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]