cameron saw this as a sop to UKIP and the right of his party and never expected to lose the vote.

Stones of granite wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Len wrote:
Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Which for me highlights why we should have taken the sensible approach that other countries use when holding important referendum that will bind the government by having a minimum % of turnout or a target threshold that is more than 50% +1. The Brexit mob would have been in uproar if they had reached 56% and not got enough vote, but at least they would have understood the target before hand and if (say) 60% of the voters voted to leave then there would have been fewer arguments over legitimacy.

it also highlights the stupidity of holding a referendum where one of the options is too vague. Remain was obviously a vote for the status quo, but what did leave actually mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or a protest vote to scare the EU elite? Before a referendum, the leaders of the out campaign should be been told to present an actual plan that people could actually vote against.

Sadly, Cameron saw this as a sop to UKIP and the right of his party and never expected to lose the vote.

The Swiss, who are Referenda world champions, have two targets. First is a simple popular majority, second is a majority of Cantons. Many referenda have failed despite gaining a popular majority, but have not achieved a majority in more than 50% of Cantons. I think that our EU referendum would still have come up with leave if the same system had been applied with local authority areas being analogous to Cantons.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

I'm no expert in Parliamentary law, but it seems to me impossible to make the Article 50 bill amendment proof. The basic rule is that amendments have to relate to the subject of the Bill and all of the amendments will. I expect the government to put forward a one line Bill along the lines of "In order to enact the will of the people HMG will trigger article 50 of blah"

Sandydragon wrote:So apparently the bill will be 137 words long. Given that most bills Ive seen can have 10 times that amount in version control alone, this really is small.

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Understood, however, it may have repercussions come the next election depending on how swing voters in their constituency view it.

Scotland's Tory represents Dumfries, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which covers South Lanarkshire and part of Dumfriesshire. South Lanarkshire voted 63% Remain, while Dumfriesshire voted 53% Remain. Mundell had a majority of only 800 votes at the last General Election. Therefore it is quite conceivable that a relatively small number of pissed-off Remainers could result in him losing his seat.

The constituency is largely rural with a large number of farmers. My guess is that a lot will hang on what happens with farming subsidies and any impact to the lamb export market to Europe.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Understood, however, it may have repercussions come the next election depending on how swing voters in their constituency view it.

Scotland's Tory represents Dumfries, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which covers South Lanarkshire and part of Dumfriesshire. South Lanarkshire voted 63% Remain, while Dumfriesshire voted 53% Remain. Mundell had a majority of only 800 votes at the last General Election. Therefore it is quite conceivable that a relatively small number of pissed-off Remainers could result in him losing his seat.

The constituency is largely rural with a large number of farmers. My guess is that a lot will hang on what happens with farming subsidies and any impact to the lamb export market to Europe.

I understand the point being made. it works the other way as well. In the constituency I used to/will live in (boundary changes and house move) the sitting Labour MP will get annihilated if he votes for Brexit rather than coming out strongly against as we were massively in favour of Remaining. My point was that traditionally there is no duty to, nor expectation that you will, slavishly follow the will of your constituents as an MP.

Why hasn’t Scotland changed its mind on independence?

Chris Curtis

Another referendum now would have a similar result to 2014’s. YouGov’s polling shows that Nicola Sturgeon faces a tricky task in turning things around

Friday 27 January 2017 14.11 GMT

We know that the majority of Scotland backed staying in the EU – so with Brexit looming, why are polls not showing a resultant shift in support towards Scottish independence from the UK? It is clear that Nicola Sturgeon is trying to convince unionist remain voters to switch their allegiance, but YouGov has found that the first minister’s strategy is being offset by leave voters who backed Scottish independence now wanting to remain a part of the UK.

In the immediate aftermath of Britain’s vote to leave, much attention focused on Scotland and the potential breakup of a much older union. Sturgeon announced that a second referendum on Scottish independence was “highly likely” and there was an expectation among many that polls would begin to show a shift towards independence.

However, so far as our polling has shown, if there was another vote the result would be much the same as it was in 2014. Between August and December last year we polled over 3,000 Scottish adults and found yes to Scottish independence on 46% and no on 54% – just a fraction different from the result two years ago.

But this headline number conceals quite a lot of voter movement that has happened in a short space of time. Because of the large sample size, we can split the electorate up into four main segments based on how they voted in the Scottish independence referendum and the EU vote on 23 June 2016.

The largest segment, making up around 28% of Scottish voters, is those that voted no to independence in 2014 and then voted to remain in the EU in 2016. This is the key group that Nicola Sturgeon is hoping will tip a second referendum in her favour.



In the vote last June, Scotland voted to remain in the EU by 62% to 38%. The SNP’s strategy in the past six months has been to use the Brexit referendum result to illustrate that Scotland’s political will is being thwarted as part of the United Kingdom.

After this week’s supreme court ruling, Sturgeon said: “Is Scotland content for our future to be dictated by an increasingly rightwing Westminster government with just one MP here, or is it better that we take our future into our own hands?” However, so far, this argument has delivered only modest returns, with 12% of no/remain voters switching their vote towards independence.



So why has this small but notable shift not moved the headline numbers? The movement among this group has been offset by a much larger swing among those who voted yes to independence in 2014 but then voted to leave the EU last year. Despite only making up 14% of Scottish voters, 43% of these leave/yes voters have since abandoned their pro-independence position, with 28% now saying they would vote to stay in the union.

The other two groups, remain/yes and leave/no, together make up approximately 37% of Scottish voters and have remained reasonably consistent in their positions on independence in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.



This shows the difficult position that Sturgeon is in. To win a second time around, the independence campaign needs to win over more remain voters that voted to stay in Britain last time, without alienating the leave voters already in their camp.

The SNP may successfully find a message that allows it to do this, and there haven’t yet been any polls released in the aftermath of this week’s article 50 ruling. But so far the polling has shown this aggressive anti-Brexit positioning has lost as many voters as it has gained, and, were a second referendum held, the final result wouldn’t be much different. For a party with support divided between leave and remain, there’s going to be a difficult balancing act to be performed in the coming years.