Government must have vote on Brexit

I think that the argument has now moved on from leave/remain and is now about the sort of Britain we want post Brexit. The vote to trigger Article 50 is going to be voted on because the Government would be acting illegally if they didn't put it to the people via Parliament.

So we are going to leave, that is clear. We now move into the next phase.

What sort of Brexit?

MP's will have a say in all sorts of votes to come.The people ( not MP's who do represent us) will not be having any more say) Some MP's who are Remainers may well have a constituency which mainly voted Leave, and the reverse as well.
Just watched David Davis, and the answers all seemed sensible.

I thought he'd sounded peevish.

I expect he was tired of answering many questions which were exactly the same!

Some MPs who voted leave may well be alarmed at some of the proposals so will welcome the chance to argue that what the government is proposing is not in the British interest.

Some who voted remain may welcome some of the government proposals and welcome the chance to speak in favour. We - the people have voted to leave - that is going to happen - the final outcome and all its complicated intricacies will be decided by Parliament and that is exactly how it should be.

Quite.

Yes, no one's saying otherwise (but perhaps some of us think it won't be quite as long-drawn-out a process as others do)

It definitely must not be rushed, we need to be very clever in our decisions and negotiations and ensure we are not stitched up nor suffer the consequences of ill thought through agreements. This is our grandchildrens future and as we have made this decision it is beholden to us to ensure their economic and societal security.

The government plans to introduce the Bill on Thursday...

MP's aren't required to represent the wishes of their constituents.
How could they, as the range of options will be varied across the spectrum?

In a general election, you vote for the person that you feel will best represent your interests. The person elected as your MP is the one with the most votes.

Once elected, how they vote in Parliament is up to them (and the political party they belong to).

If they always listened to their constituents we'd have the death penalty

Circumstances have changed dramatically since the referendum when the majority - including Boris and Gove - believed, and the Tory manifesto stated that, the UK could remain in the single market. Things have moved on since the vote and now we have a clearer picture of the future.

I think that alone is a good enough reason for MPs to vote for what they NOW see the best for Britain.

MPs are supposed to represent all their constituents, even if they didn't vote for them. If there is a sizeable minority (in my case just fractionally short of 50%) who voted Remain, an MP has a duty to voice their concerns. Nationally, 48% of those eligible to vote, voted Remain and they have a right to be heard.

It's going to be difficult to agree terms, as of course no negotiations can take place with the EU until after Article 50 has been triggered, so no guarantees can be given by the government to MPs as to the outcome.

whitewave
I want a Brexit that reflects and benefits the entire population of the United Kingdom

Thats not possible when thee population is bitterly divided. There cannot be a solution to please everyone, so as part of the minority, you want the majority to give up the right to have our wishes implemented to keep the minority Remain voters happy.

Had Remain won, would you be saying that you wanted changes to the
country reflecting Brexiters wishes too, i.e maybe some kind of Norway or Swiss deal?

Of course it's possible!

It's no wonder the country is going to the dogs when people have such negative attitudes.

No it is not possible!

I am not going to agree with you, for starters!!! but I am being serious too.

Unless you have every intention of giving in completely, and millions of others too.

If you could do that, and are willing to do that, why dont you?

I was outside the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon (by coincidence) and there were lively debates outside as well as in. It is reassuring that constitutional law has been respected.

Talk of soft Brexit perplex me and the assumption in the general population that whatever Britain puts forward will be accepted by Europe. Surely all responses from Europe in the past few months have indicated otherwise?

We are in this for the long run. But I am very fond of my adopted country and wish it well, with the best possible outcome activated wisely.

Those pessimists who want to do our country down by suggesting that we can never agree about what aBrexit Britain should look like are entirely wrong, and to suggest this is to attempt to reinforce the divisions that have grown up since the vote.

We CAN and must reach an agreement that ALL can accept. This will of course mean compromise, both with the EU and amongst ourselves. We are just at the foothills of some extraordinarily difficult negotiations. We have so far to go to achieve a country of value for our grandchildren. What we want should be immaterial, what our grandchildren need and want should be top priority.

The politics of division are not needed.

Well said, whitewave!

Tell me whitewave and Rinouchka[though I dont really "know" you as a poster], how come you are largely at odds even with the posters on gransnet?
I think there was a survey that said that your thoughts were the same as at least 50% of posters who answered a survey about politics last year.

Actually I really cant be bothered to post any more about this particular aspect
when whitewave, R and daphnedill think if they post and talk enough a consensus can be reached!

ankers can't understand your post.

What do you mean by ALL ww, because whatever means is chosen can never please all, what the government and Parliament can do however is find what is actually the best deal they possibly can for the UK ( that in itself should please all, but very likely won't!)