How to stop Brexit: get your MP to vote it down

It’s not over yet. A law that passed last year to set up the EU referendum said nothing about the result being binding or having any legal force. “Sovereignty” – a much misunderstood word in the campaign – resides in Britain with the “Queen in parliament”, that is with MPs alone who can make or break laws and peers who can block them. Before Brexit can be triggered, parliament must repeal the 1972 European Communities Act by which it voted to take us into the European Union – and MPs have every right, and indeed a duty if they think it best for Britain, to vote to stay.

It is being said that the government can trigger Brexit under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, merely by sending a note to Brussels. This is wrong. Article 50 says: “Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” The UK’s most fundamental constitutional requirement is that there must first be the approval of its parliament.

Britain, absurdly, is the only significant country (other than Saudi Arabia) without a written constitution. We have what are termed “constitutional conventions”, along with a lot of history and traditions. Nothing in these precedents allots any place to the results of referendums or requires our sovereign parliament to take a blind bit of notice of them.

It was parliament that voted to enter the European Economic Community in 1972, and only three years later was a referendum held to settle the split in Harold Wilson’s Labour party over the value of membership. Had a narrow majority of the public voted out in 1975, Wilson would still have had to persuade parliament to vote accordingly – and it is far from certain that he would have succeeded.

Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense.

Many countries, including Commonwealth nations – vouchsafed their constitutions by the UK – have provisions for change by referendums. But these provisions are carefully circumscribed and do not usually allow change by simple majority.

In Australia, for example, a referendum proposal must pass in each of the six states (this would defeat Brexit, which failed in Scotland and Northern Ireland). In other countries, it must pass by a very clear majority – usually two-thirds. In some US states that permit voting on public legislative proposals, there are similar safeguards. In the UK (except, under a 2011 act in the case of an EU expansion of power), referendum results are merely advisory – in this case, advising MPs that the country is split almost down the middle on the wisdom of EU membership.

So how should MPs vote come November, when Prime Minister Boris Johnson introduces the 2016 European Communities Act (Repeal) Bill? Those from London and Scotland should happily vote against it, following their constituents’ wishes. So should Labour MPs – it’s their party policy after all.

By November, there may be other very good reasons for MPs to refuse to leave Europe. Brexit may turn out to be just too difficult. Staying in the EU may be the only way to stop Scotland from splitting, or to rescue the pound. A poll on Sunday tells us that a million leave voters are already regretting their choice: a significant public change of mind would amply justify a parliamentary refusal to Brexit. It may be, in November, that President Donald Trump becomes the leader of the free world – in which case a strong EU would become more necessary than ever. Or it may simply be that a majority of MPs, mindful of their constitutional duty to do what is best for Britain, conscientiously decide that it is best to remain.

There is no point in holding another referendum (as several million online petitioners are urging). Referendums are alien to our traditions, they are inappropriate for complex decision-making, and without careful incorporation in a written constitution, the public expectation aroused by the result can damage our democracy. The only way forward now depends on the courage, intelligence and conscience of your local MP. So have your say in the traditional way: lobby him or her to vote against the government when it tries to Brexit, because parliament is sovereign.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

The fact that there were compelling arguments for both sides should suggest that not everybody who wanted out is racist..

I know exceedingly racist Brits who voted (or would have voted) out.There's definitely a racist agenda for some. But I also know ones who aren't racist at all who voted out. By the same token...

A family friend is literally one of the loveliest women I've ever known. She's a practising Buddhist and welcoming towards absolutely everybody. You literally feel calmer and happier being in the same room as her. I doubt she's racist, certainly I can't recall her saying anything racist. A few weeks ago she came over for lunch, I seem to recall her saying that she'd be voting out. She just thought it best for her country. I don't know which way she voted, but I recall her wanting to vote out.

Her husband, West Ham fan and top bloke, was absolutely torn but was going to vote to stay.

Edited by quickflick: 28/6/2016 01:24:12 AM

Edited by quickflick: 28/6/2016 01:25:28 AM

whether or not remainers are each racist is a question for the individual who voted
although you have already made some racist comments in this thread

the facebook group has many leave voters who are also anti-racist and acknowledge that the vote has made a lot of racists have been made bold by brexit

the facebook group has 200+ stories and county of people copping racial abuse over the last 48 hours

I do think it is unfair to call all "leave" voters racists. Certainly there was an element of racism (or probably more accurately - xenophobia) for a minority (eg UKIP voters), but we must remember that over 17 million people voted to leave.

As much as I think they made the wrong decision, and as much as the vote in itself is not legally binding, it would be far worse for democracy, and ignoring the will of the people, if they somehow manufactured a way to avoid Brexit.

Realistically, I don't think there is a chance of this happening though.

There are a lot of people for whom the system is not working. When you don't have a stake in the existing system, you are much more willing to risk things by flipping over the table.

The real question is why did over 17 million voters think it was better to vote for an uncertain future? Why did so many people have so little stake in the status quo?

From what I have seen so far, there seems to be a massive generational split, and a massive class split.

It's like people who vote for Pauline Hanson or Donald Trump. They have their racist element, but much of their support comes from being seen as "outside" the political system.

I think these things are just symptoms of an underlying disease about disengagement, they are not the problem itself.

What's clear to me is that there isn't a congruent argument for the leave vote and people are attaching their own pet opinions to the entire 17 million. There is a good reason we don't have direct democracy for everything and this is a good example of it. Ponder this, if the question of the referendum was. Should the UK
1. Remain in the EU with no change
2. Remain in the EU but negotiate better terms (these would be outlined)
3. Leave the EU but continue to trade as a member of the EEA
4. Leave the EU and restrict immigration of EEA nationals

3 and 4 might get more than 50% of the vote but it probably wouldn't individually got the majority of the votes.

Regardless, the question remains now that Leave has been voted for, how do you actually appease 2 factions that voted for leave that have relatively dichotomous views on why to leave?

but that also work for the stay in the EU

there many with in the EU, who believe the EU should become one country , with one Doller, with one Army , ect....

Jean-Claude Juncker is the biggest European Federalists

at some point, the UK would have to have a say, will be become a single super state country that the European Federalists like Juncker are working towards

I don't know what you do for a job but I find your posts across all topics (even if I disagree at times) extremely informative and even handed.

One of the few forumites that I'll make an effort to read in full.

Keep up the good work.

UK had a lot of influence in the EU, if that wasn't in their best interests it didn't need to happen.

Regardless, that isn't the point at all of my post.

I think that is a good point.

Certainly, there are federalists within the EU bureaucracy. And the EU motto is "ever closer union", but they are not necessarily a clear majority.

And certainly, with all the recent issues around the Syrian crisis, the "superstate" concept is no longer realistically on the table.

But really, I think once they expanded into eastern Europe, the number of states, and the diversity of wealth etc meant that the "federal Europe" idea was no longer realistic in the short term.

As McJules states, the UK was probably the strongest voice against a "federal Europe". But now they are out they have removed their voice from the process altogether. Would they be satisfied if there was an EU superstate as a neighbour? Not that I think it will happen, but you get my drift.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the EU over the medium term. There is nothing to stop a 2- or 3-speed integration process happening - perhaps the core "6 original" members integrate more fully, whilst the periphery stays as is? Perhaps now there is the first country exiting, that will trigger other countries to do the same? Who knows!

We shall see...

UK had a lot of influence in the EU, if that wasn't in their best interests it didn't need to happen.

Regardless, that isn't the point at all of my post.

Read somewhere that some people who voted leave are regretting it as they thought their vote didnt count. Basically voted as they got swept up on the emotion and when they realised what it meant they back peddled

no they did't...Visegrad Group had more influence ....

They did have a decent amount of time to make their mind up tbh.

Wonder if 200,000 more people who voted leave feel this way than people who would regret it voting remain

It's equally likely that people who voted to remain in the EU also asked "what is the EU?"

It's equally likely that people who voted to remain in the EU also asked "what is the EU?"

Do you really believe that :lol: ?

In other news, curious as to what Farage will do now that he has seemingly helped gain independence for the UK?

Seems he's out of a job.

Why does that matter? It's like saying because New South Wales has more influence, that Queensland has no influence.

Yes, they're the same people who voted remain just because their party allegiance told them to.



He'll probably try to influence the process of actually getting the UK out - there's a long ways to go yet.

Hardly relevant, but I feel a bit warm inside knowing that I'm from the same alumni as the guy who got the UK out of the EU. \:d/ \:d/

Edited by 433: 28/6/2016 03:52:37 PM

In the month before the referendum "What is the EU" was searched an average of 261 times a day in Britain, according to Google AdWords. That means if searches increased by 250 per cent, as Google announced on Friday, there were still fewer than 1,000 or so people typing the question into the search engine.

Although the Google Trends data may have included other variations of the term, such as "What is the European Union?", it is likely that it was still a tiny proportion of the country.
Other search terms that appeared to have a boost after the EU Referendum results included "Getting an Irish passport", "How to emigrate" and "Buy gold".

Great article here about why.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/14ee0dd6-39e8-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f.html#axzz4CaJzjjSU



Read more by clicking the link.

Alan Partridge would have voted out :lol: