The situation is complicated by the fact that it’s an MP’s job to do what their constituents want. So it’s absolutely nothing at all to do with ‘herd mentality’.

That is a remarkable contradiction in so few words.

Sentence 1 = A near perfect example of ‘herd mentality’.
Sentence 2 = A statement that Sentence 1 is nothing at all to do with a ‘herd mentality’

Brexit drives you into some odd corners, sometimes….

Talking of Dave

David Cameron expresses disappointment at Conservative MPs leaving the party at a crucial point in UK history, as you wouldn't catch him doing that sort of thing.

— Have I Got News For You (@haveigotnews) February 20, 2019

That is a remarkable contradiction

Don’t be ridiculous.

Herd mentality is doing what everyone else is doing just because they are doing it.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want, so if they do what everyone else is doing it’s for a defined fundamental principle, not just because everyone else is doing it.

You really are not thinking about this very well at all.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want

Why bother having them, then? Just do everything via online voting buttons.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want

Is it not an MP’s job to do what they think is best for their constituents while trying to stick to manifesto promises/guides?
Anna Soubry is the obvious tricky one as she was elected as a Tory MP with the Tory manifesto but she is a prominent remain supporter in an area that voted leave. You vote for your MP not the party but people don’t seem to realise this.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want

When will MPs be asking their 2019 constituents “what they want”, and how will they be measuring it?

And, remember, their constituents include people who didn’t vote for them, as well as people not allowed to vote for them, and not allowed to vote in the last referendum.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want

And if they all want to pay no tax? Or all want to re-introduce capital punishment?

An MPs job is to do what’s in the best interests of their constituents and sometimes that means not doing what they’ve been brainwashed into believing.

Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they’re not to play with the chainsaws?

Here’s the thing – ALL of those MPs were elected after the referendum, with their consituents having full knowledge of where the candidates personally stood regarding Brexit.  As they were elected there must have been sufficient reasons for the voters to support them despite disagreeing with their stance on other issues.  If the constituents were so focussed on having given ‘an instruction’ for one issue then surely they would have voted for the MP who was most likely to deliver on that.

Actually it isn’t an MPs to do exactly what their constituents want. This is why we are in such s fix at the moment. People do not understand how the system is meant to work. You are supposed to elect someone who you will best do the job of representing you and running the country. It is essentially then up to the MP to decide how to do that. This is why capital punishment was abolished when for years the majority of the country supported its use.

It is literally an MP’s job to do what his or her constituents want

It is literally nothing of the sort, and that’s the problem. This is “the will of the people” writ large, and it’s bollocks.

It may well be in their best interests to do what their constituents want (come reelection time at least), but MPs are the representatives of the people, not their delegates. It is “literally an MP’s job” to do what’s in the best interests of their constituents.

I want to never to pay taxes again, and I expect most other voters in my constituency would agree with me if I asked. Should my MP get behind that and start battering parliament to attempt to abolish taxation because it’s what their constituents want, or should they explain to their ward that it’s not going to happen because it’s a silly idea and would you like some nice new park benches instead?

Sorry Mols, you’re usually the voice of reason but you’re wrong on this one.

And if they all want to pay no tax? Or all want to re-introduce capital punishment?

Quite. It is an interestingly inverse version of the Nuremberg Defence, isn’t it.

Sorry Mols, you’re usually the voice of reason but you’re wrong on this one.

Well – I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit but this is actually part of the problem. It’s not really defined what an MP’s job actually is, as I said about 500 pages ago. However, since they owe their position to taking up a position aligned with their electorate, it’s very hard to actually go against what they say when it’s explicitly expressed.

In your example, yes, you’d like never to pay taxes, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to abolish taxes, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?

You are being too rational about this – politics isn’t rational. As I said – the ****-up is Cameron’s, for having it in the first place, and May’s for triggering A50 so quickly. Those two things are the root cause of this. Not any kind of ‘herd’ mentality.

If you were an MP and you didn’t back Brexit in a leave constituency, then you’d lose your seat to someone who did. Any party whipping against Brexit would lose seats to one that did. The cat was out of the bag as soon as the result was announced. MPs cannot put it back, not without some very clever manoeuvring. And cleverness is in short supply.

You are supposed to elect someone who you will best do the job of representing you and running the country.

Yes.. UNLESS there’s a plebiscite based on popular sentiment – then the whole system blows up. As I said – they’re boxed in.

Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they’re not to play with the chainsaws?

See how well that goes down at the next election, go on.

Yes.. UNLESS there’s a plebiscite based on popular sentiment – then the whole system blows up. As I said – they’re boxed in.

Careful. You’re one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.

So JC Junckers has just said they’ve made no progress and that a ‘No Deal’ Brexit looks increasingly likely

What a surprise! Who’d have think it eh?

She could have saved the taxpayer the plane fare

The only question is how many Tory’s this will provoke to jump ship as No Deal looks like an increasing certainty, given that she absolutely refuses to face up to the ERG headbangers and tell them they can’t have their unicorns BECAUSE UNICORNS AREN’T ****ING REAL!!!!

I just can’t see any other outcome now than Rees Mogg and his lunatic mates gleefully hurling us all over the cliff edge

Somebody please ****ing beam me up?!!!

If you were an MP and you didn’t back Brexit in a leave constituency, then you’d lose your seat to someone who did.

Actually, a basic knowledge of the FPTP system tells us that’s not true at all.

Referendum –
Leave 57%
Remain 43%

Election –
Remain party get 43% of the vote
Brexit party get 38% of the vote
Brexit NOW party get 12% of the vote
Brexit!!!!!!11!11!1!ONE! party get 7% of the vote

Careful. You’re one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.

Nazi sympathiser or useful fool it all leads to the same result, no point claiming to be a socialist or even a centrist if every line drawn in the middle ground has to be surrendered and redrawn further to the right to appease the far right agenda. It will never stop without making a stand and resisting the madness.

With you desire to acquiesce to the far right, in 10 years time the policies of Farage and jrc will be the middle ground. They will never give up until we return to a medieval feudal system, and they will still want to go further right then.

Actually, a basic knowledge of the FPTP system tells us that’s not true at all.

I know how it works. I just disagree.

Careful. You’re one step away from being called a nazi sympathiser.

Just to be clear, I am a hardcore remainer, and would love nothing more than A50 to go in the bin immediately. What I am trying to explain to you is why that can’t happen now, and it’s not necessarily the fault of the MPs. Simply slinging mud at them for not doing what you (and I) want does not help anyone.

It will never stop without making a stand and resisting the madness.

Absolutely, but MPs can’t do that now, after the ref – society has to.

A50 to go in the bin immediately. What I am trying to explain to you is why that can’t happen now

Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”

Once again we get to scapegoat the EU, while buying time to work out how best to leave/regain our collective sanity…

Is no-one going to act like a grown up and tell the kids they’re not to play with the chainsaws?

It’s OK. Now we are outside of the clutch of EU regulations, it’s British chainsaws for all. It was all them forriners fault for not letting you play. I’ve personally seen to it that you can now play.

Remember, UKIP polled 14% of the vote. Whilst I can’t stand their policies, or people, not gaining a single MP on 14% of the vote leaves a nasty taste.

And therein lies the problem with our electoral system that got us into the whole referendum/Brexit mess. FPTP and splitting teh tory vote.

I know how it works. I just disagree.

Even though I’ve shown exactly how it works? With my working and everything.

Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”

Id like to think this would happen if a deal can’t get through parliment. But Mays going to hang everything on one final my deal or no deal vote. Some remainers will hope if her deal fails, as above she’ll bin A50 rather than go no deal. It’s a dangerous gamble which I don’t think will pay of. May’s totally convinced brexit has to be delivered without freedom of movement (will of the people). Unless enough MP’s realise that were going no deal March 30th.

Even though I’ve shown exactly how it works? With my working and everything.

I’m quite aware of the principle expressed in your working – but your situation is hypothetical, I do not necessarily think the real situation is going to be like that. Nor do the politicians, apparently.

Just to be clear, I am a hardcore remainer, and would love nothing more than A50 to go in the bin immediately

Doesn’t really matter, I said exactly the same a few pages back and they still called me a far right sympathiser.

With you desire to acquiesce to the far right

You see?

Honestly, has the anti-brexit movement really got to the point where anyone who disagrees with them on any matter is a far right sympathiser? Get a grip on yourselves.

But Mays going to hang everything on one final my deal or no deal vote.

But, as I understand it, whatever she proposes can be ammended, no? So I would expect there to be some amendments to come for both 2ref and revocation. Whether or not they succeed is anyone’s guess.

Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”

But… who is going to actually “say” this? May? She wants Brexit. Parliament? They need a) the opportunity to vote and b) the majority to vote in a suitable . way. I don’t see these things happening. Hence – likely No Deal.

Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”

But that doesn’t give any improvement to anyone (individual or business) who is trying to do medium or long term planning.  Rather than having a threshold in a few weeks, there’s uncertainty way beyond that.   Result is that more decisions are deferred or go in favour of options where there is certainty so we see stagnation or loss to the UK.  That could be someone not buying a new TV/fridge/car/house because they want to see how things pan out or it could be a global corporation deciding where to invest to meet its demands for the next 20 years.

But then even with a full retraction, anyone doing due diligence would wait until at least an election down the road to see how much backlash their is from remaining and whether we just rebound into a leave scenario again.

Why not? Is’s easy enough to say “due to the intransiance of the EU we’re cancelling A50, while we investigate all other brexit options, before…blahblahblah”

We have two main parties with not much to choose between them, both of whom depend on large numbers of leave voters. If one of them says ‘we want to cancel A50’ the other one will gain those votes and defeat them in the next five or more elections. I would guess that remain voters would be less likely to switch sides than leavers, being more politically aware. I for example am not sure I could ever vote Tory, regardless of Brexit.

If on the other hand a second referendum is proposed, the campaign groups can do the campaigning, and either party can be seen to be respecting the result if remain wins.

If A50 is revoked or there’s a second ref which comes out remain, there won’t be another ref. No-one’s going to want to go through this again except the nutters. And there aren’t enough of them.

Well – I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit but this is actually part of the problem. It’s not really defined what an MP’s job actually is

Mate, we’ve been shooting the breeze on here for years. I’m well aware that removing the fence-post ends from the crack of your arse is going to require extensive surgery. (-: You did just assert what an MPs job “literally” is not half a dozen posts previously though, did you not?

In your example, yes, you’d like never to pay taxes, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to abolish taxes, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?

You’d like to leave the EU, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to leave the EU, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?

We live in very strange times. It’s a mistake to underestimate the government’s ability to make really stupid decisions if they think it’s in their (not our) interests.

We have two main parties with not much to choose between them, both of whom depend on large numbers of leave voters. If one of them says ‘we want to cancel A50’ the other one will gain those votes and defeat them in the next five or more elections.

What if they both said it? What happens then?

You’d like to leave the EU, but the government knows that’s not possible so they don’t offer you a referendum on it. If they did, and the electorate voted to leave the EU, they’d have a hard time not doing it. Otherwise, why have a referendum in the first place?

And that’s exactly why it’s Cameron’s **** up.

What if they both said it? What happens then?

They won’t, because whichever one does it first the other will immediately not have to, to hoover up a shit ton of votes. They would have to co-operate with each other. And it seems Corbs and May are far too intransigent for that. But, you never know…

They won’t, because whichever one does it first the other will immediately not have to, to hoover up a shit ton of votes.

I haven’t seen the opposition doing much opposing of late. I appreciate it’s about as likely as me growing a second willy, but if Corbyn and May put on a united front and announced it together…? As I said, we live in very strange times.

(Boo, ninja edit there…!)

What i really hate is the fact that it wasn’t a clear cut vote, basically it was 52/48, so so a bloody close run thing on a referendum that was not actually legally binding.

You then in the coming months have it come out of the woodwork, the efforts and funding of “Leave.eu” and Cambridge Analytica and there clear non-legal influencing of that vote, why hasn’t there been a Government sanctioned investigation of their influence and how that was allowed to happen?

It seems to be 52% voted Leave in a non legally binding referendum heavily influenced by non-legal actions, but hey-ho lets crack on and destroy the country to save some face…

Or do i read that wrong?

If on the other hand a second referendum is proposed, the campaign groups can do the campaigning, and either party can be seen to be respecting the result if remain wins.

Yes, which is why we would be having a 2nd referendum by now if we had 2 parties that had a clue. Doesn’t remove the obvious risk of the Leave vote winning again though but you haven’t lost anything if that happens.

It seems to be 52% voted Leave in a non legally binding referendum heavily influenced by non-legal actions, but hey-ho lets crack on and destroy the country to save some face…

I think the legal term is “it stinks”. A bit like a turd eh?

The reason we haven’t had one yet is that Brexiters see it as tantamount to revocation, because they think they might not win – so the same effect applies.

Which is moronic, if you think about it, but that’s democracy for you.

What I’ve never understood is why the Conservative Party at the top made a decision in 2016 to own Brexit, to become the Brexit party. [Brexit] should have been a cross-party exercise, a cross-party committee, maybe the liaison committee. But for some reason, somebody somewhere thought embracing this turd was gonna be a political bounty

No argument with that.

Without a 2nd ref. there’s still an opportunity for the grown ups (anyone seen one?) to pull A50. With one there’s a risk that the same dirty tricks of divide and conquer will be played out on social media and Leave will scrape another “victory”.

At least I’m hoping beyond hope that that’s the reason that this has still not been put to a 2nd vote.