Brexit delayed

[Mellsblue]

The government is now unlikely to get away with a one line bill, so they're going to have put aside more time for this than planned, but given they're in charge of allotting time they should be able to get A50 passed and stick with their current deadline of March unless they make a real dog's dinner of the bill. The government is likely to face some amendments, the idea they'd structure a bill such it couldn't be amended makes as much sense as the idea they were entitled to ignore parliament in the first place, but still, the government will get support on its own side and be able to whip some of the remainers too, and then plenty in the other parties want to leave the EU and/or will respect the outcome of the referendum.

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

[Len]

Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

[Digby]

Why do think this about the bill they put forward? The Supreme Court - based on the verbal statement as I haven't had the time or the will to read the report or its summary - has merely said that parliament must vote on article 50 not how this vote should look.
The government have expected to lose this for a long time, and, I believe, expected to when they appealed, so have had plenty of time to formulate their plan. That's not to say they won't mess it up.
May stated her negotiating objectives, as requested by parliament, last week. What more is required? She has also stated a vote in parliament will be held once negotiations are finished. Other than Lammy continuing to dig his third hole of this parliament, the other two being an embarrassing attempt to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor and being the main protagonist to have Corbyn's name on the leadership ballot, I'm not sure why anyone else has any other demands. Other than political grandstanding, of course. This had seemed to die down once they realised I wouldn't be front page news but no doubt it'll resurface once again.

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

That could be read as if May and her team want to whine that they could do a better job free of oversight they should feel free to resign. And often times decisions are made outside of committee, the committees should be where more decisions are made but clearly pacts are made outside those chambers, and it's hardly odd MPs want more chances to stick their respective oars in.

And yes the government will seek to brief and pretend to consult the devolved governments, but there's no way those other institutions aren't going to try and make more of this politically than the law says they've a legal right to, no way. And so that will already come with a cost to the government, which in part is just a cost of doing business, but it'd another reason I think it'd be odd if they looked to increase the challenges to them. And in looking at what's coming out of the ruling I think it looks well set for a challenge if the government tries to get a one line bill through, partly I know that as I'd be happy to help fund that challenge, and I suspect it's easier for the government to simply take the short term pain of going to parliament to cut off at the knees those who might seek such action.

[Mellsblue]

I think politically it's now all but untenable to try and go with a one line bill, apart from anything else that would just invite another challenge that the government wasn't meeting the requirement handed down to concede the authority of parliament to vote. Bad enough the government already contested what went before the courts and lost, and then appealed and lost, to invite another challenge they could well lose just doesn't seem like something anyone who wants to keep their job and some control of a process would invite.

The government has at least got out of this without a need to go the devolved chambers, which is not nothing, but even so they'll burn a lot of political capital refusing to deal with Wales, NI and Scotland on a political basis even if there's no legal requirement. To risk still more seems an absurdity when as just about everyone expects they'll be able to get a50 triggered without a problem.

They might now be constricted in what's possible in EU negotiations, but the vote was nearly 50/50 and there should be some input from all sides within a framework of we have to (sadly) leave the EU. If May and her minsters feel they're unable to do the job absent of being able to act without review then they're quite free to resign, and I doubt we'd be short of people wanting to be PM just 'cause they were required to go to parliament for authority.

All fair enough. Even if I don't agree with most of it!
They're clearly not worried about public perception. On all things May and her hit squad seem incredibly arrogant that it's their way or the highway.
They have agreed to include the devolved governments via meetings at various stages. The Supreme Court have said there is no constitutional reason for the devolved parliaments to be involved. As all sides have agreed they are the final arbiter why then not stick to their ruling.

There is plenty of opportunity to input. The Brexit Committee, chaired by a Remainer, is the place to do it. The numerous statements to the House by Davis are also an opportunity. The best place was during the time the referendum bill passed through the House but the all seeing all knowing Cleggs and Lammys of this Parliament seemed to have missed that one. If they'd legislated for the post referendum process at this point then all this chaos and distraction would've been avoided.

I think you've misread May and her team. It's not that they're unable to do their job without review, it's that they feel they'd be able to do their job better without review. It's a big failing of this government and I'm afraid it probably always will be.

That could be read as if May and her team want to whine that they could do a better job free of oversight they should feel free to resign. And often times decisions are made outside of committee, the committees should be where more decisions are made but clearly pacts are made outside those chambers, and it's hardly odd MPs want more chances to stick their respective oars in.

And yes the government will seek to brief and pretend to consult the devolved governments, but there's no way those other institutions aren't going to try and make more of this politically than the law says they've a legal right to, no way. And so that will already come with a cost to the government, which in part is just a cost of doing business, but it'd another reason I think it'd be odd if they looked to increase the challenges to them. And in looking at what's coming out of the ruling I think it looks well set for a challenge if the government tries to get a one line bill through, partly I know that as I'd be happy to help fund that challenge, and I suspect it's easier for the government to simply take the short term pain of going to parliament to cut off at the knees those who might seek such action.

I find it strange that May is whining if she moans about being legally forced consult parliament but the devolved parliaments are merely trying to make political gains if they moan about not having to be legally consulted. Seems to me that view is very much taken from a Remainer's stand point.

All the noise coming from govt is that the wording of the bill will be tighter than a Scotsman who has lost his wallet. Of course, there's quite a high chance they'll balls up the wording.

Are you talking about another legal challenge? I'm not sure I'm happy about the judiciary having so much power that they can decide on the minutiae of the legislature's day to day running. The separation of powers runs both ways. The ruling is that parliament must vote on article 50, how that process is managed is the sole domain of the govt and parliament as far as I'm concerned. The statement made by, I think, Lord Neubetger explicitly stated this was a decision solely on whether article 50 should be subject to a vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I haven't read the report so there may be more to it. I'd be disappointed if there were.

[Mellsblue]

Brexiters will be losing their shit. Heh.

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

[Edinburgh in Exile]

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

Edit it add... For the sake of a fairly obvious disclosure, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have typed any of that if it didn't suit my agenda.

[Mellsblue]

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

[canta_brian]

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

Which is why referenda shouldn't be the norm. Would parliament have ever bought the lie printed in the side of that bus?

A 52 - 48 result in a referendum needs viewing in the light of the press that the UK has.

[Mellsblue]

I'd argue he should stick to his guns and votes against it. The way I was taught it works is, we elect people for a certain length of time to vote on our behalf, and for that time they are answerable to nobody but themselves. If he genuinely believes it's a mistake to leave the EU, it's his job to vote against it. Referendums aren't binding in any way.

Political suicide mind you.

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

Which is why referenda shouldn't be the norm. Would parliament have ever bought the lie printed in the side of that bus?

A 52 - 48 result in a referendum needs viewing in the light of the press that the UK has.

I'm not going over it again but there were lies aplenty on both sides.

[Sandydragon]

All very true but a referendum is not the norm. Our constituency was very strongly pro-Brexit - 56 v 44, IIRC.
From the UK Parliament website:
'The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons.'
That could be read as representing us by making educated decisions of what is best for us or conversely that the must represent what their constituents want/need/feel regardless of whether they agree with it. I suppose it's a balancing act and you can't blame an MP for choosing one or the other.

Which is why referenda shouldn't be the norm. Would parliament have ever bought the lie printed in the side of that bus?

A 52 - 48 result in a referendum needs viewing in the light of the press that the UK has.

I'm not going over it again but there were lies aplenty on both sides.

Both sides ran awful campaigns.

This latest development is hardly unexpected and will delay things, but won't stop the process ultimately. The SNP will become even more loathed in England for their proposed plan ofdelaying the process and building support for indyref 2.

Ultimately, this is the most important event for Britain since the Second World War and the lack of mature debate is hugely disappointing, although after the referendum not a surprise.

[Digby]

I find it strange that May is whining if she moans about being legally forced consult parliament but the devolved parliaments are merely trying to make political gains if they moan about not having to be legally consulted. Seems to me that view is very much taken from a Remainer's stand point.

All the noise coming from govt is that the wording of the bill will be tighter than a Scotsman who has lost his wallet. Of course, there's quite a high chance they'll balls up the wording.

Are you talking about another legal challenge? I'm not sure I'm happy about the judiciary having so much power that they can decide on the minutiae of the legislature's day to day running. The separation of powers runs both ways. The ruling is that parliament must vote on article 50, how that process is managed is the sole domain of the govt and parliament as far as I'm concerned. The statement made by, I think, Lord Neubetger explicitly stated this was a decision solely on whether article 50 should be subject to a vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Again I haven't read the report so there may be more to it. I'd be disappointed if there were.

I've no problem saying it's not just May whining, but May is in charge so she's thus under the most scrutiny, and it's also her government everyone wants something from.

And I agree they're saying they'll make the wording such it can't be subject to amendments, but these are the same geniuses who thought they wouldn't need to go to parliament so I have my doubts. It's also strange thinking, that bills can go to parliament with a view in advance that there couldn't and/or shouldn't be the possibility of amendments, the commons and the lords are there to review not wave things through with a fanfare

And yes I'm talking about a new legal challenge in the event of the government trying to get away with a one line bill. I'm also not sure what's wrong with the government being taken to court if they try to act in a manner that a court would rule against them, and the solution there would be for the government to amend their ways not to suddenly think we'd like to see a separation, and I hope the government does act such any legal cases can be easily dismissed

[Sandydragon]

It will be interesting to see which MPs vote in support of the views of their constituents and which stick to their own beliefs.

[Stones of granite]

It will be interesting to see which MPs vote in support of the views of their constituents and which stick to their own beliefs.

Yes it will. I am particularly interested to see which way Scotland's only Tory MP will vote. Will he represent the views of his constituents (who voted Remain) or will he follow the party whip?

[Len]

The morons on the fringes will. The majority will realise that this won't really delay things in the slightest.

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

[Sandydragon]

Problem is the morons on the sidelines kick and scream the loudest. My mates missus is one of the 'trigger A50 now!' types. I asked her who her MP is. No idea. I told her she shouldn't of voted.

People don't know how their government works.

It'd take a brave MP to go against their constituency.

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Which for me highlights why we should have taken the sensible approach that other countries use when holding important referendum that will bind the government by having a minimum % of turnout or a target threshold that is more than 50% +1. The Brexit mob would have been in uproar if they had reached 56% and not got enough vote, but at least they would have understood the target before hand and if (say) 60% of the voters voted to leave then there would have been fewer arguments over legitimacy.

it also highlights the stupidity of holding a referendum where one of the options is too vague. Remain was obviously a vote for the status quo, but what did leave actually mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or a protest vote to scare the EU elite? Before a referendum, the leaders of the out campaign should be been told to present an actual plan that people could actually vote against.

Sadly, Cameron saw this as a sop to UKIP and the right of his party and never expected to lose the vote.

[Stones of granite]

Can't argue with that.

My MP was a staunch Remainer but will now vote to invoke article 50 as that is what his constituents voted for. He's copping a lot of heat from Remainers for being spineless, a turncoat etc etc.

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Which for me highlights why we should have taken the sensible approach that other countries use when holding important referendum that will bind the government by having a minimum % of turnout or a target threshold that is more than 50% +1. The Brexit mob would have been in uproar if they had reached 56% and not got enough vote, but at least they would have understood the target before hand and if (say) 60% of the voters voted to leave then there would have been fewer arguments over legitimacy.

it also highlights the stupidity of holding a referendum where one of the options is too vague. Remain was obviously a vote for the status quo, but what did leave actually mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or a protest vote to scare the EU elite? Before a referendum, the leaders of the out campaign should be been told to present an actual plan that people could actually vote against.

Sadly, Cameron saw this as a sop to UKIP and the right of his party and never expected to lose the vote.

The Swiss, who are Referenda world champions, have two targets. First is a simple popular majority, second is a majority of Cantons. Many referenda have failed despite gaining a popular majority, but have not achieved a majority in more than 50% of Cantons. I think that our EU referendum would still have come up with leave if the same system had been applied with local authority areas being analogous to Cantons.

[Sandydragon]

Those pro-remain (I hate all this remainers, remoanians, brexit clever nickname bullshit, sums up the dim IQ of the people IMO) in his constituency need to take their medicine. Just as those who voted leave need to about the court ruling.

Personally i'd say he needs to do whats right by the majority of the people he represents. I don't think a 56-44 split is big either but thats just me. Its a bit of a win bit now much. Kinda like winning a game of rugby 20 points to 10.

Which for me highlights why we should have taken the sensible approach that other countries use when holding important referendum that will bind the government by having a minimum % of turnout or a target threshold that is more than 50% +1. The Brexit mob would have been in uproar if they had reached 56% and not got enough vote, but at least they would have understood the target before hand and if (say) 60% of the voters voted to leave then there would have been fewer arguments over legitimacy.

it also highlights the stupidity of holding a referendum where one of the options is too vague. Remain was obviously a vote for the status quo, but what did leave actually mean? Hard Brexit, soft Brexit or a protest vote to scare the EU elite? Before a referendum, the leaders of the out campaign should be been told to present an actual plan that people could actually vote against.

Sadly, Cameron saw this as a sop to UKIP and the right of his party and never expected to lose the vote.

The Swiss, who are Referenda world champions, have two targets. First is a simple popular majority, second is a majority of Cantons. Many referenda have failed despite gaining a popular majority, but have not achieved a majority in more than 50% of Cantons. I think that our EU referendum would still have come up with leave if the same system had been applied with local authority areas being analogous to Cantons.

By that criteria it probably would have passed. Thinking of the vote in Wales in the 1970s for devolution, iIRC, the target was 60% in favour which wasn't met. Whilst 60% seems a hard target to meet, with the inevitability of not all eligible voters turning out it provides a degree of robustness to the result.

Regardless of percentage requirements, I still think Cameron should have got Farage and other leave campaigners in a room and told them straight that if they wanted a referendum, then they needed to provide a vision for what leave looked like. Probably not a detailed plan as such but at least what were we leaving and what was the future relationship with the EU. The imprecise nature of the referendum is now causing significant problems, with a result that must be respected meaning very little practically as leave can be spun in different ways.

To give the SNP their due, at least they provided a white paper on what an independent Scotland would look like.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

I'm no expert in Parliamentary law, but it seems to me impossible to make the Article 50 bill amendment proof. The basic rule is that amendments have to relate to the subject of the Bill and all of the amendments will. I expect the government to put forward a one line Bill along the lines of "In order to enact the will of the people HMG will trigger article 50 of blah"

[Stones of granite]

The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Understood, however, it may have repercussions come the next election depending on how swing voters in their constituency view it.

Scotland's Tory represents Dumfries, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which covers South Lanarkshire and part of Dumfriesshire. South Lanarkshire voted 63% Remain, while Dumfriesshire voted 53% Remain. Mundell had a majority of only 800 votes at the last General Election. Therefore it is quite conceivable that a relatively small number of pissed-off Remainers could result in him losing his seat.

The constituency is largely rural with a large number of farmers. My guess is that a lot will hang on what happens with farming subsidies and any impact to the lamb export market to Europe.

[Sandydragon]

The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

I'm no expert in Parliamentary law, but it seems to me impossible to make the Article 50 bill amendment proof. The basic rule is that amendments have to relate to the subject of the Bill and all of the amendments will. I expect the government to put forward a one line Bill along the lines of "In order to enact the will of the people HMG will trigger article 50 of blah"

Agreed. However the pint some of us are making is that an MP who wishes to remain in the EU but has a constituency which is pro-leave will potentially pay a high price for voting with their conscience rather than going with their constituents wishes. Given that neither of the main party leaderships seem intent on blocking the process (at least I don't think Labour are although that viewpoint seems to change daily) then at best this will be a delay in triggering article 50, not a complete stop.

As far as I am aware, an amendment can be submitted against the most straight forward of bills, although not all proposals are necessarily discussed for inclusion (not sure what the qualifying criteria is).

[Sandydragon]

So apparently the bill will be 137 words long. Given that most bills Ive seen can have 10 times that amount in version control alone, this really is small.

[Mellsblue]

So apparently the bill will be 137 words long. Given that most bills Ive seen can have 10 times that amount in version control alone, this really is small.

[Sandydragon]

Meanwhile, in Stoke on Trent Central, labour is doing its best to lose the seat by fielding a candidate who described Brexit as a load of shit. Stoke is justifiabkynthe Brexit capital of the UK so the chances of UKIP overturning a 5k ish majority don't look too far fetched.

In other labour wtf news, Corbyn has apparently reverted back to a three line whip to force his MPs to back Brexit, albeit probably with some amendments. That might change by the ten o clock news.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Understood, however, it may have repercussions come the next election depending on how swing voters in their constituency view it.

Scotland's Tory represents Dumfries, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which covers South Lanarkshire and part of Dumfriesshire. South Lanarkshire voted 63% Remain, while Dumfriesshire voted 53% Remain. Mundell had a majority of only 800 votes at the last General Election. Therefore it is quite conceivable that a relatively small number of pissed-off Remainers could result in him losing his seat.

The constituency is largely rural with a large number of farmers. My guess is that a lot will hang on what happens with farming subsidies and any impact to the lamb export market to Europe.

I understand the point being made. it works the other way as well. In the constituency I used to/will live in (boundary changes and house move) the sitting Labour MP will get annihilated if he votes for Brexit rather than coming out strongly against as we were massively in favour of Remaining. My point was that traditionally there is no duty to, nor expectation that you will, slavishly follow the will of your constituents as an MP.

[Stones of granite]

The traditional view is that MPs are representatives not delegates. They are there to do the best for their constituents, not simply vote the way that 50.01% of them wish.

Understood, however, it may have repercussions come the next election depending on how swing voters in their constituency view it.

Scotland's Tory represents Dumfries, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, which covers South Lanarkshire and part of Dumfriesshire. South Lanarkshire voted 63% Remain, while Dumfriesshire voted 53% Remain. Mundell had a majority of only 800 votes at the last General Election. Therefore it is quite conceivable that a relatively small number of pissed-off Remainers could result in him losing his seat.

The constituency is largely rural with a large number of farmers. My guess is that a lot will hang on what happens with farming subsidies and any impact to the lamb export market to Europe.

I understand the point being made. it works the other way as well. In the constituency I used to/will live in (boundary changes and house move) the sitting Labour MP will get annihilated if he votes for Brexit rather than coming out strongly against as we were massively in favour of Remaining. My point was that traditionally there is no duty to, nor expectation that you will, slavishly follow the will of your constituents as an MP.

Of course, and I understand your point completely. My point about Mundell is that his position, as the sole Tory MP in Scotland, is shown in sharp relief.