Dung. Not really no. The electronic ctorate in the last general election voted for candidates who were predominantly pro-EU. The same electorate voted against continued association with the EU. The referendum did not confer on parliament the wherefores, whentos and howtos. Thus we have a logjam of conflicting instructions from the electorate. This is also coupled with a disenchanted proportion of the same electorate who now don't believe they are going to get what they thought they were voting for.

Tell.me Dung where is the mandate to do anything, other than at some future time (unspecified) to get the UK out of the EU (by some unspecified route and with some, also unspecified conditions)? There is no electoral mandate, and the referendum should not compel MPs to change their previously held convictions about the EU.

What do you suggest we do about this impasse?

11,3 million registered voters voted tory in the 2015 election.
17 million registered voters voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum.

I looks to me the mandate is to get the hell out of the EU

rhoda.
Hammond is rubbish, full stop.
May has featured in some good documentaries before and since leaving Top Gear. He could be another James Burke.
Clarkson has yet to prove he can repeat his success, but I wouldn't bet against him. Some of his humour on Top Gear was truly unbelievable (driving and tipping a Robin Reliant was classic, as was his comment about driving from Berlin to Warsaw with one tank).
I think we can all agree that Chris was awful.

Martyn. Have you perhaps forgotten the electorate that voted Labour, LibDem and SNP and whose MPs were even more committed to remain? Also a majority of those voting Conservative voted for Remain candidates. That's why you will notice I write about parliament and not government.

Alan Kendall, why don't you tell me how we can reverse the damage that successive Governments have got us into, because NONE of them dared to ask the electorate?

Would you rather the Referendum was reversed, so that we can carry on as before? No UK Party (apart from UKIP) ever offered a solution. People who were politically opposed to UKIP still supported UKIP's raison d'etre.

I have never opposed Freedom of Movement around the EU.

As EM is doing now, evaluating where his personal interests will best be served, so people have moved around the EU for the same purpose. It seems that the EU wanted people to shop around for the best benefits too. People from outside the EU have been shopping around for the best benefits, and that has pushed many UK Citizens to the point where they have had enough.

What is your explanation for why so many migrants get to France, and make for the Channel Ports. What is so unappealing about France? Maybe if the UK made itself as unwelcoming as France to 'foreigners'? Where is the EU's unity, if the minority have to carry the can?

EM seems to think that the 'well just because my theories are rubbish, you come up with a better one' approach to Global Warming's failure to happen as predicted, is a reasonable way to debate. I don't think Global Warming theory is supported by evidence. We don't need an alternative theory

The more UK political infighting over the EU, and the more EU cracks that open up, the more I think we are better off by getting out now, and staying out.

Alan
No I haven't forgotten the 75% of the voting population that didn't vote for a Conservative government, and I didn't hear them whingeing when they lost because they accept the result as democracy. Perhaps it would be better to be optimistic about the future and just wait a while to see if armageddon is likely to strike further down the road instead of trying to forecast it before we even start the Brexit negotiations.

golfCharlie. I ask you some questions to which you don't reply to. Instead you ask questions that don't directly pertain to those I originally asked. That's not how debates are meant to proceed.

Martyn. The majority of the electorate voted for an overwhelmingly pro-EU parliament which is now expected to act upon a referendum decision that differs markedly from the opinion in parliament. You are not recognizing the problem.

I accept the referendum decision but I cannot see a solution to the democratic problem we have imposed upon ourselves (or rather that the Tory Party has let ourselves in for).

A pro-EU parliament is merely a bi-product of the 2015 election campaign which has now morphed into the be all and end all of last years election. If a pro or non pro EU parliament was a primary concern for the 2015 electorate the turnout would have been far greater as the recent EU referendum indicates. Basically in 2015 the electorate could not have cared a stuff whether a politician was pro Europe or not.

Martyn
Poll Tax? A Government elected with that as part of the Conservative manifesto for the 1987 General Election.and with a large majority 13,760,935 votes and 42.2% of those who voted had to bow to the will of the people who rebelled against what they regarded as an unfair tax, which they may have voted for. It takes a lot for the British to take to the streets but it does happen, CND, Not In My Name, 2009 G20, Hunt sabotage and Peace Camps for example.

Alan Kendall, 3:16 I will try again then

AK Question Tell me what you think the referendum result empowers the present parliament to do?
gc Answer, it is a recommendation by the people, to the Government to instigate Article 50.

AK Question How should this parliament, one full of politicians who didn't believe we should leave, accomplish this?
gc Answer I have no idea what this Parliament will do. I have no idea what Her Majesty's Government will look like

AK Statement A totally invidious position to be in, and one illustrating the point that referendums and parliamentary democracy do not mix well.
gc Response, who were the idiots who failed to prevent this problem from occurring? Perhaps they should be jailed or financially penalised as a warning to others not to keep making the same dumb mistakes.

Calling a selfish interest group 'Progressive' has failed to impress more than 50% of the population, despite the BBC's best efforts. What are you going to do about it?

Personally, I am not going to panic. I will have to accept the good and bad consequences, in the knowledge it was a majority decision.

golfCharlie. I agree with your answer to Q1, but that's all it empowers, not when or how. I share your inability to answer Q2. However, unless there is another election, you do know the overall composition of the government, it will consist of a majority of pro EU MPs, who somehow will have to administer a leave strategy.

This problem relates to an even more basic one: what do we expect our elected representatives to do. Should they try to represent the views of those who elect them, or do we elect people to use their best judgement? The answer, long debated, has over the years been settled in favour of the second option. MPs should vote on matters on behalf of all constituents not just those who voted them into power, and in some instances MPs may vote in ways that they know are different from the majority position of their electorate. The best example of this is capital punishment. For certain crimes the electorate is strongly for CP (as successive polls demonstrate) yet, since CP was repealed, each parliament has been strongly opposed.

This suggests existing MPs should vote in matters related to Brexit according to their own opinions and not necessarily according to what they think their constituents want. Therein lies the constitutional problem. That's why referendums should be anathema in our form of democracy.

I'm not panicking, I'm simply trying to imagine how our future might unfold.

From the BBC

"Following a 110bn-euro bail-out package for Greece agreed in May 2010 by other eurozone members and the IMF, other heavily-indebted EU member states - notably Ireland, Portugal and Spain - started to come under close scrutiny.

In November 2010, an EU/IMF bail-out package totalling 85bn euros was agreed on for Ireland, and in May 2011 a 78bn-euro bail-out was approved for Portugal. By the end of the summer the indebtedness of Spain, Italy and Cyprus was also becoming a cause for concern."

Why didn't the EU prevent these countries having such massive financial meltdowns? They had to satisfy EU criteria to get into the EURO. This was predicted, but nothing was done. Why should the UK Taxpayer have to suffer the incompetence and greed of other countries AND the EU?

Holidaying and working in Greece up until 10 years ago, one of the comments from highly educated bar staff, was that with the Euro, they felt safer, knowing that the cash they earned was actually worth something, no matter how disastrous the Greek Government was. They were right.

Alan Kendall,

When should Article 50 be activated? The current parliamentary term? The next? When a majority of members think it's time? When hell freezes over?

Parliament has a built-in selection bias: the people in it are not a representative cross-section of the populace. Their representatation of their constituents is always a balancing act/guessing game: what is going to be most popular with my constituents while still compatible with my party and my personal beliefs? Representatives are drawn from a very unrepresentative slice of society and can be a bit out of touch. The result of this referendum may help them recalibrate their views -- personal or party.

But they might do as you seem to suggest and temporise indefinitely, or as EM does and try to correct the erring plebs. I hope not, because that path leads eventually to Caucescu's balcony scene.

Truth is there are plenty of countries outside the EU, and they get along fine. Why should the UK not be one of them?

Time for a little light relief.

Alan Kendall, the people who happily landed us in this mess should not be involved with trying to keep us in it. Now that it is not a political offence to point out flaws with the EU, many more are sure to be discussed in public and in the media.

If we end up with a Prime Minister who wanted to Remain in the EU, her critics within her own Party are going to be quick to challenge her.

How does anyone know what the Opposition will agree to Oppose?

When has Parliament voted on the transfer of more and more power to the EU? The EU has been created out of an abuse of UK Democracy, and I don't know if the UK population was abused any more or less than other countries now within the EU.

I think that if the EU and UK can not reach an agreement on Freedom of Movement, and both sides go for the 'Nuclear' option, there will be sufficient housing in the UK to accommodate all those deported from the EU. The EU may struggle to house all those deported from the UK. The Med is now warm, and more boatloads of refugees will be crossing. They believe that reaching the EU will solve all their problems.

The EU has suppressed dissent, opposing views, obstructed financial scrutiny and ripped people off. Why should anyone bother to rescue it? It has failed itself, by internal greed and arrogance. It has done this by abusing Democratic processes and institutions. Why should Democratic processes and Institutions be further abused to try and rescue it?

golfCharlie. With considerable respect (on other matters), upon the EU you and I differ. You see (or write as if) the EU has no value, whereas I have always held out hope that its bad features could be reformed restoring its promise for the future, the UK cannot achieve this reform from the outside, and it has driven major positive changes. By leaving we may precipitate the collapse of the whole EU and what remains will be unstable and not to our advantage..

The UK has spoken and we are likely to be leaving, but how and with what mandate remains to be seen. Whatever moves are made I suspect they will be hotly contested both in parliament (Commons and Lords) and the courts.

My geopolitical dream now is for the restoration of something like the Hanseatic League with the UK in it and composed of countries rather than city states. Although the latter might also be good. There exists a modern equivalent of which Kings Lynn is a part!

Because we will never agree and because you seem unwilling to discuss the complexities a referendum throws up to parliamentary democracy, lets just agree to differ and leave the subject alone. I enjoy it far more when we disagree on matters of no consequence (flints, moles....) or are in basic agreement (cAGW....).

Alan. "What do we expect are elected representatives to do"

The same as always. Democracy, what little the electorate has, is left at the doors of Westminster, one, two and three line whipping sees to that. The more severe the whip the more the MP is expected to tow the party line and vote as the party requires. Although this process is bordering on breaching parliamentary privilege it limits the MP's opportunity to have an independent vote on what the party see as important issues especially when the Government has a tiny majority. I would guess Brexit is quite an important issue which has been decided by the majority of the electorate therefore the MP's will tow the Party line which will be to negotiate the best deal to branch off from the EU.

Up to now the EU would not be reformed with Juncker and co pulling the strings no-one had enough influence to change direction. With our exit it could give an opportunity for the remaining 27 particularly the eastern side to effect some change to return powers to the individual countries and create serious reforms, who knows, but I don't believe the whole EU will collapse but we will see.

 Alan Kendall 7:31 " .............whereas I have always held out hope that its bad features could be reformed restoring its promise for the future, the UK cannot achieve this reform from the outside"

I had always hoped the EU could be reformed. For a relatively young organisation, it just kept getting more corrupt and remote, and ignored those problems. How many times has it made any attempt to reform itself? It has ignored all its critics, and swept criticism under the plush carpets. It has got Progressively worse.

I do not know what the future holds, but the UK is better off being in some control about building it, and the sooner we start, the better.

The EU has not presented any new policies about the UK and Brexit either. It does not know what will happen next.

In the UK after 'disasters' we have inquests, inquiries etc. The initial purpose is to work out what went wrong, why, and how to prevent something similar happening again. The EU has already decided to blame Farage and UKIP, UK Remainers want to blame Farage and Cameron. How about if the EU and UK Remainers start looking at themselves? The EU and UK Remainers are just trying to shoot the whistleblowers.

Will the EU now learn anything? My guess is no. It hasn't before, simply proclaiming it has overwhelming Democratic report. Self delusion and denial is not a healthy combination.

Martyn, golfCharlie.
I've had my say and to keep responding about my concerns regarding parliamentary democracy and referendums would risk repeating myself (I'm already guilty of that) even more. Time will reveal all.

I wish we could discuss other matters. Perhaps some kind soul might set up a discussion thread about how this great blogsite can be resuscitated. I'm spending more of my time with WUWT. Looking back at the archives I see scores of contributors who are no longer posting here. Perhaps EM was correct the other day when he wrote about only the real diehards being left here.

Dung.
Simply because a freely entered partnership of countries within Europe is something to aspire to.

You, yourself, wish to influence the EU after we start leaving because you want them to suspend their own rules to offer us beneficial economic access and, at the same time, except us from the free movement of people. Cake and eating it?