Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

phillw

Theophile wrote: »

MP's should act in the interest of their constituents.

Exactly, like a Doctor shouldn't do what you want.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Regardless - Now Labour has denounced May's Brextremist 'red lines', come out and publicly backed staying in the CU and staying close to the EU.

They still lead in the polls.;)

And this is Theresa Mays problem. She isn't acting to keep 17 million leave voters happy. She's acting to keep Jacob Reese Mogg & Boris Johnson happy. They don't need the money, so can afford to sink the conservative party if they don't get their way.

ukcarper

Theophile wrote: »

MP's should act in the interest of their constituents.

Even if it goes against what they were voted in on.

Tromking

ukcarper wrote: »

Remind me what other parties were saying in that election.

Shall we ask the usual suspects on here how the anti-Brexit parties did in the 2017 GE?

phillw

ukcarper wrote: »

Even if it goes against what they were voted in on.

Yes. That has always been the case. Just because they have a mandate to do something doesn't mean they act on it. They should have a mandate and it should also meet their conscience. That can change after the election.

I don't believe many conservative mp's were elected saying they would push through a hard brexit at any cost though. It's well established that campaign promises are best efforts. If the MP can't achieve the kind of brexit they want then remaining is a valid democratic option.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

They should vote in the best interests of their constituency and country. Address their underlying concerns rather than just what they are asking for.


1. Almost all of the Leave campaign promises being back tracked on or being outright lies.
2. Tories losing their strong majority on a brexit platform
3. It starting to become clearer what Brexit means
4. Polling showing the numbers shifting further towards remain.

With such a narrow (statistically insignificant) "win" for Leave, the number of voters changing their mind to change the will of the people is tiny.

Ok.
According to you then an overwhelming case for a major rethink on our vote to leave?
Why if that is the case then, is Brexit flying (so far) through hurdle after hurdle at Westminster?
We even have Labour MP’s voting for Brexit?
Why is that?

ukcarper

Tromking wrote: »

Shall we ask the usual suspects on here how the anti-Brexit parties did in the 2017 GE?

I personally voted leave but I dont see the point in going over the same arguments, I dont see Labours argument for a pick and choose customs union as a solution and as I asked beforehow will this eliminate the need for customs checks.

ukcarper

phillw wrote: »

Yes. That has always been the case. Just because they have a mandate to do something doesn't mean they act on it. They should have a mandate and it should also meet their conscience. That can change after the election.

I don't believe many conservative mp's were elected saying they would push through a hard brexit at any cost though. It's well established that campaign promises are best efforts. If the MP can't achieve the kind of brexit they want then remaining is a valid democratic option.

So a manifesto promises means nothing.

Rinoa

ilovehouses wrote: »

The joint report shows there was agreement about all parties being committed to finding a solution, respecting the UK and EU borders, being mindful of the GFA etc etc.

There was no agreement as to the mechanism. The only agreement in that respect was the UK would make proposals so an agreement could be reached. This hasn't yet happened.

It's patently obvious that agreement on the border wasn't reached because, if so, Mrs May would simply point out the error and demand the agreed mechanism be correctly referenced.

May was hoping platitudes would pass for proposals and, of course, they haven't.

The agreement in December, at the request of the UK and agreed by the EU, deliberately left settlement of the border issue until later in negotiations - after we knew what the trade deal would look like. As David Davis had pointed out on numerous occasions, settling the border is far easier when you know what tariffs, if any, need to be collected. The EU agreed to all this at the time - and then reneged on it when producing the new draft.

Herzlos

Tromking wrote: »

According to you then an overwhelming case for a major rethink on our vote to leave?

Yup.

We even have Labour MP’s voting for Brexit?

Honestly? I have no idea. I think a lot feel like they need to placate their constituents. It's even more bizarre in that voting against would make life so much harder for the Tories

ukcarper wrote: »

Even if it goes against what they were voted in on.

Absolutely. They need to fiure out why people are demanding what they are, and address that.

In engineering, when dealing with customer requests, it;s important to get to a root cause and solve the customers actual problem, not the thing they've asked for.

Did they vote Brexit to help fund the NHS or boost local services?
Because of house prices?
Because they feel we spend too much on benefits for foreigners?

It's entirely possible (and indeed likely) that you can solve most of their problems without Brexit (which might not actually solve anything).

17 million people voted for Brexit, MPs should be finding out why and then doing something about it.

Theophile

Tromking wrote: »

Shall we ask the usual suspects on here how the anti-Brexit parties did in the 2017 GE?

Here are the results for England.

The "give me a mandate for a hard brexit" party : 319 to 297 or -22 seats
The "let's have a pragmatic 'jobs first' brexit and try to keep close ties to our most important trading party" 206 to 221 or +21 seats
The "stay in the EU" parties 9 to 11 or + 2 seats
The swivel eyed loony party : 1 to 0 or a loss of -1 seat.