Government shutdown & no more taxes ??

[meridian]

So she thinks her job is to reject the vote of the general populace then is it?

Special.

Whatever she thinks her job is, she stood on an honest platform and was rewarded for it with a higher majority.

[original PM]

Whatever she thinks her job is, she stood on an honest platform and was rewarded for it with a higher majority.

In a single small part of the UK.

The population of Britain decided in a democratic vote that they wish to leave the EU.

Whichever party is in power - be it Tory, Labour, Green or anyone else has a duty to deliver the peoples choice.

And therefore every politician has a duty to support that - as a politician it is not about what you want - or what a few of your simpering friends want.

That means that ever member of a political party is required to support the leaving of the EU - it is that simple.

Does anyone else - me, you, the person on the street, the gilet jaunts get a chance to derail the democratic process or can we simply do peaceful protests?

So given the above can you explain to me why this person has suddenly decided to award herself with extra privileges that the average UK citizen does not get?

[Lance]

In a single small part of the UK.

The population of Britain decided in a democratic vote that they wish to leave the EU.

Whichever party is in power - be it Tory, Labour, Green or anyone else has a duty to deliver the peoples choice.

And therefore every politician has a duty to support that - as a politician it is not about what you want - or what a few of your simpering friends want.

That means that ever member of a political party is required to support the leaving of the EU - it is that simple.

Does anyone else - me, you, the person on the street, the gilet jaunts get a chance to derail the democratic process or can we simply do peaceful protests?

So given the above can you explain to me why this person has suddenly decided to award herself with extra privileges that the average UK citizen does not get?

we don't live in, nor have we ever lived in, a democracy as far as the exact definition goes.

It's a representative democracy. That means we elect people to represent us. That means that we don't need to bother with the details (Brexiteers aren't good with those) or the rights and wrongs. They make decisions on our behalf. If we don't like what they do, they don't get re-elected.
A referendum is not something our laws and parliamentary processes can handle. Especially if the result is the wrong one.

What we see now is a merely the result of David Cameron's hubris in calling a referendum he thought he'd win. He lost it and we have no way out as Brexit is a direct contradiction to what our representatives are there to do.
Like them or loathe them, they are trying to handle this contradiction that most of them didn't want. I wouldn't want the job.

[Old Greg]

In a single small part of the UK.

The population of Britain decided in a democratic vote that they wish to leave the EU.

Whichever party is in power - be it Tory, Labour, Green or anyone else has a duty to deliver the peoples choice.

And therefore every politician has a duty to support that - as a politician it is not about what you want - or what a few of your simpering friends want.

That means that ever member of a political party is required to support the leaving of the EU - it is that simple.

Does anyone else - me, you, the person on the street, the gilet jaunts get a chance to derail the democratic process or can we simply do peaceful protests?

So given the above can you explain to me why this person has suddenly decided to award herself with extra privileges that the average UK citizen does not get?

There is simply no legal or constitutional obligation for MPs to support the outcome of the referendum. Feel free to disagree if you like, and if so, you might state the reasons for this disagreement.

This therefore leaves a moral or perhaps ethical obligation to support the outcome of the referendum. Doesn't this have to be balanced with a broader moral and ethical obligation to act, as a representative in a representative democracy, in the national interest? Where the representative sees a strong conflict between the referendum outcome and the national interest, they have three options (broadly):

1 Honour the outcome of the vote against the representative's perception of the national interest
2 Override the outcome of the referendum, in the national interest (as perceived by the representative).
3 Ask the people to vote by on the clear proposed Withdrawal Agreement, recognising that this is a more refined and specific question than the 2016 referendum.

To expect representatives to do 1 ignores the realities of the British parliamentary representative system. All

[darmstadt]

In a single small part of the UK.

The population of Britain decided in a democratic vote that they wish to leave the EU.

Whichever party is in power - be it Tory, Labour, Green or anyone else has a duty to deliver the peoples choice.

And therefore every politician has a duty to support that - as a politician it is not about what you want - or what a few of your simpering friends want.

That means that ever member of a political party is required to support the leaving of the EU - it is that simple.

Does anyone else - me, you, the person on the street, the gilet jaunts get a chance to derail the democratic process or can we simply do peaceful protests?

So given the above can you explain to me why this person has suddenly decided to award herself with extra privileges that the average UK citizen does not get?

So the people's choice eh. Every few years there is a general election and the parties are voted on what their manifestos state, apparently, yet how many of those parties keep true to their manifesto? How many times has May had to do a reverse turn since n power on her promises (not the Brexit bollocks but the everyday UK bollocks)? Surely she is then a turncoat, a traitor in not following up on her parties promises to the people. You do talk a a load of old bollocks sometimes

[meridian]

In a single small part of the UK.

The population of Britain decided in a democratic vote that they wish to leave the EU.

Whichever party is in power - be it Tory, Labour, Green or anyone else has a duty to deliver the peoples choice.

And therefore every politician has a duty to support that - as a politician it is not about what you want - or what a few of your simpering friends want.

That means that ever member of a political party is required to support the leaving of the EU - it is that simple.

Does anyone else - me, you, the person on the street, the gilet jaunts get a chance to derail the democratic process or can we simply do peaceful protests?

So given the above can you explain to me why this person has suddenly decided to award herself with extra privileges that the average UK citizen does not get?

You're British, yet you know less about the Parliamentary process than all of my non-British friends that have had to sit the "Britishness" test.

Revoke your passport and citizenship, you don't deserve the accident of your birth.

[original PM]

Ok so we have it would appear 3 options

1) Go with the deal May has

2) Go with a no deal

3) Stay in the EU

Let's assume right now that 3 is not an option in reality.

So we have the choice between option 1 and option 2

The only question for the politicians and you lot on here is - is May's deal better than a no deal?

[Lance]

So the people's choice eh. Every few years there is a general election and the parties are voted on what their manifestos state, apparently, yet how many of those parties keep true to their manifesto? How many times has May had to do a reverse turn since n power on her promises (not the Brexit bollocks but the everyday UK bollocks)? Surely she is then a turncoat, a traitor in not following up on her parties promises to the people. You do talk a a load of old bollocks sometimes

Point of order: Manifesto items are only adhered to if the GE results in a majority. This is why Cameron had the fooking referendum in the manifesto as he expected that would be the first concession when he formed a coalition with Nick Clegg.

[Lance]

Ok so we have it would appear 3 options

1) Go with the deal May has

2) Go with a no deal

3) Stay in the EU

Let's assume right now that 3 is not an option in reality.

So we have the choice between option 1 and option 2

The only question for the politicians and you lot on here is - is May's deal better than a no deal?

you're right about the 3 options. But wrong that 3 isn't valid. If it was as simple as you say then May's deal would have been agreed already.

[Old Greg]

Ok so we have it would appear 3 options

1) Go with the deal May has

2) Go with a no deal

3) Stay in the EU

Let's assume right now that 3 is not an option in reality.

So we have the choice between option 1 and option 2

The only question for the politicians and you lot on here is - is May's deal better than a no deal?

Why is that the only question?