I wonder, in view that 3 of 4 countries in the UK want to remain in the Single Market, should Wales run their own second referendum?
I hadn't realised, Trex, that Wales voted to remain but I'll take your word for that. Regardless, I find it interesting that the Westminster joke shop we call parliament has yet to formally vote on the issue while we know that Scotland, N. Ireland & London all voted to remain in the EU last June.
We also know that the tory government has relied on the Unionist vote from N. Ireland on many occasions to support their policies through the Commons. I wonder which way those Irish MPs will vote if May continues with her support for 'Brexit'?
As for Scotland, I think they have made their position pretty clear but they are in danger of being railroaded out of the EU by the Westminster elite. It interests me further that the same Westminster elite complained loudly not so long ago that Scots MPs were allowed to vote on issues that only affected England and Wales and sought to remove that right to vote from them. That, of course, completely ignores the fact that Westminster has for over 300 years dictated policy in Scotland, frequently against the wishes of those people, just because they can.
If, as you have commented, the Welsh have expressed a desire to remain a part of the EU, we can see where democracy patently fails to work for the people. It raises questions such as: What constitutes a majority? What about the disparate sizes of constituencies? How should we deal with whole countries within the UK which choose to vote in a particular way? What status does a referendum of the people have in relation to a parliamentary debate and vote?
There are many other questions which can be framed on that subject but I do wonder about the position of the Houses of Parliament and our elected representatives if there exists any mechanism which permits their authority to be usurped, particularly in something so momentous as the decision to leave or remain a part of the EU.
This whole issue of the EU could be resolved easily by an emergency motion in parliament, discussed and debated by elected representatives and voted for in the lobbies. Then we would know unequivocally what our future is to be.
As things stand, particularly in view of the ability of certain political groups or individuals to organise referenda on matters which may or may not have formed part of an election manifesto, then we could have similar demands for other topics such as the death penalty and any issue that parts of the media decide to be worthy of special importance - re-nationalisation of the rail network, the major utilities, mandatory prison sentences for particular crimes, etc.
Clearly, the referendum result alone cannot be the sole determining factor in the decision about our EU membership but the government is failing its duty by allowing the media to speculate while the country's financial position deteriorates by the day. Some clear signals from Downing St about the progress of the matter would be welcome. Instead, we are left in limbo until such time as Article 50 is invoked and then possibly two further years before we learn what our options are.
The current silence on this issue from the PM and major figures in her party is quite incredible. Let's hear what the view of the full H of C is before we pass the point of no return.
Tom
