Both major parties have always had a "broad church" membership and MPs with vastly differing views. In that way they can appeal to a greater number of middle ground voters. As it's the middle ground which swing who actually gets into power this matters.

If either party goes to their hard extreme then they would soon fade to the margins. We have seen it with Labour and Corbyn. Now we are seeing it with the Tories and Johnson, although I strongly suspect it not to be permanent in their case. Nor actually for Labour too, or they won't get back in for long. Of course any party can refuse membership on whatever grounds it likes but it does so at a significant cost to it's electability. The most obvious beneficiary are the LibDems.

The plain fact is that MPs are free to vote whichever way they wish. Whether they should and what the consequences might be are completely different questions.

My hope, but not my expectation, is that this will split and eventually destroy both major parties and we can then see a genuine realignment of British politics. Of course those who believe in hard right and hard left politics need a permanent voice but so too do all those who don't and who occupy the moderate middle ground of tolerance and compassion which typifies the average British citizen. This might well result in constant coalition governments but at least we would not see any more coup attempts such as we have witnessed in recent years.

Referendums have no legal standpoint in the British system of Parliamentary democracy.

The one in 2016 was only given any legitimacy by Cameron promising to honour it. PMs cannot commit Parliament! Parliament did then vote to trigger Article 50, in an attempt to force a deal to be concluded. Both of which were, in my opinion, mistakes.

Nevertheless, it is Parliament which is sovereign and as they can change their mind in the light of experience and circumstances they can revoke Article 50 if they no longer believe it is in the country's best interests to proceed. No political decision is set in stone for ever. They are all capable of being revised and overturned.

Referendums have no legal standpoint in the British system of Parliamentary democracy.

The one in 2016 was only given any legitimacy by Cameron promising to honour it. PMs cannot commit Parliament! Parliament did then vote to trigger Article 50, in an attempt to force a deal to be concluded. Both of which were, in my opinion, mistakes.

Nevertheless, it is Parliament which is sovereign and as they can change their mind in the light of experience and circumstances they can revoke Article 50 if they no longer believe it is in the country's best interests to proceed. No political decision is set in stone for ever. They are all capable of being revised and overturned.

Facts are not opinions.

Facts are facts.

I have already given the opinion that most of the over 65s missed out on getting involved in a good war and they now want the under 25s to fight one for them. Stop being snowflakes. Either a financial/trade war or maybe even a real one

It is interesting that was not the opinion of those who actually fought in WW2. Largely they voted Remain

Also note that this is the group that mostly was involved in the first referendum. So clearly they don't think they were lied to.

[Link]

Hrolf and Midlands, stop denying facts. It is really boring. MPs represent all of their constituents, not only the majority that voted for them. They do this to the best of their ability, they don't take direct orders from their constituents.

[Link]

I have already given the opinion that most of the over 65s missed out on getting involved in a good war and they now want the under 25s to fight one for them. Stop being snowflakes. Either a financial/trade war or maybe even a real one

It is interesting that was not the opinion of those who actually fought in WW2. Largely they voted Remain

Also note that this is the group that mostly was involved in the first referendum. So clearly they don't think they were lied to.

[Link]

Hrolf and Midlands, stop denying facts. It is really boring. MPs represent all of their constituents, not only the majority that voted for them. They do this to the best of their ability, they don't take direct orders from their constituents.

[Link]

MPs are representatives that is a fact. How much leeway that allows them is an opinion. Over the last few months I have heard many MPs and constitutional experts disagree on where you draw the line on that point.

Your opinion is on the extreme range that MPs should be free to decide what they think is best for the country regardless of what they electorate thought they were voting for.

The more moderate views I have heard from MPs is that they are free to vote on issues that are not in the party manifesto or where that party has no particular view e.g. matters of personal conscience.

The other exception to the party manifesto is if an MP makes a clear public statement that they will not follow the party line on a key issue during the election. People like Ken Clarke have never hidden their pro EU views and presumably the local voters are happy with this, it certainly should not be a surprise how he votes.

Where I and many on this board disagree with you is when an MP hides their intention until after they are elected. By the 2017 GE I do not think any MP was in any doubt as to the issues regarding Brexit so their personal view should have been clear to the voters. However for some MPs this has not been the case.

Then of course we have the MPs who have switched parties. My own personal view is that this should trigger a by election within 6 months or at the very least give the voters the opportunity for a recall election by petition.

If MPs are allowed to do as they think fit why do we bother with elections. We might as well have a ballot because we can never know how they will vote.

Parliamentary democracy is not "technicalities".

It's the way it has evolved over the centuries and is relied upon because it works.

Johnson is not using "technically legitimate tactics" at all. He is seeking to thwart the will of Parliament and that is an illegitimate act.

It is almost impossible to conceive of any occasion when the military would side with a government against Parliament. Never forget that their Commander in Chief is not the President as in the USA but the Queen, and that this situation has deliberately been constructed to ensure that no government can use military force against the people in the UK.

Referendums have no legal standpoint in the British system of Parliamentary democracy.

The one in 2016 was only given any legitimacy by Cameron promising to honour it. PMs cannot commit Parliament! Parliament did then vote to trigger Article 50, in an attempt to force a deal to be concluded. Both of which were, in my opinion, mistakes.

Nevertheless, it is Parliament which is sovereign and as they can change their mind in the light of experience and circumstances they can revoke Article 50 if they no longer believe it is in the country's best interests to proceed. No political decision is set in stone for ever. They are all capable of being revised and overturned.