Brexit or Britin

[boltonboris]

From memory I don't think that info exists. Votes were split into geographic areas but they did not match constituencies. Perhaps they should have.

Despite being v strongly remain, I wouldn't for anyone who voted against a sensible proposal for triggering Art. 50.

As an aside, I also think the most legitimate outcome given the closeness of the vote is some sort of soft leaving. Can you imagine if remain had won 52-48 and the next day Cameron announced we were joining the Euro ?

408/242 in favour of leaving. If the MP's follow the voting of their constituents, it's pretty straight forward.

That being said, a lot of very wealthy people now have the opportunity to financially sway what these MP's will do. That WILL happen regardless of some on here taking the piss about "CONSPIWACY" theories

[Prufrock]

I'm sorry but it's just not sustainable to campaign to leave the EU on the basis that our own Parliament should be making our laws and policies and then say that you don't trust that Parliament to do exactly that.

[boltonboris]

I'm sorry but it's just not sustainable to campaign to leave the EU on the basis that our own Parliament should be making our laws and policies and then say that you don't trust that Parliament to do exactly that.

Which indicates a problem with the choice of politicians and their lack of trust/interest in the voters. That is worrying. There's prctiaclly no fvcker you can get behind at any level!

Do you think that MP's should vote based on how their constituency voted? I mean, you are banging the drum about having elected people decide for us

[TANGODANCER]

As a self-confessed junior school, little interest, member on the subject of politics (due mainly to a lifetime of seeing and hearing lying,argument and saloon bar hostility between the various custodians of our well-being, resulting in a situation that on the surface seems little better off than 1945) , I wonder how many more trusting souls like me meandered along thinking that the great stay/go fandango where we all went to the polls and added our little x's were under the impression that doing that meant something and finding now that it all actually seems now to mean f-all. I mean, it can't just be me, surely?

Why was the P.M talking of instituting Article 50 of Billy's Weekly Liar the day after the result and Nicola the brave was e-mailing Mel Gibson to get his war paint on, yet now can't actually do a thing without the permision of all that Comic Kuts collection of odd balls we call Parliament? Can't make it up isn't in it.

[boltonboris]

I think they're all proving what a gaggle of shitgibbons they really are

[boltonboris]

"It was only advisory"?? Doesn't seem so in this govt circular

[jimbo]

The government will implement what was decided, only now parliament will debate / vote on exactly how and when that will be done. Surely that's a better option than an unelected PM and her government ploughing on unchallenged?

[boltonboris]

The government will implement what was decided, only now parliament will debate / vote on exactly how and when that will be done. Surely that's a better option than an unelected PM and her government ploughing on unchallenged?

As long as that's what happens, yes.

[Prufrock]

I'm sorry but it's just not sustainable to campaign to leave the EU on the basis that our own Parliament should be making our laws and policies and then say that you don't trust that Parliament to do exactly that.

Which indicates a problem with the choice of politicians and their lack of trust/interest in the voters. That is worrying. There's prctiaclly no fvcker you can get behind at any level!

Do you think that MP's should vote based on how their constituency voted? I mean, you are banging the drum about having elected people decide for us

Well you lot wanted them in charge!

I don't agree at all actually, and I'd be astonished if the eventual Art.50 vote doesn't sail through.

I don't think the constituency data is there, I don't think they match up do they?

But in any case, no, I don't think it's a constiuency issue. There's been a vote. Every single MP should start with the view that they are going to vote for Art.50 to be triggered and the Parliamentary debate should be about finding a consensus for what us leaving will look like. Even if your constituency voted remain, that's not the decision of the UK.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

"It was only advisory"?? Doesn't seem so in this govt circular

I believe the bill put before Parliament that was voted on to bring the referendum about had the word advisory in it. A government leaflet, written by an unknown, poorly worded and poorly proofed doesn't carry any weight against the actual act of Parliament.

I voted remain, but agree that we must leave. I think all MPs should vote to trigger art 50, but we need to have scrutiny over Boris and the Buffoons and to make sure they don't do anything stupid. I'm sure the SNP lot and a handful of other MPs will vote against, but they'll lose by a big margin and many will likely cease to be an MP in a few years.

[Bruce Rioja]

Has Farridge been on yet? I imagine that he's not best chuffed?!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Has Farridge been on yet? I imagine that he's not best chuffed?!

Probably hasn't crawled out of trump's arse yet.

[Hoboh]

The government will implement what was decided, only now parliament will debate / vote on exactly how and when that will be done. Surely that's a better option than an unelected PM and her government ploughing on unchallenged?

In all honesty, do you tell folk what you are doing before you decide how you are going to do it?

Do you tip off those who you are negotiating with as to your plan?

No doubt Merkel and the fat Frenchman would be delighted along with the former Commie states.

[Prufrock]

The poker analogy is the worst of all the nonsense. There aren't any cards. Do we think the eu's team of negotiators will be shocked that we want quite a good deal? What's the secret card? It's nonsense

[Lord Kangana]

Put your money on the stupid c*nts just becoming stubborn stupid c*nts now.

I just want my referendum back!

[bedwetter2]

The poker analogy is the worst of all the nonsense. There aren't any cards. Do we think the eu's team of negotiators will be shocked that we want quite a good deal? What's the secret card? It's nonsense

Is it nonsense? Not according to the weasel Stephen Kinnock with his multiplicity of weasel words uttered on the Daily Politics show today. He was questioned at considerable length by Andrew Neil as to what his real purpose was in his previous calls to "water down" the impact of Brexit by suggesting a second referendum should be considered and for the Government to set out the negotiating position prior to triggering Article 50. Bluster and bullshit was the response.

If we consider that an appeal to the Supreme Court by the Government is unlikely to succeed, then the weasel has probably got part of what he wants.

You see Pru, this course of action is going to set off uproar amongst the people who voted Leave. Can you understand why there may be a legitimate view by voters that once again, politicians are just ignoring the will of the electorate?

Just to confirm my and others opinions, we believed that the result of the referendum was NOT advisory (whatever the hell that means) but legally binding. To find out otherwise just ramps up the mistrust a notch.

[Prufrock]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

[bedwetter2]

Besides, this case in the High Court was effectively brought by one person (there was probably a few anonymous others). What right has one person - admittedly a wealthy fund manager type - think she has to try to impose her will on a whole nation? The law is an ass and the proponents are misguided asses easily bought and sold by the wealthy. Shakespeare was right.

[bedwetter2]

No-one is saying it's advisory in the sense you are getting your knickers in a twist about. It's advisory in the sense it didn't provide a mechanism that automatically takes us out. That now needs to happen.

You accept we are for now in the EU, yes? So we need to leave and we need to figure out what leave means. Does it mean no immigration and WTO rules, does it mean Norway style, or somewhere in between?

So who do you think should answer that question?

The electorate answered that question on the 23rd June. There were no levels of Brexit mentioned on the ballot so I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out. Therefore, everyone who voted to leave voted for total exit from the corrupt heap of shite otherwise known as the EU in the full knowledge that there may be a downside as well as an upside to the divorce. You see, it was a matter of principle to leavers. Obviously not a concept that politicians and lawyers are too familiar with.

[malcd1]

I was happy to remain in Europe up to the referendum. However, the attitude of these European leaders since June has really got my back up. The big EU country leaders have pretty much said that they will punish us for having the temerity to vote leave. Not just that it will be difficult but to deliberately punish us.

If we had another vote, I would vote to leave. Feck em all.