Brexit Vote in Parliament

[JustLetOneOff]

If there has to be a vote in Parliament on Brexit, will it be a secret vote or an open vote?

[Slarti]

A useful resource is https://www.mysociety.org/wehelpyou/find-out-how-your-mp-voted/

Cheers

[WessexMario]

it could make for interesting ballot mathematics, as the parliamentary votes will be by MPS representing each constituency, the results may be very different to the referendum's UK wide one man one vote result.
I'm sure there will be many MPs who will be voting with an eye on the security of their seat which would presumably be swayed by the constituency results of the referendum.

[seekingbalance]

I suspect few MPs would vote against the referendum result.

I assume the point at issue here is more about MPs having an input on what May and the three stooges (Davies, Fox and Boris) get up to and reminding them that a 2% majority on a single question without any information on the actual reasons people voted to leave does not mean they should just throw everything away in order to curb immigration!

SB

[JustLetOneOff]

it could make for interesting ballot mathematics, as the parliamentary votes will be by MPS representing each constituency, the results may be very different to the referendum's UK wide one man one vote result.
I'm sure there will be many MPs who will be voting with an eye on the security of their seat which would presumably be swayed by the constituency results of the referendum.

That's a very good point. What does the referendum result look like on a constituency basis? How many constituencies voted leave v remain? DAK?

[DaveE101]

That's a very good point. What does the referendum result look like on a constituency basis? How many constituencies voted leave v remain? DAK?

Hi

From a couple of estimates it would appear leave would get a significant majority with 421 seats.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisapplegate/why-a-pro-eu-party-could-be-screwed-in-the-next-election?utm_term=.dlEOXkrg19#.sprjn65zko

DaveE

[kodokan]

it could make for interesting ballot mathematics, as the parliamentary votes will be by MPS representing each constituency, the results may be very different to the referendum's UK wide one man one vote result.
I'm sure there will be many MPs who will be voting with an eye on the security of their seat which would presumably be swayed by the constituency results of the referendum.

This raises interesting questions - do/ should MPs vote in line with their honest belief in what they think the majority of their electorate would want, or do they vote based on what they think is 'best' for their constituents? Do MPs have a responsibility towards their future constituents, some of whom are currently children or perhaps not even born? It's analogous to voting on multi-generational issues like pensions.

[kodokan]

Whose to say that both the majority preference and what's best for the future aren't one and the same?

Control of own currency/monetary policy, borders and laws/rules in a small independent island adjacent to a large single market is perhaps a better future than being a small northerly island within the EU. With border controls things like health care provision, pensions ...etc. can be collectively funded/provided. As part of a large entity with free movement such above average social care/benefits becomes a migration magnet, as does being the second most common second language (English) ... resulting in unsustainability (privatisation/self funding and the extreme differences between the haves and have-nots that induces).

Fair points, although I think the ship has sailed on the notion of nation states being able to freely govern themselves, separate to the troubles of the wider world. Multinational companies, where the increasing power, money and influence seem to lie, are indifferent to the parochial concerns of small countries attempting to be isolationist.

No, I was more musing on how complicated it must be for MPs to make these sort of decisions with impact over many decades, rather than the usual short-term ones that can be changed the following Parliament. For some, they'll have a neat alignment of their personal beliefs/ what they feel is best for the country, with the clear referendum from their constituents. More personally challenging in these big issues when those things don't match up.

[TahiPanas]

I suspect few MPs would vote against the referendum result.

I assume the point at issue here is more about MPs having an input on what May and the three stooges (Davies, Fox and Boris) get up to and reminding them that a 2% majority on a single question without any information on the actual reasons people voted to leave does not mean they should just throw everything away in order to curb immigration!

SB

A very nice summary I think. I would have rec'd it if it was possible.

Irrespective of individual views, May's strategy, whatever it is, seems to lack any empathy with the disappointed losers, adding to the very sour division in the country. She doesn't seem to know how to handle "the others" and at least appear to be a leader of everyone. As Janan Ganesh says in the FT today, she seems to be still a tenacious home secretary. He compares May's approach unfavourably with Harold McMillan's deft "Winds of Change" de-escalation of the decolonization controversy. I suspect, but don't know, that she might be a little secretive by nature. Few would argue against her being understandably scared of making gaffes when the issues are so ill-defined. However, the whole business of secrecy seems misplaced to me.

Keeping your cards close to your chest in these circumstances seems to have no purpose. It's not poker where cards are dealt out randomly and no one knows what you've got. In this case, everyone knows what each side "holds in their hand". It's not a secret and we don't appear to hold a lot of aces, wishful thinking apart. Secrecy will be blown, in any case, the minute negotiations start with 27 other countries. I don't get it.

[Wizard]

I found the media coverage of the decision by the court somewhat disingenuous. All the judges said was that the law says Article 50 cannot be invoked without a parliamentary vote. They did not say parliament has a right to know or debate the government's negotiating position, that is something that many MPs want, but it is not what the court said needed to happen.

If I were May I would be tempted to table a very simple parliamentary vote simply saying that recognising the advisory referendum the government is empowered to take the actions necessary to commence the process of the U.K. Exiting the EU. Then see which MPs were willing to vote against the referendum result.

Terry.

[Wizard]

Just seen what would be an interesting twist if it came to pass. It seems that the Scottish govt. is trying to expand the case before the Supreme Court to include consideration as to whether there also needs to be a vote in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP no longer has an absolute majority, but if a vote was needed in Holyrood I expect that would be against Article 50 being invoked. Substantial horse trading would the follow. However, I do not know the basis of the claim that such a vote is required.

Terry.

[melonfool]

It seems that the Scottish govt. is trying to expand the case before the Supreme Court to include consideration as to whether there also needs to be a vote in the Scottish Parliament.

Terry.

NI had a case and it went the other way to the English one, though it was on a slightly different legal question.

Mel

[Slarti]

it could make for interesting ballot mathematics, as the parliamentary votes will be by MPS representing each constituency, the results may be very different to the referendum's UK wide one man one vote result.
I'm sure there will be many MPs who will be voting with an eye on the security of their seat which would presumably be swayed by the constituency results of the referendum.

This raises interesting questions - do/ should MPs vote in line with their honest belief in what they think the majority of their electorate would want, or do they vote based on what they think is 'best' for their constituents? Do MPs have a responsibility towards their future constituents, some of whom are currently children or perhaps not even born? It's analogous to voting on multi-generational issues like pensions.

Do and should are 2 very different things, when it comes down to MPs voting.

Plus you have to consider past cases, like capital punishment, where it appeared that the electorate would have liked to have it, but nether the Commons or the Lords support this position.

Therefore it is not impossible to foresee a situation where MPs and Lords do not pass an Article 50 vote. The MPs may later lose their seats, but some would consider that to be worth the price. Possibly less now that a few decades ago.

[hermit100]

This raises interesting questions - do/ should MPs vote in line with their honest belief in what they think the majority of their electorate would want, or do they vote based on what they think is 'best' for their constituents? Do MPs have a responsibility towards their future constituents, some of whom are currently children or perhaps not even born? It's analogous to voting on multi-generational issues like pensions.

Depends on the MP.They *should*, in my view, represent their constituents, but not all of them will. My constituency, for example, voted by a reasonably large majority for Remain, but my MP, who voted Leave, would doubtless do so again (if that is what it amounts to) as he is particularly intransigent and always votes according to his own entrenched views (or the party line). I'm sure he isn't alone in this so guessing how such a vote might go by looking at the referendum result on a constituency basis is probably not going to be a predictor.

[melonfool]

They *should*, in my view, represent their constituents,

According to Ms May, they are representatives but not delegates, so they don't have to take the view of their constituency majority to Parliament.

Mel

[gryffron]

What does the referendum result look like on a constituency basis? How many constituencies voted leave v remain? DAK?

No, nobody knows, because the referendum was not counted on a constituency basis.

But since brexit was most heavily supported in small, Northern inner city constituencies, whose voters are over-represented in parliament, it seems likely to me that the constituency majority in favour of brexit would be slightly larger than the overall count.

gryff

[johnhemming]

Not all votes in parliament are recorded in the lobby, but this has to be statute which will be recorded in the lobby. Some votes in parliament are secret ballots. Others are by acclamation. All statutes are recorded divisions.

[OwnWorst]

This raises interesting questions - do/ should MPs vote in line with their honest belief in what they think the majority of their electorate would want, or do they vote based on what they think is 'best' for their constituents?

Don't they just follow the party line for the most part? It would be funny if May made it into a three-line whip issue

[redsturgeon]

As I wrote on another board

I find it interesting that when only 158 of our chosen representatives actually favour Brexit but the plebiscite narrowly wish to leave the EU, remainers are told to "suck it up" and shut up.

However when the plebiscite in the US narrowly decide they would like Clinton as their new president they are told to "suck it up" "shut up" and support Trump as their new leader.

John