Brexitwatch: the 'will of the people' is to be found in parliament not the Brexit referendum result

Regular readers of this blog will know I reject the ‘will of the people’ argument for Brexit (see for example my post of 15 December 2016), that the result of a crooked referendum that promised a deal that could never be delivered is a reason for leaving the EU.

But let’s go with it for a moment. So the ‘will of the people’ in June 2016 was that we leave the EU. But then who elected our current parliament in 2017? ‘The people’.

Under our system, no parliament can bind its successor so the ‘will of the people’ expressed by the general election supersedes the ‘will of the people’ of the referendum, and the squeals of ‘betrayal’ from the Brexit fanatics are the usual hypocritical bunkum.

MPs are under absolutely no obligation to implement a Brexit they consider damaging to our country. Indeed, it is their duty to reject it.

Brexitwatch: a Labour pro-Brexit MP writes

Earlier this month I wrote to 14 Labour MPs who decided to support Theresa May and oppose Yvette Cooper's amendment designed to rule out a no-deal Brexit - you can find a sample of my letter in my post of 1 February.

I have had a reply from Laura Smith, the MP for Crewe and Nantwich, which I attach below my reply to her reply:

Dear Ms Smith,

So are you satisfied now Honda is moving out, along with the EMA, EBA, Flybmi, Sony, Unilever, 'Brexit will be wonderful' Dyson and dozens of others? Or do you want to see Brexit destroy more jobs and investment? Just how much damage would it require for you to decide Brexit should be stopped, or do the British people have to put up with any amount of damage so you can say you 'respected' the 'referendum result'?

You should not confuse 'respect' with 'obey'. I respected President Obama, but I did not feel bound to obey him. MPs should indeed have respected the referendum result. Immediately after it happened, you should have conducted an exhaustive inquiry into how you were going to respond to the electorate's advice. To parliament's everlasting shame, you failed to do that, which is one of the reasons we are now in this dreadful mess. Once, of course, evidence emerged of the cheating and law-breaking by the Leave side, MPs should have put on hold the Brexit process until this has been thoroughly investigated. Again, shamefully, MPs failed the country.

As I explained in my previous email, the referendum result cannot be 'implemented' or 'honoured' because the Brexit the Leave side promised cannot be delivered.

I note you are worried that the EU might refuse an extension to Article 50, so a better approach would be for the UK to revoke Article 50. Then pro-Brexit MPs like yourself could all get together in a grand committee to finally agree what exactly it is that you want. Then once you have decided, that could be put to parliament and if necessary the people, before the government approached the EU (which, of course, is what should have happened in the first place).

Labour is at present on a self-destruction course. 'I'm sorry you lost your job and that we've no money for your public services, but it was the will of the people' is not going to save you. There is no 'Brexit for jobs'.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Dear Mr Withington 

This email is sent in response to your correspondence to me on the votes that took place on the 29th January 2019. Please be assured that as the mother of two young children I always do what I feel is best for the future of Crewe and Nantwich and the country as a whole. I take no decision lightly and I spend a great amount of time considering all the different options. 

I supported the spirit of the ‘Cooper’ amendment in seeking to avoid a no deal. That is why I voted for a separate amendment, which was passed, declaring that the House of Commons does not support leaving the EU without a deal. I also voted for the Labour front-bench amendment, which also rejected a ‘no deal’ Brexit. A cursory glance at my voting record in that single evening clearly rebuffs any suggestion that I am aligned to the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg on this issue. 

However, I did conclude that the ‘Cooper’ amendment would not have prevented a ‘no deal’ Brexit. 
It would have suspended the standing orders of the House of Commons to give priority to a Private Members Bill, which in turn sought to create a rather contrived and awkward series of parliamentary procedures. 
Had the amendment passed, we would have had just one day to debate and pass that Bill which would not legislate to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Instead, it would have set a new deadline by which a deal had to be achieved. 

If the government then failed to secure a deal, this would have triggered another debate on a motion, which would compel the Prime Minister to seek an extension to the Article 50 process. 
The Article 50 process cannot be unilaterally extended, and the EU has indicated that it would only consider such an extension under certain circumstances. 

In a best-case scenario, we would have been no further forward. Three years after the vote to leave, we’d have been asking voters to elect MEPs whilst telling them that we respect the referendum result. 
In a worst-case scenario, we might still have come face-to-face with the cliff edge of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, either due to losing a vote in the House of Commons or due to the EU refusing to agree an extension without any clear way forward or change in circumstance. 

I believe that, had the ‘Cooper’ amendment passed, the pressure on both parties and their respective leaders not to compromise would have grown immeasurably. 
The ERG would have continued to reject any deal put forward, blaming the intransigence of the EU and advocating for a ‘managed no deal’ Brexit. On the other hand, those that wish to overturn the referendum result would have applied maximum pressure on Labour to also reject any deal. 
This brinkmanship could have led to several outcomes, but I feel that it is bad for British politics and would have been bad for the Labour Party. 

The only real way of avoiding a ‘no deal’ Brexit is to get a Parliamentary majority for a deal and I felt that this amendment would have actually made that less likely. 
At the same time, I knew that many saw it as just another attempt to frustrate or block Brexit and I don’t think that we should be blasé about the dangers posed to our society by failing to respect the referendum. I voted to remain and reform the EU during the 2016 referendum, however Crewe & Nantwich voted to Leave by a majority of more than 60% and I was elected a year later, having promised to respect the referendum result. I promised to do everything that I could to secure a Brexit that works for ordinary people and gives businesses the guarantees to move forward. 

The vast majority of people that I have spoken to since my election haven’t changed their minds at all. Some have even hardened their respective positions. For every Leave voter who regrets their decision, I have also met a Remain voter who just wants the government to get on with it. 

To reassure you, I haven’t shied away from the tough conversations. Many people have told me recently that they want to exit without a deal. I’ve explained to those people exactly why I couldn’t support that. 

We can’t allow this divisive debate to polarise any further. We need a serious effort to bring people together and this can’t be done without the Labour Party. I believe that our Brexit policy is the answer to breaking this deadlock. The only reason it hasn’t been taken into negotiations is because of the Prime Minister’s red lines. 
By calling for the backstop to be replaced with unspecified “alternative arrangements” (but not a customs union), the Conservative Party has set the Prime Minister an impossible task. The EU has already made clear that without a customs union, the backstop isn’t up for discussion. 

When this latest charade is done, the Prime Minister will have run out of road. Parliament has already rejected her deal with a backstop and it rejected a ‘no deal’ Brexit last week. 
She will then have to decide whether to join Labour in delivering a common-sense deal to protect jobs and living standards, or to allow for a general election so that the people can make that decision for themselves. 

I think it is right to leave all options on the table in these turbulent and unpredictable times. In fact, one of the amendments that I voted for would have required the government to secure time for Parliament to consider and vote on options to prevent a ‘no deal’ Brexit, including the option to legislate to hold a public vote. 
I have spent this last week meeting with colleagues to work together to ensure that this toxic debate can move forward.   

I understand that ultimately you wish to remain in the EU and will probably never understand why any MP would be working towards any Brexit. I am working hard to get a deal, avoid no deal and if that cannot be achieved all options should be on the table. 
  
Kind regards 

Laura Smith MP

Brexitwatch: Moment of truth. Brexit has no mandate - write to Theresa May

So Theresa May wants to bring the country together. IF she really means this, she needs to stop lying and recognise that Brexit has NO MANDATE. We all need to write to her at https://email.number10.gov.uk/

 This is what I have sent:

If you really want to bring the country together, the first thing you need to do is stop lying. I watched your speech outside No 10 the other day, and after hearing 3 lies in about the first 40 seconds, I gave up. There was no point in listening to any more.

1. The ‘people’ did not ‘instruct’ you to leave the EU. As the law, and your deputy Mr Liddington made crystal clear – the referendum was ADVISORY and non-binding. It offered bad advice which will damage the UK and you and all other MPs have a duty to reject it. Anyway what about the 16 million who voted against Brexit, do you consider them not to be ‘people’? Leaving the EU is YOUR decision.

2. The referendum was won by lies, cheating and law-breaking. In any proper democracy, the result would have been declared null and void long ago. But you don’t seem to care.

3. As you point out, the only Brexits now available are your blind Brexit ‘deal’ and no deal. Neither was voted on in the referendum, and judging from how rude different Brexiters are about both, it is plain that both would have been heavily defeated by Remain. So there is no mandate for any possible Brexit. It’s time to start putting the UK first and stopping Brexit.

Brexitwatch: London demands a People's Vote

If you wrote to your London Assembly member asking them to back a referendum on the terms of the UK leaving the EU (see my posts of Sept 2 and 3), well done! In spite of the opposition of Conservative and UKIP members, the Assembly decided to back democracy, and today mayor Sadiq Khan has added his voice to the demand for a People's Vote. 

Writing endless letters and emails is often frustrating, but it does work. My own belief is that Brexit will only be stopped when most MPs start to believe their careers will be damaged more by dragging us out of the EU than by letting us stay in it. Every anti-Brexit letter or email they receive helps to bring them to that conclusion.

Regular readers of this blog will know I reject the 'People's Will' argument. The referendum was advisory and explicitly non-binding on MPs. It offered bad advice and it was the duty of MPs to reject it in the national interest (see my post of March 29 etc).

But even if you accept the argument, it is clear the 'People's Will' has changed, with some polls suggesting 59% would now support staying in the EU. The New European has an interesting figure. 

MPs decided to prevent 16 and 17 year olds from voting in the referendum even though they were going to have to live with its consequences longer than the people who were allowed to vote. About 1.5 million of them turn 18 between the referendum in June 2016 and March 29 next year when we are due to leave the EU. More than 80% of them want to stay. Don't give up the fight. Stop Brexit.

Brexitwatch: get your MP to support demand for proper investigation of Leave cheating

Labour MP Ben Bradshaw has written to the Metropolitan Police and the National Crime Agency, demanding they mount a 'full and comprehensive' investigation into cheating by the Leave campaign during the EU referendum.

It is hard to overstate the importance of this. Most people now believe Brexit will damage the UK, but Tory and Labour leaderships are insisting we proceed with it because it is the 'will of the people'. Except it isn't, because the referendum was bent, as the Electoral Commission has already demonstrated.

But, as Mr Bradshaw points out, the Commission has limited powers to investigate and none to prosecute. It is, therefore, vital that the police pursue the matter vigorously. Otherwise we will be giving a green light to cheating in all future UK elections.

I am astonished and disappointed that only 31 MPs (plus 19 MEPs and Lords) have signed the letter. They do not appear to include mine - Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. This is what I have written to him:

Dear Sir Keir,

I do not seem to see your name among the list of MPs who have signed your colleague, Ben Bradshaw's demand for the Metropolitan Police and the NCA to investigate law-breaking by the Leave Campaign. I am very disappointed, and I urge you to add your signature  without delay.

You have admitted that Brexit has no benefits and that Labour is continuing to support it only because it is the 'will of the people'. As you know from previous emails, I have always rejected the 'will of the people' argument, but as you continue to accept it, you have an obligation to ensure that we discover to what degree the endorsement of the 'people' for Brexit was secured by a criminal conspiracy.

If Labour fails to do this, it will be giving a green light to cheating in all subsequent UK elections.

I look forward to hearing that you have signed the letter and given your support to Mr Bradshaw's efforts.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch; the referendum was won illegally. What is your MP going to do about it?

So the referendum WAS bent. The Leave campaign spent more than was allowed, and have been fined £70,000 by the Electoral Commission. The police are now also investigating.

So the result is null and void, of course? With that surrealism that has become typical of Brexit, the first reaction of MPs seems to be to ignore this inconvenient fact, and hope it will go away or that no one will notice.

This is not good enough. All the evidence suggests leaving the EU will damage our country, and to continue with it because of an illegally procured referendum result is inexcusable. The only justification advanced for Brexit these days is the so-called 'will of the people' argument (see my post of of 15 December 2016) and that has now been blown out of the water.

Theresa May should by now have withdrawn Article 50. As she has not, MPs should be forcing her to. This is what I have written to mine (Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer):

Dear Sir Keir,

I saw you on television yesterday admitting that there are no benefits to Brexit. I have written to you on a number of occasions urging you and the Labour Party to oppose this act of national self-harm. You have always maintained we have to do it (e.g, in your email of Jan 3, 2017) because people had voted for it.

As you know I have always rejected this, as Parliament itself ruled the referendum was 'consultative' only and not binding on MPs. Now, however, we also know that the referendum was ILLEGALLY won by the Leave side.

So what is Labour going to do about it?

I look forward to hearing from you,

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: the Germans have two words for it

Even the most enthusiastic Brexit supporter surely cannot maintain the negotiations are going well. The EU side seems prepared, united and knows what it wants. The UK side appears in crisis: still unprepared, deeply divided, and with no idea of what it wants, let alone how to get it.

Two long German words might help us to do better – Gesinnungsethik and Verantwortungsethik. The first means ‘ethic of conviction’; the second ‘ethic of responsibility’. They reflect a conflict between idealism and pragmatism that came to the fore in the crisis that wracked Germany after the First World War.

Politicians who follow the ‘ethic of conviction’ believe in preserving their moral purity, following the course they ‘know’ to be right whatever the consequences. And if it all goes horribly wrong, that is not their fault.

Increasingly this ‘ethic of conviction’ is the ONLY argument we hear for Brexit: ‘it is the will of the people’. There is no real pretence that leaving the EU will make life better for the British people in any meaningful way. (I have already explained in my post of 15 December 2016 why the ‘will of the people’ argument is bogus.) This is odd in a nation that used to pride itself on its pragmatism.

Those following the ‘ethic of responsibility’ on the other hand, are guided by the likely consequences of their actions and decisions. What will they do to the people affected by them? If Theresa May and her government could switch to this approach, it might help bring them some much needed clarity and avert what is beginning to look more and more like an impending disaster. 

Brexitwatch - is the 'will of the people' sacrosanct?

These days nobody much bothers claiming we will derive any advantage from leaving the EU. Instead Theresa May and the Brexiters say we have to do it because it is what ‘the people’ voted for. And anyone who argues against this is an ‘enemy of the people.’ So is the ‘will of the people’ the equivalent of a decree from an absolute monarch, a dictator or an infallible Pope?

We know there is no legal requirement for the referendum result to be implemented, because Parliament voted for a non-binding referendum, and, as the Brexiters kept arguing during the campaign, Parliament is sovereign. So is there a moral responsibility to impose the result?

There are, of course, many reasons for saying the result has no legitimacy. That it was won by a systematic campaign of lies and deception, that the number who voted for Brexit was far short of a majority of the electorate, etc. etc. But, for the purpose of this argument, let us leave them aside.

Suppose that tomorrow morning, Theresa May woke up and decided the warnings of virtually every reputable economist and most other authorities were correct after all. Brexit was going to do very serious damage to our country. Would she still be obliged to impose it? No matter how serious the damage?

Because if the answer is ‘no’, it means the ‘will of the people’ is not sacrosanct. And Theresa May is asking the wrong question. It should not be ‘how do we implement the “will of the people”’, but what do we do to serve their best interests. And that is something MPs shoud be examining now and urgently, long before Article 50 is triggered.