Richmond By Election

[JP]

What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......

Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.

[Aruntraveller]

Surely it is the swing to the Lib dems that is of more significance rather than the majority in this case?

(btw I'm not a Lib Dem supporter but I'm failing to see why you posted this rather sour sounding post )

[ProfessorDavey]

What do you reckon. Should the people of Richmond who did not vote for the Lib Dem candidate start a campaign to overturn the result or stop Sarah Olney taking her seat.......

Against a majority of 3.78% for Brexit she is happy to take her majority of 4.53% as a massive vote of confidence.

There will be an opportunity for the electors of Richmond to kick her out in a democratic vote in just over 3 years (at the most) if they don't like what she has done compared to what she campaigned for.

Is there the same opportunity for brexit? Well only if we are given a second referendum on the actual brexit deal.

[JP]

Sour sounding?

I just find the rhetoric of politicians more irritating than I used to, plus she will vote against triggering Article 50 for starting Brexit. Oh no, oh dear no respect for the people who have spoken, unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sour sounding?

I just find the rhetoric of politicians more irritating than I used to, plus she will vote against triggering Article 50 for starting Brexit. Oh no, oh dear no respect for the people who have spoken, unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.

She has a democratic mandate to vote against Article 50 - she has been voted in by the electorate in Richmond more recently than the referendum on a platform of opposing brexit. And by the way the people of her constituency themselves voted in favour of remaining. I struggle to see how her voting against triggering article 50 fails to respect the people - quite the reverse, if she didn't vote against article 50 she wouldn't be respecting the people who elected here yesterday or the views of her constituents in the referendum.

Stop being so anti-democtratic. And also recognise that this by election is a significant blow to May and the three brexiters. It will markedly bolster those that take the sensible view that parliament must have a significant say on the process and the deal and that the government must outline its main objectives for a deal - 'having your cake and eat it' handwritten on a piece of paper by an aide doesn't constitute a strategy.

[ProfessorDavey]

unless it is the result of the by-election then that's fine, you need to respect that one.

A Parliamentary by-election is a binding vote - whoever wins becomes the MP - the by-election vote isn't to provide advice to another body who take a decision.

That is entirely different to the advisory referendum in June, the purpose of which was to provide a view of the public's position on a matter which was then for Parliament to decide how to proceed. Parliament could have made the EU referendum vote binding, as they have done in other referendums, they didn't. Those who prior to the referendum kept going on about the sovereignty of the UK parliament seem to have completely forgotten that now.

[JP]

What about the people who did not vote for her, a sizeable number I might add as her majority was not great.

These people clearly do not support her stance on not voting for not triggering article 50 - do they not count?

[JP]

Maybe I should have called this the irony thread.

[ProfessorDavey]

What about the people who did not vote for her, a sizeable number I might add as her majority was not great.

These people clearly do not support her stance on not voting for not triggering article 50 - do they not count?

What about the 48% of voters who didn't vote for brexit - indeed the 63% of the electorate who didn't vote for brexit - do they not count. Apperently according to the shrill brexiters they should simply shut up and are all remoaners.

[JP]

Oh dear, I'm dying here.

Just to refresh, I voted remain but I grew up learning that we cannot all have out own way and I respect the leave vote. Under those circumstances I will leave it to the elected government to do the best they can to facilitate that.

Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to refresh, I voted remain but I grew up learning that we cannot all have out own way and I respect the leave vote. Under those circumstances I will leave it to the elected government to do the best they can to facilitate that.

Then I trust that you respect that you voted in an advisory referendum (even though parliament could just as easily have made it binding) and that the elected Government and Parliament should listen to that advise but are under no obligation whatsoever to 'facilitate' brexit, as you put it. You either respect the process or you don't - and if you do you must respect the advisory nature of the referendum.

And besides, in what way would it be disrespectful for Parliament to decide that once there is an actual deal (rather than a completely hypothetical one in 2016) then that should be put to the electorate to ensure that the actual deal has a mandate and a mandate at the point when it is likely to be enacted, which will be years after the 2016 ballot.

There is absolutely nothing about that process that disrespects the electorate or democracy, quite the reverse. It respects the 2016 vote on the basis of the government negotiating an actual brexit deal. It respects the advisory nature of the vote in that it doesn't force parliament into a position (which is inconsistent with an advisory referendum) and it ensures that there is the most robust democratic process (note democracy is a process not a single event) in that if we leave there will be a clear mandate for the actual deal to leave at the time of leaving.

[Gordon]

Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.

I hope the opportunity to re-visit this arises via legal and democratic means, since it seems increasingly apparent that the reality is somewhat different from the sloganeering of the pro-Brexit advocates. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Fallon and Olney want to overturn the leave vote and it's not on.

If it is a binding referendum then you are right, it would not be acceptable for parliament and democratically elected MPs to enact the result of the vote.

If it is an advisory referendum it is for parliament and democratically elected MPs to decide whether, or not, to enact the result of the vote having taken note of the advice provided by the electorate in that referendum. Note my emphasis - if there is not option for parliament and democratically elected MPs to decide not to enact then it becomes a binding referendum. It is not acceptable to turn an advisory referendum into a binding one when parliament specifically decided that the referendum should be advisory.

By the way if there is a second vote, on the actual agreed brexit deal that takes place at the time when brexit would actually happen, so could be enacted straight away, then I see no reason why that second ballot shouldn't be binding.

[JP]

And how much shit would hit the fan if we don't leave.

[wigginhall]

I thought that Olney campaigned against hard Brexit, not against Brexit.   Certainly, in her victory speech that is what she said.

Quote: "The people of Richmond Park and North Kingston have sent a shockwave through this Conservative Brexit government, and our message is clear - we do not want a hard Brexit."

That seems fairly clear, and nobody can say it's undemocratic, since the referendum didn't specify hard or soft.

It's difficult to say what it means,  since it's obviously a strong Remain area.  I suppose it might make May think twice about an election.

[JP]

Sarah Olney also said she would vote against triggering Article 50

[wigginhall]

And she won.  Get over it.

[JP]

I assume when Sturgeon gets her 50.01 majority in indyref(x) the people will get another vote on whether to accept the negotiated split.

[ProfessorDavey]

And how much shit would hit the fan if we don't leave.

About the same as would happen if we left with a hard brexit without a second referendum (as hard brexit wasn't on the ballot paper in 2016).

And it depends on the circumstance. If we didn't leave because in (lets say) 2020 when negotiations are completed the British people voted in a second referendum to stay because they preferred staying to the actual brexit deal on offer, then no shit will hit the fan.

[JP]

And she won.  Get over it.

I don't think you quite get it. I don't give a proverbial, I'm just enjoying myself.

[ProfessorDavey]

I assume when Sturgeon gets her 50.01 majority in indyref(x) the people will get another vote on whether to accept the negotiated split.

That's what I think should happen and that is a consistent view - I was making it on here at the time of the IndyRef.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think you quite get it. I don't give a proverbial,

Oh I think you do, or why else would you have started a thread on it.

[wigginhall]

A second vote would only happen if the polls swing towards Remain, and significantly.   It might happen, or it might not.   I don't think this by-election really indicates much, as Richmond is a strong Remain area.   It might make the Tories a bit nervous about an election.   But I doubt if it will cause a swing against Brexit, that might happen because of the balls-up by the government, or obvious negative aspects of Brexit, or something unforeseen.

[JP]

No Prof, I really don't.

it is a good wind up though.

[wigginhall]

Karma for Goldsmith.  Hey, Sriram is right.