mikelincs

People still don't accept that the referendum was ADVISORY only, had it been anything different Brexit would have happened by now.

dave_j

Ahh.. Given that this election is all about brexit, if the conservatives win with a majority of one, would you still argue that MPs should obstruct any bill enacting the leave agenda?
And... If the Lib Dems win by a majority of one would you argue that MPs should definitely kill brexit once and for all?
You see, logically they are similar, but how you want MPs to behave is coloured by your personal wishes. This is ok for Joe Public but MPs should realise that they're there to represent constituents and not to think for them.

dbd33

I don't believe I've ever argued that. If the majority was 1 then the appropriate thing to do would be "not much", that's not a mandate for dramatic action such as leaving the EU.

No, on a majority of 1, they, as above, shouldn't do anything dramatic. Perhaps go for a five or ten year membership deal.

I see how you wish to misrepresent my position. Again, governments should not take drastic actions based on tiny margins of support. Breaking up the UK, rekindling a war in UK, putting a border down the Irish Sea, are drastic actions.

Almost Canadian

I would. That way, leaders really would be and their arguments would have to convince a majority.

BristolUK

How is a cabinet formed in such circumstances? How are ministers appointed for various departments?
At least with party organisation a certain level of knowledge or expertise can be developed and spotted.

dave_j

I'm not trying to misrepresent, but I do wonder.
'Tiny margins'. This tempts me to ask what constitutes a 'tiny margin'. For example if you suggest a majority of 10 votes in parliament becomes acceptable, there'll always be those who'll argue that a vote of 9 or 11 becomes a 'tiny margin' especially where 'drastic action' is concerned.
And 'Drastic action'. What constitutes 'drastic action'?
You see the problem with such woolly thinking. No doubt for this reason votes in parliament are settled by simple majorities.
The implication that a leave vote would inevitably lead to the breakup of the UK or rekindling a war etc, is for others to decide. The one doesn't necessarily lead to the other.

dbd33

That it represents the world as it is?

DaveLovesDee

Same way a cabinet is formed now.

I suggest the PM is selected by majority 60%+ vote of elected MPs, subject to already having served at least 10 years as an MP to be able have gained experience of Parliamentary and government procedures, and be required to step down after ten years as PM. Also able to be recalled by Parliament by a 60%+ vote. PM selection would be the first order of business for each new Parliament.

Cabinet Ministers would be other MPs with at least 5 years of MP service, nominated by the the PM and approved by Parliament. Again, subject to recall. If prospective PMs and Ministers can't work with other MPs in Parliament, no-one's going to support any leadership bid, are they?

Ministers don't need to be specialists in their departments, they have the Civil Service for that same as now. What Ministers are for is to direct the CS as the government of the day instructs, and to take the blame when things go wrong. And the absence of party politics in my suggestions mean there'll be more incentive to do the job properly.

There'd be no restrictions on MPs being party members, but the party would have no overt influence on an MPs duties.

mikelincs

Just asking why, out of interest, in the voting panel is the bar for the Tories RED and for Labour BLUE? no the traditional colours for them are they?..

dbd33

It's that creeping Americanisation.

Jingsamichty

I'm afraid that's EXACTLY how the parliamentary system works - you vote for the PERSON who will best represent you. Despite what the parties might have you believe, you do NOT vote for a party. So if, for example, you voted for a Remainer Tory MP, he or she is perfectly entitled to think that you supported his/her views, not necessarily the party views. Otherwise we might all as well vote for monkeys with rosettes.

The problem is that most Brits vote without thinking.

BEVS

Oh yeah. How weird now I've seen that. Mentals.

Former Lancastrian

So those calling for a 2nd referendum would that also be advisory if Remain won?

BEVS

Yes.
It isn't really a win/lose game, or it shouldn't be.

It is about asking the nation their wishes on a topic. However the topic and impacts should be made unemotionally, open, honestly and clear to those eligible to vote in a referendum otherwise how do they really know what they are actually voting about.

My beef was the campaigns and rhetoric. It was a referendum. Actual facts, figures and law should have been made plain.

dbd33

I think it would be less divisive if it were not advisory but had a defined thresholds for being binding: e.g. 70% remain, give up on withdrawal forever. That's not easily framed though. A problem being that "remain" is clear cut while "leave" covers a multitude of sins. Offering specific choices "leave with May deal" "leave on WTA terms" "leave according to the Farage Fantasy" has the problem that few voters will take the time to understand the options and, anyway, they're not easily defined and some are plainly not going to happen (for example, anything written on a bus).