Government must have vote on Brexit

I don't understand the logic of that either, Annie. If they do, they're possibly handing the seat to UKIP, if it's a marginal.

My DD lives in Manchester Wythenshawe, so Jeff Smith is her MP. She even helped canvas for him in the last election. There's a huge student population and the LibDem lost as a result of student loans. The vast majority of university students wanted to stay in the EU. I don't know anything about the local party, but I'd be surprised if they deselect Smith.

However, I can't see how Labour as a party or the individual MPs would gain from defying the whip, apart from making a point about rebelling against Corbyn.

www.5050parliament.co.uk/

Corbyn wants 50% of Labour MPs to be women by 2020.

Cameron wanted to show that Tory MPs were from the working class, and changed his mind on the photoshoot as he could only find 14!

I suppose it depends on how he defines 'working class'.

Ana wrote:
"If their constituency is a strong leave they should vote against the whip? Why?"
Because an MP is chosen by their constituents so that he/she should represent their views in Parliament. Not just be a puppet party member.
That's what I always thought anyway.

Yes, I know that TriciaF. But in this case I thought the party line was to vote the Brexit bill through, so going against the whip would not be in the interests of constituents who mainly voted to Leave.

....except that the strong Leave constituency would hope that he would not go against the whip!
They would want him to help trigger article 50

X posts!

I think ab just typed Leave instead of Remain.

The MP is a representative, not a delegate. Her duty is to exercise her own best judgement about what is best for her constituents and the country, not take instructions from the voters.

You have great knowledge of what was discussed at test particular selection, you even know what was in the CV's. You have no problem with other women MP's who were selected from a woman only short list or you would have complained about those too. You do hsve a problem with Tulip and her skin colour.

AnnieB
Do me the courtesy of not attributing to me your prejudiced projections of what I know and think.


To do so makes you look like a bigot or worse, a liar.Your post is utterly out of order.

In January 2005, an independent panel report into BBC news coverage of the EU concluded, among other things, that:

'In short, we think that the BBC's coverage of EU news needs to be improved and to be made more demonstrably impartial.'

The fact that the BBC Governors requested an independent report means that there was a question to answer. It took a long time before there was any noticeable change and many are still waiting for genuine impartiality.

I agree with you, varian, but in the current mood of Tooting Popular Front politics and kakistocracy (I do like that word), that doesn't seem to matter.

Don't understand, Cunco.
BBC in 2005?

I think I'm seeing double.

Oops. I have posted on the wrong thread. Apologies. I will leave this one where I fear I am intruding in a private battle.

Jo Stevens has resigned.

This may be helpful from
www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whips/

Defying a three-line whip is very serious, and has occasionally resulted in the whip being withdrawn from an MP or Lord. This means that the Member is effectively expelled from their party (but keeps their seat) and must sit as an independent until the whip is restored.

Just home and catching up with this debate. It's clearly moving fast, both here and in Westminster!

I cannot recall a MP expelled for defying the whip, but we are speaking of over 100 years . Skinner, Benn, Corbyn and more were never expelled , neither was Tam. And he certainly did his own thing

It still doesn't matter. If they defy the whip, it doesn't have to be withdrawn.
The fact that Corbyn voted against the whip so many times means that he of all people knows what the different consequences are, and what to do about those who defy the whip.

By the way, Corbyn might have rebelled, but he's never had the whip withdrawn, unlike Michael Foot.

Corbyn was never good at speeches, Michael Foot was brilliant ,the house would have a large number there to listen to him, and what he opposed he said in the house regardless , Corbyn did his rebellion on the sly plus he just didn't have the talent to make a good speech , still hasn't . Plus Foot wrote such brilliant books . He was a man of great intellect . Come to think of it ,those we remember as passionate orators , Foot, Benn, Nye Bevan , Dalyell were all left wing rebels and their speeches one just had to listen to.

The reason this was taken to court is because we do not have a written constitution. Perhaps it's time we did.

www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/britain-is-not-what-it-thinks-it-is/

"Without the support of the EU, Britain's wood-wormed constitution must crumble."

Did you know we are responsible for more penguins than any other country on earth?

Reading some posts I have to ask why are wealthy Labour MP's considered to be fine yet Conservative MP's who are wealthy are called Rich Tory Bastards? That question applies to their background too.

The only answer I can think of is because when the answer to a question fits your personal remit hypocrisy doesn't matter.

Hypocrisy is not the sole domain of class or wealth as a subject matter either. I have read posters who have said MP's should/must vote in line with the EU Referendum result in their constituency. MP's should be allowed to vote with their conscious not a 3 Line Whip.

It would appear on another occasion the same voices will think an MP who votes for Article 50 / Brexit is a disgrace even if their constituency voted leave. The same voices that spout an MP should vote with his/her conscience will call them a disgrace, or far worse, if that's exactly what they did over subjects such as Syria and Trident. Hypocrisy all the way.

Personally I believe triggering Article 50 should be for the MP to decide using his/her conscience whilst accepting his/her constituents will make their feelings known at the Ballot Box. If the government lost the vote to trigger Article 50 Theresa May would have no choice but to call for an early General Election and dare I say it Scotland could possibly call for a another Independence Referendum to be held too.

Whether we as individuals like it or not a democratic process means the highest percentage of votes wins and the talk of 48% to 52% won't be spoken of in the same way by those who keep bringing it up if Parliament voted by a margin of so much as just 1 MP tipping the balance for Article 50 NOT to be triggered I guarantee you.

Hypocrisy would raise it's ugly head and those who cannot accept the Referendum Result will be shouting the loudest to say a democratic vote took place and by a margin of one the government lost and Article 50 cannot be triggered.

The fact is they would correct. Under the hypothetical scenario the government lost by just one vote over Article 50 being triggered then that is what Parliament has voted and should be respected. The fact also remains the Referendum too has to be respected for the very same reason, unless you are happy to be critised as being a hypocrite because something does not suit YOU.

Yup, plenty of hypocracy around, both in RL and on this forum at times.Plenty of tantrums about the referendum result and screams of it's just not fair! Which is surprising from people of mature years really.

Some people never grow up.

Sad but true.