MiG_Eater wrote:The entire function of a parliament is to represent the people, and when parliament disagrees with a nationwide vote, it is obvious that it is the electorate's voice that should be listened to.
That’s not the entire function of Parliament at all! The very opposite.
This is the most basic misunderstanding of British politics.
Politicians are not there to “do what we say”.
Politicians, in theory, are supposed to be elected as representatives, not delegates. You misunderstand what “representatives” means
It is the duty, nay obligation, of politicians to act on our behalf and in our best interests. Our best interests are not the same as what we tell them they are in the same way that acting in the best interests of a child is causing them to be upset by not giving in to their demands of sweets and junk food because, upset though they may be, their best interest is not to have rotten teeth or diabetes.
If an entire constituency voted for ever member to, idk, inject heroin into their veins, or paint every inch of the constituency blue, or to spend millions of pounds on a giant chocolate teapot, a politician is not there to say “oh well, that’s the “will of the people”, better get on with it” and comply. Their job is to say “are you guys completely and utterly mad? I don’t care that you all want to do it. It’s an awful idea and will be to all of your detriment.”
This is A-level politics (which I never studied Tbf).
So no, it’s not “the people should take precedence over MPs”. It’s the very opposite.
Tommy your heroin and chocolate tea pots analogies unfortunately, or maybe conveniently, ignores the fact that we have had a general election since the referendum and both the main parties stood on manifestos to "deliver Brexit". I accept that there are many various ways at looking at that typically vague statement, but it cannot be argued that there are a large proportion of MP's representing those two parties that are doing the damnedest to not keep to that pledge.
We send our MP's to parliament based upon their manifestos. If they put into their manifesto that they believe it is best for the country that we all inject heroin and crack open the blue paint and the majority of voters in this country happen to agree with them then it is not unreasonable that the British public should feel entitled that is what they do.
What you are actually describing is the exact metropolitan elitism of "we know better than you simpleton plebs" that has been one of the root causes of this whole fiasco in the first place.
If remain had won and we had a pro-leave parliament saying "I know you voted for me on a mandate we stay in but I believe its best we get out the EU so thats what I'm going to do anyway" I wouldn't mind betting your point of view would be different.
And to be fair to MigEater, talking about having no deal on the table has nothing to do with poker. Unless I missed it there was no mention of poker in his post. Poker is about gambling, having an alternative position and being able to walk away from the table is a fundamental in negotiation. Its never picked up on but it is a position the EU themselves are using - they have offered us a deal. If we don't accept it nobody in the EU parliament is standing up and saying "If the UK do not accept this deal we cannot let them leave, we must go back and offer them something else"
Finally (for now) I did smile at your request to stop using poker analogies and then proceed to use a new one that I hadn't seen mentioned anywhere before about the UK not affording the blind.