Labour mps voting with may to appease constituents have got it all wrong | thearticle

The top line argument advanced by Labour MPs prepared to vote for Mrs May’s deal is that it is what their constituents want. It is the easiest of claims to make, especially if sitting on a

fat majority in a safe seat under Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system. But is it true? First, it is a denial of every idea of an MP using his or her own judgement to declare this

is what my voters want, and I must obey them. Second, there are plenty of Labour MPs in heartland working class seats who defy the prejudices of their core supporters. If Labour MPs could

only do what their working class voters desired, none would have voted to abolish hanging, allow in millions of Pakistani and Indian immigrants, ban smoking in public places, or legalise

full gay rights, including gay marriage. Third, in the 2015 general election, more than 50 per cent of voters in Bassetlaw and Don Valley, whose MPs have been strident in criticising the

official Labour party approach on handling Brexit, did not vote for John Mann or Caroline Flint. Gloria de Piero, also prominent in the Brexit debate in opposition to Labour party conference

decisions got fewer votes than her Conservative and UKIP opponents combined. All of these MPs are loyal, hard-working and dedicated Labour MPs and have every right to make their case for

their positions on Brexit ideology. They have the right to align more with Theresa May than with Labour’s official policy, as decided by the Labour party conference, the supreme policy

making body for Labour and which Jeremy Corbyn, in the past at least, also pledged to abide by. But that is their decision, not one mandated by constituents. We are in uncharted

constitutional territory. There is a struggle between the democracy of parliament and the democracy of the plebiscite. Each form of democracy has its own legitimacy. At least under

parliamentary democracy it is accepted that people can change their mind and a new election can be called. Under the democracy of the Brexit plebiscite, it is argued it was a vote in

perpetuity and voters have no right to a second opinion. We now see Mrs May has chosen only to deliver a Brexit that appeases the hard end of her Europhobe MPs. That was not on offer in

2015, 2016 or 2017 when people voted. And if voters are allowed to change their mind on the 2015 election result by being given a new election in 2017 – and possibly even one this year – it

is perverse in the extreme that most Tory and some Labour MPs deny them a vote on the final Brexit deal which was not known or on offer three years ago, or even in the 2017 General Election.