How can we 'take back control' - by going totally against our own Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy?

To stop digression on the AIBU thread- best keep it separate.

So I'll repeat the basic premise here:

As said, some Democracies are 'direct' - people can get a petition going, and if they get enough signatures, it can be put to the vote, and a majority will win, even if small. It is actually quite rare- Switzerland, my birth country, is one.

The UK is not, and has not been for many Centuries- That is the absolute backbone of UK Democracy- that a/ Referendum can only be advisory (and NO PM has any right to promise it could be anything but- by OUR OWN LAWS...) and that we elect MPs (with a not at all democratic system of First Past the Post system- which means anyone who lives in an area not representative of their views or politics know that their vote is null and void and will go straight into the bin- so not considered Democratic by most other countries) - and that those MPs, in Our Sovereign Parliamentary Democracy, will represent us and make the Laws and major decisions on our behalf (with the help of a totally Undemocratic second Chamber, the House of Lords).

THAT IS OUR SYSTEM - like it or not- think it fair or not, believe it democratic or not. And insisting on by-passing it for a direct popular decision- is totally against OUR political system. Hence the total contradiction.

If we want to change our system- then we should embark on a massive re-shaping of our whole voting, electing, etc- system. I am, for instance, in favour of getting rid of First Past the Post System, as my vote in the UK, nor my OH's- has ever counted and we knew in advance that it would not- because of where we lived. But then- it is a whole different ball game. Cameron had no right to say 'ah well, let's pretend we are Swiss for a bit, ans see what's what'. Nonsense.

Whatever we think of Brexit. Whether Leaver or Remainer - it makes no difference to our political system:

the UK IS a Parliamentary Democracy, pros, cons, warts and all.

I don't think there's much interest here in our constitution and parliamentary democracy, jura

Agreed- because it makes no sense at all- to want Sovereignty back on a totally foreign and alien concept of democracy, which is totally Un-British.

the really stupid thing is the Westminster government has always had control....they voted in all the decisions in the EU ,they had control over borders and didn't use it and a lot of the awful things people say are down to the EU were in fact all the work of Westminster ...their OWN government .Now they may have to pay megabucks every year and have no control ...how much sense does that make ?

We want sovereignty back was the message of the referendum. And government listens to public opinion or disregards it at its peril.

paddyann - NONE, none whatsoever ...

loopyloo you always HAD sovereignty....

So you want Sovereignty- and use a process that totally goes against our own Laws (Referendum is advisory) and against our historical style of Democracy- Parliamentary Democracy- where we elect MPs, our representatives, to make major decisions on our behalf?

Does it make any sense at all?

And now, the worst part - Our Prime Minister totally ignores Parliament in making a decision about a war which puts us all in great danger, on the flimsiest of evidence- as the poodle of Trump and the USA.

Take back control ... you really could not make it up. And the world lives in terror. We were lied to about Irak- we are being lied to now.

jura on what do you base your assertion that we are being lied to?

Kitty do you REALLY think MS May and her cohorts here and in the USA EVER tell us the truth? Lies flow freely every time they open their mouths

Matthew Parris argues in the Times Comment section today that "not every advance for 'democracy'—crudely conceived—is an advance for good governance".

He calls the idea that parliament should be able to start a war merely a "nascent constitutional doctrine" which I read to mean that the PM and Cabinet do not, constitutionally, have to get parliament's approval for things such as the current air strikes, which he distinguishes from a "serious attack"—all out war intent on taking Assad down.

He calls what jura is doing with her posts on this subject "sanctimonious posturing".

His phrase "able to start a war" that the PM shouldn't be able to start a war without parliamentary permission and, it would seem by implication, that it could do so even if the PM disagreed which is obvious nonsense.

Good lord, paddy, I only asked a simple question. There is no need to shout!

I presume that if we had a PM of whom you approved there would be no question of lying.

www.facebook.com/Syrianewsdaily/videos/809911002538636/

Jura - I do agree with your original premise. We are moving away from the British form of democracy. Following the referendum Brexit should have been debated in Parliament and decided by our MPs. We seem to be bypassing Parliament altogether now with most things decided by Cabinet - how is this taking back sovereignity which Brexiters voted for? We are moving further away from democracy. We lose our vote in the European parliament and become subjects instead of citizens.

honestly Kitty there isn't a single unionist MP I would trust ,the labour party are every bit as bad as the tories and as for the lib dems..least said soonest mended .The sad thing is a lot of people put their trust in these eegits and time after time are disappointed or worse

Sorry Baggs, but I strongly object to your misuse of this:

'He calls what jura is doing with her posts on this subject "sanctimonious posturing".'

it so happens that a uk friend came for coffee this morning- to pick up their cat I have been looking after whilst they were in the UK visiting. And she gave me The Times.

I carefully read Matthew Parris's article - The last but one paragraph says 'A serious military response is unlikely. Hypocrisy is the likely winner. Donald Trump will want to crow about 'taking out' this or that runway, and we might discreetly warn the Russians not to be there at the time. We would then have 'given butcher Assad a bloody nose' and everything, including his slow advance, would continue as before.

IN THIS SANCTIMONIOUS POSTURING, SADLY, BRITAIN MUST COLLUDE. We don't call the tune and it's not worth infuriating the US President, or undermining President Macron simply to keep our hands clean of hypocrisy. So pin back your ears, prepare for the canting headlines, as we Brits lend an airfield, abomber, a radar, or two ... AND SIGH'.

Comparing this to my posts is, at best a dishonest distortion, at worse... worse. So glad I got The Times today of all days.

There is no doubt that "take back control" was a very effective slogan which worked because so many people did not realise that we actually had control, and still do, but if brexit actually happens we will have GIVEN UP CONTROL.

If we want to continue to trade with the other 27 EU countries we will have to conform to all EU rules and standards without having any say in setting the rules.

44% of our exports go to the EU, compared to only 5% of their exports coming here, so we are in a very weak bargaining position. We need them more than they need us - the exact opposite of the lies peddled by the Leave campaign, whose talk of German cars and French cheese fooled people into voting for us all to be so much worse off.

We were then badly let down by most of our elected representatives, who were not fooled, but were prepared to go against their own better judgements because of the three line whips imposed by both the Conservative and Labour parties.

The only good thing which might just possibly come out of this disgraceful episode could be a realisation that we need a written constitution and electoral reform.

I wish I could be more optimistic about the chances of enough of the stark reality of brexit giving enough people a wakeup call.

Good post Varian, though very depressing.
Especially: "we are in a very weak bargaining position. We need them more than they need us."

What I cannot get over is the way there seems to be no thought given to how the talks are showing it will not really be a good outcome in many areas such as Euratom, Open Skies etc etc but no one mentions that this could be a problem. Just keep reiterating the result of the referendum which was a very small majority

paddyann has it escaped your notice that France under President Macron also took part in the raid? Or is your almost hysterical hatred of England and America completely blinding you to that fact?!

So, there were 3 instead of 2 - does it make any better?

Nothing like an old newspaper, eh Jura.
At least it hadn’t come off their fish and chips.