Change UK (or whatever they're called this week) support now at 0%- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...y-a9064186.html

 

“I don’t think I’m being over-optimistic. We have five MPs, but literally every vote counts now and we are now very strong, because the five are as one.”

 

The schadenfreude is strong with this one.

The Independent Group For Changing Names have announced that they will be disbanding.

What a shame that all zero of their elected representatives will have to find another party...

Well that was well worth dividing the remain supporters more.

 

They got the change they wanted....

Edited December 19, 20195 yr by ChristmaSteve201

Their greatest moment remains voting AGAINST Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal in indicative votes back in April meaning that it lost by 3, and thus Johnson and the inevitable No-Deal Brexit in late 2020. Well done guys.

Why did they do that when the support this policy? Was it because it wasn't full remain which the undemocratically wanted?

Why did they do that when the support this policy? Was it because it wasn't full remain which the undemocratically wanted?

Wanting something is not undemocratic.

It is if they would have undone the vote of 2016 if tHey gained enough support to take power.

It's a shame that they're been wound up. Yes, they were terrible in so many ways, and really did nothing to differentiate themselves from other parties or make themselves exciting to voting, but as someone who wants more parties not less, it would have been nice if they blossomed into something that at the very least tread water for a few years. Although of course as we all know FPTP naturally leads to a 2-party system, so it's not going to happen in the next 5 years at least.

At least Labour were able to get rid of Mike Gapes.

It is if they would have undone the vote of 2016 if tHey gained enough support to take power.

Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country. Sadly, a lot of MPs have chosen to ignore that part of their code of conduct.

Their greatest moment remains voting AGAINST Ken Clarke's Customs Union proposal in indicative votes back in April meaning that it lost by 3, and thus Johnson and the inevitable No-Deal Brexit in late 2020. Well done guys.

 

 

It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.

Edited December 19, 20195 yr by Crazy Chris-tmas

Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country. Sadly, a lot of MPs have chosen to ignore that part of their code of conduct.

 

That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.

It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.

 

Would they under any circumstances say the opposite? It's bluster.

 

That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.

 

Where 52% of the voters voted for parties backing another referendum... Besides, it's ludicrous to assign a political stance as undemocratic. The worst deceit that's been pulled over the last few years is that losing sides should not have a voice.

 

That said, because people are now starting to believe the lie of 'undoing democracy' from MPs acting for what they believe is the country's best interests, them not backing the vote is just one of many ways in which they and other opposition MPs screwed up the events of this year.

I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'. Otherwise they'd never have held it.

I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'.

 

I view the referendum itself as extremely disingenuous and believe it never should have been run. I certainly don't think it should be binding MPs. Though for the future it's a technicality under this government, but any MPs that wish to do so should be able to express a pro-remain stance to represent the remain side, now, according to polls, a larger group than the leave side. In the context of 2019, MPs voting against it were right to do so, they were voting against the 'how', not necessarily the concept, but Johnson & co were able to sell that as a betrayal and they should have been more wary of that.

 

My feelings towards it are a lot more complicated than 'it was advisory so ignore it'.

What a shame that all zero of their elected representatives will have to find another party...

 

:P

 

Oh dear. An advisory referendum does not override MPs' obligation to vote for what they believe to be in the interests of the country.

 

Nor does it stop the people overriding *that*, and sending them their P45's...

That argument was lost last Friday unfort SH.

It wasn’t. The code of conduct remains the same.

It won't be a no deal in Dec 2020 though. Several ministers have said on TV today that it's perfectly possible to get all trade deals done and dusted before then.

Technically, that’s true. However, it is only likely if one side grants the other more or less everything they ask for. There is no chance of the EU or the USA doing that.

I really think it's time to let go of this 'it was an advisory referendum!' argument. It's always been extremely disingenuous. Might be technically true but that is absolutely not the way it was presented, it was always 'we will implement what you vote for'. Otherwise they'd never have held it.

If it was meant to be binding, there would have been a threshold to be reached and, possibly, explicit provision for a vote on the deal. If there was no such provision, the Leave side would’ve been under more pressure to have something vaguely resembling a plan. There would definitely have been provision for the result being overturned if the winning side broke the law.