So the Sovereignty defending Brexiteers. want to prevent erm, Sovereignty..

Hahahaha

 

MPs aren't against the people, we elected them to make reasoned decisions for us. Any MP worth their salt should do what they think is right for the people regardless of how their constituents think.

 

This link below is a fantastic thread containing all 72 laws that were imposed on us by the EU that our government voted against apparently.
Just 72 of 34,105 laws passed by the way.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1087360379691380736.html

 

Rarely have I ever seen patronising and condescension be an effective conversion technique.

The Theresa May withdrawal agreement terms committed us to giving the EU everything they ever wanted in exchange for very little, deepened cooperation and alignment in many areas, and bound us to the EU indefinitely with no agreed or unilateral right to subsequently assert our independence. That’s not Brexit, was never Brexit, and would only be suggested as Brexit by someone who has never read it or was being deliberately disingenuous.

 

What about all the opposition MP's who voted against May's deal? They're the one's now crying cos Boris is prepared to try and leave without a deal (which he won't get through parliament).

 

Any MP aspiring to re-election should be bound by what they have promised and mindful of what their constituents expect.

 

That's far too sensible a comment!

 

"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy.

— Winston Churchill, Duties of a Member of Parliament (c.1954-1955)"

"Theoretically, contemporary MPs are considered to have two duties, or three if they belong to a political party. Their primary responsibility is to act in the national interest. They must also act in the interests of their constituents where this does not override their primary responsibility. Finally, if they belong to a political party, they may act in the interests of that party, subordinate to the other two responsibilities."

It would appear that you are wrong.

wiki link if you want to read it with sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_Parliament_(United_Kingdom)#Responsibilities

 

It's sensible to look after your own career at the expense of the National Good? Aye, ok.

 

In other words, it was a waste of time having a referendum as MPs can do as they see fit and not respect the majority of the voters.

 

A referendum is non-binding, that was clear from the very start. Well, clear to us with any kind of sense. So yes, MPs can do as they see fit, that's why we elect them. It's not rocket science.

 

Well, they can, unless outnumbered, and provided they have no motivation for self-preservation

 

You can doff your cap all you like, but I am a master and not the servant

 

No, you were manipulated into thinking this shitstorm was a good idea. Years of austerity will do that to weak minded people.

 

So what was the point in spending millions in having one. Money that could have gone into the NHS.... Rocket science!!!!

 

You'll have to ask David Cameron about that.

 

Manipulated by whom? I can make my own decisions without listening to other people.

 

It's quite amazing how much theoretical money could have gone into the NHS.
Ask Johnson.

 

Sure you can.

 

72 too many