If you knew what a filibuster actually was you would know that it wasn't employed in any debate involving Brexit. The electorate were fed up with the whole business and enough were sold on the "Get Brexit done" slogan to produce the result we got. Which was not an endorsement of Brexit at all, but a desire to see the back of it. How manyy regret that now? I suspect a great many of them.

The Labour opposition did not offer a choice. Corbyn refused to back the call for a confirmatory vote, and refused to stand aside for someone who would. Labour held a confused, contradictory position, and it's no wonder at all they failed so badly.

For sure, we would have coalitions if the suggestions I make were adopted, but there would not be wide differences between them. The extremes would remain on the margins, sometimes having to be brought into government, but always with a voice. There would still be parties, but more of them, with more co-operation and less confrontation between them. Coalitions can, and do, work. We just aren't familiar with them.

The electorate have no right to know how their representative is voting! They choose, then they stand back. MPs are not delegates. They are representatives who must be free of all outside influences when making their judgements. I don't see the media being uninvolved in analysing matters, so influencing how we vote. It's how MPs vote that I want to stop being subjected to influence, and we achieve that through privacy. Maybe there can be a 5 or 10 year rule when lists of MPs supporting motions gets published.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Filibuster (verb): “the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislative assembly to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favoured or to force a decision”.
The electorate were certainly fed up with the whole business of Remainer MPs filibustering and kicked them out. If, as you seem to believe, they were Remainers themselves, why did they vote for the only party committed to Brexit.
Of course the Labour party offered a choice, not only on Brexit, but on many other topics. Their left wing manifesto promised many policies that the left on here (and some so called one nation Tories) call for, but again a sensible electorate rejected them.
So an MP stands for election supporting policy X, stands up in parliament and speaks in favour of it and then secretly votes against it! Coalitions can work in times of war when there is an overriding common interest. Countries with coalitions like Belgium, Finland and Italy often have governments that last less than a year and polls in this country show that people think coalition government is weaker, less decisive and confused.

Collins has it as “to obstruct (legislation) with delaying tactics”, which is exactly what Remainer MPs, aided and abetted by the disgraceful Speaker Bercow, did.

In what way were my points incomprehensible? They were perfectly straightforward - for any reasonable person at any rate.

Yes, the election was largely decided on the Brexit question - not through boredom but though anger and resentment at the actions of the Remainer MPs who they rejected wholesale. Whether Corbyn or anyone else was leader of the opposition, Johnson would have won just as easily as the key issue was Brexit being progressed.

You wouldn’t expect an MP to behave dishonestly – really?!

Coalitions rarely produce working governments that’s the problem.

Edited by georgenorman (27 Feb 2023 4.49pm)

They are not delegates, sent to parliament with a mandate from the majority who voted for them. They are representatives whose job is to use their time, contacts and conscience to decide what's in the best interests of all the electors in their constituency. Not just those who voted for them.

Together with their colleagues we ask our MPs to decide things on our behalf. We don't have the time, or the opportunity to study all the complex facts, needed to make informed decisions. We are more likely to be influenced by media outlets with agendas.

That's our system, although not everyone seems to believe that. Some indeed in our Parliament who ought to know better.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I found that very strange so looked it up. The definition that I found given by Collins is "A filibuster is a long slow speech made to use up time so that a vote cannot be taken and a law cannot be passed." See:-https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/filibuster

This matches my own understanding perfectly and was not done by any MP in the run up to the 2019 election. Can you post a link please.

You expect me to explain what it is that I cannot understand? Not logical!

I wasn't angry with those brave MPs who argued for a confirmatory second vote. I was proud of them and so too was everyone else I spoke to, other than the hard-line Eurosceptics who were afraid they would lose the prize they thought their tactics was about to deliver.

It was Brexit weariness and the failure of the HoC to grasp the nettle and oust Johnson after he was slapped down by the Supreme Court that led to the debacle that we are now witnessing.

The "oven ready deal" whose ingredients are half rotten and have little nutrition. So bad that we are still trying to repair it.

I don't expect MPs to behave dishonestly. Should they do so they ought be shown the door immediately.

Coalitions can work well. It just requires goodwill and honesty. In the system I am suggesting, one where the MPs are the Kings and privacy protected, that ought to be attainable.

MPs from both sides often get along much better than appears to be the case. They have to put on the theatrics in our current system which demands confrontation.

I would rather have intelligent debate and cooperation than theatrical confrontation.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

One Every 16 years, and counting, represents a major threat? OK.
Maybe hypothetical but would it have been better if MPs had decided on Brexit without asking the country?