Government must have vote on Brexit

Greece? Are you serious?

And do you expect terms of employment and conditions to improve for any workers when we exit the EU Joelsnan? Because I cannot see a government that allows zero hours contracts doing anything. Most of the rights we currently enjoy have been achieved through the EU and if we really cared about workers in other countries then surely the logical thing to do would be to remain in the EU and try to put right the anomalies. Many come to the UK because we prospered as members of the EU and became more successful. Of course all countries in the EU cannot be equal immediately, but those of us who remember Spain and Greece in the 60s and 70s know what great steps they have taken. The Balkan countries are just beginning to see the benefits. Not 'easier' to remain but BETTER, for the UK and for the rest of Europe.

Trisha as you had chosen to respond to me with personal derision, I responded to you similarly. Not pleasant is it and it does nothing to enhance what could be vibrant debate.
We may appear polar opposites with regard to Brexit, however I am not alien to European cooperation initiatives, just not the current corrupt, wasteful, monetarist set up. Those who purport to have a social conscience turn a blind eye to the abuse of poorer EU workers. If terms and conditions of employment and other social benefits were normalised across the union, then that would be a union that was fair however , the inequalities are overlooked because the EU build new roads in these countries to enable the continuance of cheap manufacturing under the guise of improving infrastructure and increasing GDP. What is the used of increased GDP if it doesn't benefit those who create it? If it was a fair state why are there so many migrants?. Many come to UK because before we joined EU we developed a social conscience and introduced both employment and social policies that still cannot be matched in their own countries. Nobody should blame them for making the move, but if the EU was a fair organisation, they should not have to.
Of course it would be easier to remain, but for how long? The EU will eventually fail, I would rather we leave now and encourage the development of global partnerships thatn be in the scrum for business when the bubble bursts.

Have you read the Politico article, joelsnan?

Is there a groundswell Joelsnan you seem to be believing the UK media again. Is it personal to tell someone they are mistaken and ill informed? Is it any less personal to use parochial instead of narrow minded?
So in your global experience what will replace the EU funding that has built things, the arts funding that has maintained our cultural life, and the research funding that has kept universities and medical research going? I doubt if this government will be spending money on any of these.
How can it be 'propaganda' when I have seen the evidence and results for myself and have personal experience or close acquaintances who have benefited?

Durhamjen I did not imply that you were making it up. I gave no knowledge of this proposal, my point was that there are scientists on both sides of the Brexit argument and collaboration on nuclear issues is global and will continue.

Dear me Trisher if personal attack rather than civilised debate is all you can muster may I say that it is your very parochial view of the EU that prevent you from seeing what those with a more global experience and view can see.
Hoodwinked by propaganda. If EU was the utopian vision you seem to see, why are many other countries on tenterhooks for their upcoming elections in the knowledge that there is growing groundswell for out?

www.politico.eu/article/uk-confirms-plans-to-exit-euratom/
Joelsnan, it's part of the article50 notes, published with the bill. I am not making it up.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2016-2017/0132/en/17132en.pdf

I haven't twisted and turned your post at all, POGS. I just do not understand what you mean. I am probably not the only one.

Joelsan yours is the narrow minded ill-informed opinion that resulted in the leave vote. We benefitted from EU money as well. In our city there is a building on the Quayside with a large notice saying it was built with EU development money. The EU has subsidised the arts , historic building programmes and many other operations including research in universities and medical laboratories. The true cost of Brexit will not be known for many years, but don't think it will be a bed of roses, there will be funding reductions in many areas and our lives will be worse because of it.

Durhamjen
If there is confirmation that 'we' are leaving Eurotom i am sure that UK nuclear R&D will not stop on that date. The wider world on every continent R &D teams are collaborating on nuclear and other forms of renewable energy. UK nuclear scientist are considered amongst the best.
Note that there are 'experts' on both sides of the Brexit debate.

DJ

You will twist and turn my post to suit you and if I have not made my position clear then 'once again' we will have to beg to differ I suppose.

I did try with a full explanation rather than dismiss your question with a one or two liner and can do no more.

How sad that that is all you see the EU as, Joelsnan.

It has been stated that we are leaving Euratom, the reearch group into nuclear power.
I don't agree with nuclear power, but to leave such a research group, is in my view, and that of experts,one of the most serious risks we are taking.

Why do politicians want to remain in EU...because leaving would require them to work harder and they would not be able to delegate responsibility to EU.
Why do MEP's want to retain EU...because failure would stop the gravy train and would render them and the hugely expensive admin monolith redundant.
Why do poor countries want to stay...because of the billions of EU funding propping up their economies
Why do rich countries want to stay...because they can exploit the workers if the poor countries to increase their own wealth.
Maybe that is economic cooperation?

I still can't work out who you think the hypocrites will be - apart from Corbyn, that is?

It seems to me you think all MPs will be hypocrites however they vote.

DJ. Am I?

Then perhaps I will try and make my point again.

I posted this:-

'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."

The legal profession has declared that Parliament has to vote for Article 50 to be triggered.

This will require a vote by MP'S and yes, I believe they should be permitted to 'vote using their conscience, not a 3 Line Whip. They will have to be accountable to themselves and also their constituents who will give their opinion eventually at the Ballot Box.

If the MP's do not vote with their conscience the argument will run and run for ever and a day , as The European Union Refererendum is doing ' AD NAUSEAM ', that the vote was not democratic, against the wishes of the 48% , never be accepted because the MP's were whipped, bla,bla, bla.

If Parliament votes to Trigger Article 50 under the circumstance they were permitted to use their conscience then not only Parliamentary MP's but the public must at some time accept 'another' democratic vote took place and abide by the answer. If the government (acting on behalf of the peoples vote to Leave the EU), lost the vote to Trigger Article 50 Theresa May would be put into a position that would require a Snap General Election and if she wins then she will go ahead with the democratically voted for Leaving the European Union , if she looses then presumably Labour and the SNP will not trigger Article 50 and must decide how to handle the result of the European Union to Leave. We will see what the public reaction will be at that time if it ever comes.

I am not arguing but stating the process as I see it.

What I am also saying is there is a downright hypocrisy by some in challenging a democratically voted for decision to Leave , the 48% MUST be listened to and are doing their best to undermine the democracy of the UK. I remain steadfast that those voices would not be concerned, wouldn't give a stuff, if the democratically elected vote for triggering Article 50 by Parliament was lost by just 1 MP. In other words when it suits our personal preference and a democratic vote wins by a margin of as little as 1% we will accept it and defend the principle. When we loose we will challenge the use of a democratic vote and the principle of abiding by the 1% majority wins.

I am a great believer in the democratic vote, the process of the 'majority vote' wins and one man one vote using his/her conscience is the only way to establish the truthful outcome but that requires accepting the result.

"Are you saying that MPs should be allowed to vote with their consciences? If that's the case we will stay in the EU, as most MPs want to anyway, and I assume that's how they voted anyway.
In which case the referendum result will be ignored."

Yes I am saying they should vote with their conscience.

How do you or I know how the MP's will vote? So to say we 'will' stay in the EU is a desire on your part not a factual statement.

You say the Referendum will be ignored only if Parliament vote not to Trigger Article 50 and a snap election takes place and the government changes hand.

I voted Remain in the EU Referendum but I think I would possibly change to vote Leave if a second referendum takes place. I am genuinely so annoyed by the ease the principle of a democratic vote has become meaningless by the persistent refusal by a large section of the public to accept the result of the EU Referendum. I am even more disgusted that our Parliament , our MP's , have voted for the EU Referendum in the first place, are also prepared to not accept the democratic decision of that vote.

I am not going to be a hypocrite and call for a 3 Line Whip over the triggering of Article 50 , I believe in a democratic vote and dealing with result.

If I have not made my position clear then I think we will have to accept that will have to be the case.

Sorry, POGS, I really do not understand what you are getting at.
Are you saying that MPs should be allowed to vote with their consciences? If that's the case we will stay in the EU, as most MPs want to anyway, and I assume that's how they voted anyway.
In which case the referendum result will be ignored.

You seem to be arguing for both points of view and saying whatever the result it will be hypocrisy.

Sad but true.

Some people never grow up.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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