Brexitwatch: how incuriosity is killing British democracy. Part 2

Oh my prophetic soul! Two and a half years ago, I warned that MPs’ fierce determination to be incurious, to resolutely avoid inquiring into important matters, was threatening to destroy democracy in the UK (see my post of 21 January 2018). This week things got worse.

Back in 2018, MPs were busily voting against making the government publish studies on the impact Brexit would have on the UK: ‘Our constituents don’t need to know how their lives are going to be messed up by leaving the EU, and we certainly don’t want to hear about it!’

Now our MPs’ determination to be irrelevant has landed a double whammy in the last few days. First they voted to deny themselves any say on future trade deals. No fewer than 326 MPs decided: ‘not the kind of thing we want to be involved with, old boy.’

Even by the catastrophically low standards of today’s House of Commons, this is mind-boggling. Why would any MP with a scintilla of concern for the national interest deny themselves this right? After all, if you think a given trade deal is good, you just vote for it, don’t you? So what are you afraid of? That the deal’s bad, and then maybe your constituents will put you under pressure to vote against it, and if you do, Dominic Cummings or the extreme right-wing tabloids will be nasty to you? ‘No, please just let me be irrelevant and have a quiet life!’

MPs also determinedly looked the other way on Russian meddling in British politics and especially the Brexit referendum. Having tolerated Boris Johnson’s suppression of the cross-party report on this for nine months, they batted scarcely an eyelid when, after considering its demand for a proper inquiry into Russian interference for at least one second, Johnson dismissed it. 

Now they’re off on their hols!

Brexitwatch: write to your MP to demand proper scrutiny of Boris Johnson's Brexit

My latest letter to my MP, Sir Keir Starmer

Dear Sir Keir,

Thank you for your email and for helping the Letwin amendment get through.

But the timetable motion on Boris Johnson's Brexit 'deal' is just as crucial. I read with astonishment that some Labour MPs are planning to support Johnson's plan to deny proper parliamentary scrutiny to the most important measure to be placed in front of the UK parliament in at least the last 40 years.

Backing a Brexit that you know will damage your constituents and the country is bad enough. Preventing MPs examine it properly is a dereliction of duty almost beyond comprehension. I trust Jeremy Corbyn's 'blind eye' approach to MPs who defy the Labour whip to support Brexit will not apply in this case, and that any MPs who support Johnson will be expelled from the party.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: tell Labour MPs not to back Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson needs the backing of Labour MPs to get his 'deal', which will cost the UK even more than Theresa May's deal, through parliament, and there are disturbing signs that some of them are going to fall for it.

Potential defectors to Labour-for-Johnson include Jim Fitzpatrick, Caroline Flint, John Mann, Ruth Smeeth, Sarah Champion, Ronnie Campbell, Melanie Onn, Sir Keith Barron, Dan Jarvis, Gloria di Piero, Yvonne Forvague, Stephen Kinnock, Emma Lewell-Buck, Justin Madders, Grahame Morris, Stephanie Peacock, Lucy Powell, Laura Smith and Gareth Snell.

Write to them NOW to urge them not to take this foolish course of action. You can find their email addresses on the UK parliament website. This is the email I have sent them:

Boris Johnson's 'deal' will make all your constituents poorer (unless you've got a few hedge fund managers who will do very nicely out of impoverishing the rest of us). It will make their public services worse. It will probably break-up the UK, it will certainly make the country weaker and less influential, and if it goes through, it will save the skin of the worst Prime Minister and the most right-wing government in my (rather long) life. Do you really want to be remembered for supporting it?

And do you want to ensure Labour is consigned to the political wilderness as you alienate millions of Labour voters who are predominantly remainers - even in your constituency? 

No Labour MP should be backing Johnson's fake deal. It is a betrayal of everything Labour is supposed to stand for. It is also ludicrous that MPs should be expected to approve a 500 page document that has only just been handed to them but that will determine the future of our country for decades to come. There must be a proper opportunity to scrutinise it. All responsible MPs need to back the Letwin amendment.

If Labour MPs help to pass this dreadful withdrawal agreement, I will never vote Labour again, and will do everything I can to ensure its defeat in all future elections. We're not going away.

Yours sincerely,

Brexitwatch: ask the Speaker to rule out MV3

By a piece of transparent chicanery, Theresa May seems to have persuaded the Speaker that she should be given a third chance to get her disastrous double-blind Brexit through this afternoon, even though the rules of the House of Commons say that once it has been rejected, it should not be put again. May's deal has been overwhelmingly rejected twice.

If you agree with me that this brings parliament into disrepute, please join me in writing to John Bercow at  speakersoffice@parliament.uk and asking him to reconsider. This is what I have sent him:

Dear Mr Speaker,

As you know, I have great regard for you, but I am very disappointed that you have decided to rule it is in order for Theresa May to bring her blind Brexit deal before the House of Commons for a third time. If we the people are not allowed to have second thoughts about our decisions, it is very hard to see how the government can be allowed to keep on bringing the same measure forward again and again until it finally gets the answer it wants.

Theresa May herself has made it clear that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration have to be considered as a single entity, so how can it be right that she now tells MPs to consider them separately?

I urge you, in the interests of parliamentary democaracy, to think again.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: write to the speaker to stop May putting her disastrous 'deal' again

One of the few parliamentarians to emerge with real credit from the Brexit fiasco so far is the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow. Last week he courageously ruled against Theresa May bringing her dreadful blindfold Brexit 'deal' back before MPs for a third time.

But May, who plainly has no respect for democracy, is just waiting for the chance to do exactly that. Allowing her to keep putting such a deeply unpopular plan until she gets the answer she wants is plainly unacceptable and makes parliament a laughing stock. So join me in writing to the Speaker again, asking him to stand firm. This is what I have sent:

Dear Mr Speaker,

Thank you for all you have done to fight for our democracy against a dangerously dictatorial prime minister and government.

I hear disturbing rumours that she is planning to bring her totally discredited blindfold Brexit 'deal' back to parliament. I trust you will not allow it to be put before MPs again without substantial and significant changes.

This browbeating and bullying of parliament while she denies the people the chance to change their minds is utterly unacceptable.

Please help us again.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington 

Brexitwatch: MPs determine our fate. Write to yours

It's great that two million marched in London and that nearly five million have signed the petition to revoke Article 50, but don't forget that MPs have already ignored another huge march for a 'People's Vote' on the Brexit terms and the four million plus people who signed a petition for a second referendum.

I have always believed that Brexit will be defeated only when MPs begin to think supporting it will damage their careers. So if your MP has not done everything in his/her power to fight Brexit so far, write to them NOW and say that if the UK leaves the EU you will hold them and their party responsible, and you will work to ensure their defeat at all future elections. If they are entrenched Brexiters, write anyway. They can still count.

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer, and this is what I have written to him: 

Dear Sir Keir,

I was bitterly disappointed to see the Labour Party trying to sabotage the People's Vote march. This is deeply foolish as well as duplicitous. As for hearing Caroline Flint singing the praises of Theresa May's blind Brexit when even Nigel Farage admits it is worse than staying in the EU, words fail me.

If we now leave the EU, I will not forgive Labour.

There is no longer any justification for Brexit:

1. Any Brexit will damage the UK and particularly the people Labour is supposed to care most about.

2. The referendum result is null and void as it was won by lies, cheating and criminality. (I am bitterly disappointed that Labour has tried to sweep this under the carpet - an act of foolishness and cowardice that will haunt the party for a very long time.)

3. The Brexit that was promised is not being and cannot be delivered, and there is no mandate for either of the available Brexits - Theresa May's blind Brexit or 'no deal'.

Labour's half-hearted opposition to the right wing Brexit coup has been a dreadful stain on the party's reputation, and if we are now dragged out of the EU, I will regard Labour as being as much to blame as the Tories. I trust you will now do whatever is necessary to stop it.

If we do leave, I will not forget, and I will do everything I can to help defeat Labour in all subsequent elections.

There is still time to do the right thing, but it is fast running out.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: write to Labour's UKIP tendency MPs

Labour supports a 'People's Vote' - a referendum on the terms of Brexit - apparently. The party demonstrated its support this week by refusing to vote in favour of an amendment in parliament to secure, er, a People's Vote!

Most Labour MPs abstained, but 17 of the party's UKIP 5th column actually voted with Theresa May's Tories aginst the motion. They included former shadow ministers Yvonne Fovargue, Emma Lewell-Buck, and Justin Madders, plus former party whip Stephanie Peacock, and Stoke-on-Trent North MP, Ruth Smeeth, former parliamentary aide to deputy leader Tom Watson.

Ms Smeeth said: 'I have a duty to support the will of my constituents. We need to leave, and leave with a deal that works for the Potteries,' thus illustrating her ignorance of both an MP's duty and of the effect Brexit will have on her constituents.

This is what I have written to her:

Dear Ms Smeeth,

There is no Brexit that 'works for the Potteries'. Indeed, the West Midlands will be the hardest hit region in the whole UK, except for the North-East. https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2018/03/26/brexit-will-negatively-affect-all-regions-of-the-uk-but-the-north-east-is-most-vulnerable/

As an MP, your duty is not to 'support the will' of your constituents but to do 1) the best thing for your country then 2) the best thing for your constituents. So it is your duty to now tell your constituents the truth and fight with all your might against the Far Right Brexit coup, which will cause terrible damage to them and the UK. 

Anyway, you have no idea what 'the will' of your consituents is, because the Brexit they voted for is not being, and cannot be delivered. The referendum was advisory. It was won by gerrymandering the electorate, lying, cheating and criminality. It is profoundly undemocratic to 'respect' the result, which is in any case completely irrelevant to the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.

If Labour betrays our young people and the future of our country, it will never be forgiven. If you tell the truth, some of your constituents may be cross, but it is your duty. If you are not prepared to discharge that duty, you must resign.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: stop the 'no deal' madness. Write to your MP

So now it seems a no deal Brexit will mean not just food and medicine shortages, but also possibly martial law. It is time to stop the madness. Write to your MP NOW and get them to back Yvette Cooper's amendment to rule out no deal (It will be voted on on Tuesday 29 January.) This is what I have sent to mine who happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer.

Dear Sir Keir,

So now a 'no deal' Brexit will mean not only food and medicine shortages but also possible martial law. The Brexit foolishness has now escalated to insanity. MPs can stop the madness by supporting Yvette Cooper's amendment, and I trust that you and all Labour MPs will be voting for it. Even if you're a Brexiter, there can be no excuse for inflicting no deal on the country.

I trust Labout will also be voting against Theresa May's blind Brexit when it resurfaces - tell her again! And I trust that Labour will also oppose the delusional Tory amendment that presumes to order the EU to get rid of the Irish backstop.

I am still waiting for action to be taken against Kate Hoey and the rest of the UKIP fifth column in Labour's ranks. When Owen Smith was thought to have sounded too enthusiastic about a People's Vote, Jeremy Corbyn sacked him in short order. What picture do you think it paints of Labour when Hoey and the Brexit fanatics are allowed to defy party policy time and time again with impunity?

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: a letter to the Speaker

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow has now joined judges, Remainers, MPs who ask difficult questions about Brexit, the EU and others among those demonised as 'Enemies of the People' by our extreme right-wing tabloids. His crime? He allowed MPs a vote on a matter of crucial national importance.

I have written to Mr Bercow at john.bercow.mp@parliament.uk and speakersoffice@parliament.uk to express my thanks, and to ask him to please carry on exercising his courage and wisdom on behalf of MPs' democratic rights in the weeks to come. He could become a very important figure as more sensible MPs try to halt the Brexit disaster.

This is what I said to him:

Dear Mr Bercow,

Thank you for standing up for democracy at this time of great national crisis and in the face of a bullying minority government that seems completely devoid of concern for the national interest.

The prime minister's pulling of the 'meaningful vote' in December was one of the most cynical acts of contempt for parliament that I can recall in my lifetime, which goes back almost as far as World War Two.

You will, of course, face vitriol and vilification for doing the right thing, but your courage and wisdom will be needed to help us many times in the weeks ahead.

Thank you again and good luck,

John Withington

Brexitwatch competition: which was the greatest Brexit lie?

Should we have a competition to decide which was the greatest of all the Brexit lies? Was it:

1. An extra £350m a week for the NHS - said by pretty well everyone, and not denied by the few who didn't say it
2. A free trade agreement with the EU will be 'one of the easiest in human history' - Liam Fox
3. 'The UK holds most of the cards' - John Redwood
4. There is 'no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside' - David Davis
5. We can 'have our cake and eat it' - Boris Johnson
6. 'The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards' - Michael Gove
7. A 52-48 result would be 'unfinished business' - Nigel Farage
8. 'Absolutely no one is talking about threatening our place in the single market' - Daniel Hannan
9. After Brexit, we will have 'the same benefits in terms of free access' to the EU - Theresa May

I am open to other nominations.

Last question. When it is so clear that the referendum result was procured by bare-faced lying on an industrial scale (not to mention criminality), does the House of Commons have any motive for failing to declare it null and void apart from cowardice?

Brexitwatch: demand your MP takes action over Leave campaign cheating

For the second time, the Leave campaign has been found to have cheated in the Brexit referendum. The law lays down spending limits to ensure elections are fair. The official Leave campaign broke the law by spending nearly £500,000 more than it was allowed to.

This is the second time the Leave campaign has been caught cheating. In May, Arron Banks's mysteriously financed Leave.EU group was also fined for spending too much. With a gap of less than 4% between the votes cast for the two sides, surely the referendum result should now be regarded as null and void, but bizarrely the Labour and Tory front benches seem determined to look the other way and pretend none of this has happened. 

This cannot go on. It is the duty of MPs to stop Brexit NOW because 1) it will damage our country. 2) allowing this result to stand will give a green light to cheating in all future UK elections.

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. I wrote to him twice about Leave.EU's cheating (see my post of May 14), and I have never received a reply.

Now that further law-breaking has been revealed, I have written to him again:

Dear Sir Keir,

I cannot believe that Labour has not called for an immediate halt to Brexit in view of the evidence provided today of yet more law-breaking by the Leave campaign. I have already written to you twice on this issue (see below) but you have ignored me. What is Labour's strategy here? Stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes, pretend none of this has happened, and then hopefully it will all go away?

You yourself have admitted that Brexit has no benefits, and that Labour was supporting it only because it was the 'will of the people'. Now it is clear that the referendum was won by serial law-breaking, this excuse will no longer wash.

If Labour fails to act, not only will it impoverish our country, and in particular the people Labour are supposed to care most about, destroying jobs, businesses, public services, savings,people's rights to live and work in Europe etc, it will also give a green light to any party that wants to cheat in future elections in our country. 

Take action to stop Brexit now. I appeal to you and Labour not to continue in this gross dereliction of your duty.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: deadlock at the latest EU summit

Once upon a time, this week's EU summit was hailed as a key milestone on the road to Brexit. In fact, it was yet another non-event. I have obtained a secret recording of the key moment in the talks:

Theresa May: 'Give me what I want or I'll halt all security co-operation between the UK and the EU.' 

The EU: 'But won't that make life more dangerous for the British people?'

Theresa May: 'F**k the British people!'

The EU. 'I see. So what do you want?'

Theresa May: 'Er.......'

Now we are told the UK government will be producing a White Paper 'in the coming weeks'. 

If ever there was a government in which no MP should have any confidence, it is surely this one, and yet our elected representatives just sit on their hands. No plan for Brexit, bent referendeum, Russian interference? 'Don't ask us, guv.'

What was it Oliver Cromwell said? 'You are no Parliament. I say you are no Parliament. You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!'

Brexitwatch: a meaningful vote for MPs - my letter to Sir Keir Starmer

Thanks to the courage of the House of Lords, this week MPs get another chance, which arguably they do not deserve, to ensure they get a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal. 

Last week no fewer than 324 MPs voted that they should NOT be allowed a meaningful vote. What, you might ask, are such people doing in Parliament? Even more shocking, five of them were Labour members who sided with Theresa May to deny MPs a vote. This should not be allowed to happen again. This week's vote may represent the last chance to give MPs a meaningful say on our future.

So if you agree with me, you need to write to your MP to urge them to back the Lords' amendment. I am in a rather special position as my MP is Labour Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. This is the email I have sent him:

Dear Sir Keir, 

I was astonished and mortified to see five Labour MPs vote with Theresa May to deny Parliament a meaningful vote on any Brexit terms last week.

I cannot understand how ANY MP from any party could oppose this measure, and to see Labour members doing so was beyond belief.

As you yourself admitted, there are NO benefits to Brexit. It is vital, therefore, that Parliament gets a final say on any terms. I trust that any Labour MP who votes with Theresa May this time will be stripped of the Labour whip, and expelled from the party. I trust that this will be explained to them in no uncertain terms before the vote.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch; will incuriosity kill democracy?

When social workers make errors that result in harm being caused to a child, MPs often lambast them for being ‘incurious’. They failed to ask enough questions.

What then are we to make of MPs themselves? Last week a proposal was put that the government should have to publish studies on the impact of Brexit on the UK before Parliament takes a final decision on how and whether we leave the EU.

Incredibly, 320 MPs, yes 320, voted against this, and it was narrowly defeated. In other words, 320 MPs want to be sure they do NOT know the effect Brexit will have on their constituents and the rest of the people of the UK before they push it through.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow last week rightly warned that Brexit was endangering democracy in the UK. Unfortunately, among its biggest enemies are hundreds of MPs.

Brexitwatch: let's try democracy!

One thing the Brexit referendum and its aftermath has surely illustrated is that even if we finally defeat Brexit, we cannot afford to just go back to things as they were. The UK needs a whole host of reforms - e.g. an elected Second Parliamentary Chamber, a fair and honest press, and a democratically elected House of Commons.

Because of our antiquated first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system, UK governments are virtually always elected by a minority of the voters. That's right. The governments who wield almost absolute power over us are governments most people voted against. 

Below is an exchange of emails I have had with my MP, Sir Keir Starmer, on the need to switch to a proportional system in which if you get, say, 40 per cent of the vote, you get 40 per cent of the seats in Parliament. Feel free to use any of my arguments if you wish to pursue this important cause.

Dear Sir Keir, 

Thank you for your reply. I am encouraged that you do not oppose a fairer electoral system as many Labour and Conservative politicians unfortunately do, but, respectfully, I think the problem of a government and parliament that fails to reflect the way people voted is a bigger problem than you realise.

You say FPTP has 'a history of generally returning stable, single-party governments', but when such government enjoy the support of less than half the electorate, this is a weakness and not a strength. For it means that governments are constantly imposing things the majority of voters were against.

Often such policies are extremely damaging - the poll tax, the Iraq War, an extreme Brexit. No wonder people are disillusioned with politics!

If the constituency link is something you value, this can, of course, be preserved in proportional systems. However, it is easy to overstate the value of this supposed link. A survey in 2013 showed that barely a fifth of the people in the UK even knew who there MP was. And at the 2015 election, more than half of MPs failed to win an overall majority in their constituency. In other words, in the UK system, most MPs spend most of their time voting for things most people in their constituencies are against.

Of course, it is a good thing to ensure that people register to vote, and I do what I can on social media to encourage this. However, it is not an alternative to having a fair electoral system, and without a fair electoral system, it will not solve the disconnect between what people vote for and the government they end up getting.

As the EU referendum and its aftermath demonstrated, we cannot go on as we have been doing. Sir Keir, I urge you to get on the right side of history and become part of the solution, not part of the problem. We need a fair voting system NOW.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

On 01 November 2017 at 12:06 STARMER, Keir wrote:

Thank you for contacting me recently regarding electoral reform.

I agree that Parliament needs to be representative of communities across Britain and to reflect different views and concerns. I also believe that we must start by making it easier for people to register to vote and to engage more regularly in politics and local decisions.

There are, of course, strengths and weaknesses to all voting systems. The First Past the Post system does have a history of generally returning stable, single-party governments and of retaining the constituency link, both of which I think are important benefits to our electoral system. I appreciate, however, that there is a case to look in detail at our electoral system and that forms of proportional representation are already used in the devolved administrations across the UK, as well as in many local authority elections.

I hope the parliamentary petition debate will allow an opportunity to consider these issues. I also believe more widely that we need to look at ways to ensure our politics connects and engages with the public. Thank you once again for writing to me and for sharing your views.

Best wishes,

Keir

Dear Sir Keir,

I trust you will be lending your support tomorrow to the introduction of democracy to elections to the House of Commons.

It is indefensible that UK governments are able to exercise virtually absolute power for five years having often won the support of little more than a third of voters and perhaps a quarter of the electorate.

No wonder the kind of disillusionment that produced the Brexit vote is rife. 

Our voting system was designed for a barely literate electorate. It is not fit for the 21st century. We need proportional representation NOW.

We have seen the imposition of too many divisive policies that most people oppose - the poll tax, the Iraq War, Brexit. We cannot afford another.

I appreciate that the Labour Party may be disadvantaged (though, of course, if it promotes policies that command majority support this will not happen). But this is a time when the interests of the country must come first.

I am counting on you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch. Parliament: We demand to be irrelevant!

When Theresa May had to hastily cobble together a White Paper to pretend she had some kind of ‘plan’ for Brexit, even she had to admit that while the UK has been in the EU, Parliament has remained ‘sovereign’, contradicting one of the major lies of the Leave campaign.

But now MPs are busily voting that after Brexit, they should no longer be sovereign. Do they want a say on workers’ rights? No, thank you. Animal rights, then? Certainly not!

And remember the 58 Brexit impact studies that Parliament is supposedly forcing the government to publish? Shouldn't MPs make sure they have a look at them before pushing Brexit through? Oh, no need for that, old chap.

Winston Churchill once remarked that the House of Commons would not be a truly representative body if it did not have its proportion of fools. Well, now the fools are in the majority. More than three hundred of them have been found to vote themselves into irrelevance.

You can understand why. I suspect most MPs realise Brexit will be a disaster, but if we complain to them, they will have the perfect excuse: ‘You voted for it!’ So why speak out and go through all the heartache of being abused by the extreme right and the newspapers they control? Better to just nod it through.

The trouble is: if our MPs keep voting that they should be irrelevant, that is what they will become. And the ‘people’ are likely to start asking what is the point of Parliament.

Brexitwatch - MPs' last chance to get a say on Brexit. Write to yours.

After the House of Commons nodded through the bill to give Theresa May a blank cheque on Brexit with astonishingly little dissent, the House of Lords has tried to give MPs another chance by amending the bill to give Parliament a genuine say.

On Monday, it will go back to the Commons with the UK's increasingly dictatorial unelected Prime Minister ordering that the changes be reversed. If you want to stop Parliament being bypassed, it is crucial you write to your MP NOW to demand that they stand up for the amendment and democracy.

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer, and this is what I have written to him.

Dear Sir Keir,

When Gina Miller gave Labour MPs a chance to have a genuine say over any Brexit terms that Theresa May may negotiate, you ran a mile. 

Now the Lords have courageously given you a second chance (which Labour does not deserve.) It is vital that this time Labour supports the amendment to give Parliament a meaningful voice. 

I trust you are fighting hard for this outcome with Jeremy Corbyn. If he refuses and continues his Brexit coalition with the Tories and UKIP, I trust you will defy him and vote for the amendment, urging your colleagues to do the same.

If Labour are prepared to show some backbone for once, there is every chance of winning over enough Tory rebels to defeat our increasingly dictatorial prime minister. If Labour again refuses to oppose, you can hardly complain if Tory rebels decide there is little point in sticking their necks out.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: Letter to a Lord

With the Labour 'opposition' supporting the Tories and UKIP and nodding Article 50 through in the House of Commons, the action now switches to the House of Lords, who could reject the bill authorising Theresa May to trigger A50, or pass significant amendments. (MPs in the Commons rejected every proposed amendment.)

The pro-EU Liberal Democrats are committed to amending the bill, but will Labour cave in once again?  This is the letter I have written to Labour's leader in the Lords, Baroness Smith of Basildon.

Dear Baroness Smith,

I trust we will not see the miserable weak-kneed capitulation of Labour members in the Commons repeated in the Lords. I have had considerable correspondence with my MP, who happens to be Sir Keir Starmer, and he is well aware of my dissatisfaction at Labour's performance and that I reject the arguments he has offered in its defence.

In particular, I reject the whole bogus 'will of the people' argument - increasingly the only one made in favour of Brexit. Even the Leave side have virtually given up pretending that leaving the EU will benefit the UK in any tangible way - hardly surprising as there is no evidence of any kind that it will, and reams of evidence that it will do serious damage.

Sir Keir claims that the referendum result is binding. It is not. If Parliament had wanted the result to be binding they would have made it so. They chose not to. So anyone who votes to trigger Article 50 is making a choice, and they will share in the responsibility for the consequences.

It is the duty of members of Parliament to act in the national interest. That requires the blocking of Brexit, which, as Labour rightly said during the referendum campaign (though the quality and enthusiasm of its saying might well be questioned), will seriously damage the British people. This is the time to put country before party, whatever Jeremy Corbyn may say.

The best option, therefore, is rejection of the A50 trigger.

If that cannot be achieved, it is vital that the Lords pass MEANINGFUL amendments. And please do not repeat Jeremy Corbyn's foolish mistake of unconditionally promising to support the triggering of A50. You should make it clear that without effective amendments, you will not support the bill.

Sir Keir told me of three concessions he believed Labour had won:

1. A White Paper

2. Regular reports to Parliament on the negotiations

3. A vote for Parliament on the final terms.

I explained to him that the 'concessions' are meaningless.

The White Paper is so vague and uncosted that it constitutes an insult to Parliament.

Unless Labour suddenly discovers some backbone, the regular reports will just be the Brexiters' usual mixture of empty slogans and wishful thinking.

As for the final vote, the government is saying it will still be a 'take whatever terms Theresa May has agreed however bad they are' or leave without any agreement which will be even worse.

So at the very least, the Lords need to pass the following amendments:

1. The government must keep us full members of the Single Market. Theresa May and every other Tory MP was elected on this promise, and throughout the referendum campaign, Leave campaigners were falling over themselves to say they did not wish to leave it.

2. When Theresa May has completed her negotiations, she must come to Parliament for approval of the proposed settlement. If it is rejected by Parliament, the UK will remain a member of the EU.

3. To be valid, any final agreement must win the approval of the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. Until this is given, the UK remains a member of the EU.

Labour's betrayal of the country and its own voters has done it dreadful damage. You now have perhaps the last chance to repair some of this. 

Gina Miller risked her life to give Parliament a say on Brexit. MPs have shamefully let her down. Don't do the same in the Lords.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch - Labour Brexit spokesperson Sir Keir Starmer tries to justify his party's behaviour + my response

With Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (pictured) ordering his MPs to support Brexit, Theresa May's government emerged unscathed from what should have been a testing ordeal in the House of Commons where most MPs realise leaving the EU will be a disaster. Labour did not manage to get a single amendment passed to the bill triggering Article 50.

Below is Sir Keir Starmer's justification of their approach, and my response.

(For previous letters from Sir Keir and my responses see my posts of Jan 23 and 27 and Feb 2.)

Dear Sir Keir,

Thank you for your emails. As you know I reject the idea that a non-binding referendum is binding, and I will not go over again the reasons I have already given you for considering the 'will of the people' argument utterly bogus.

In my view, your and Labour's support for the triggering of Article 50 was a betrayal of the country and of Labour voters, all of whom will suffer as a result.

As for the things you say Labour has achieved:

1. The White Paper, which Labour did not even bother to examine before trooping through the lobbies with the Tories and UKIP to trigger A50. The document is an insult to Parliament and the British people. It offers no price tags for the foolish policies it advocates, and on the crucial issues of the Single Market and the customs union, it just rehashes the same old wishful thinking and empty slogans.

2. Reporting process. Unless Labour very quickly discovers some backbone, this will be about as useful as the White Paper, with Theresa May getting away with the same old platitudes.

3. A final vote. Every single amendment was voted down. You claim there will be a meaningful vote in Parliament on any terms Theresa May manages to negotiate, but the government says the position is unchanged and MPs will be faced with accepting the PM's deal, however bad it may be, or leaving with no deal at all, which is likely to be even worse. Labour FAILED to win the right to send Mrs May back to the negotiating table.

If Labour had stood by its principles and its supporters (most of whom oppose Brexit), there would have been every chance of passing a number of amendments. Mrs May has a tiny majority in Parliament, and many in her own party are unhappy about the extreme Brexit she is pursuing. But most potential Tory rebels saw little point in putting their own necks on the line when the Opposition did not have the guts to oppose her.

This whole process has been a catastrophic failure for Labour, and if continuing in your position is going to mean continuing to support Brexit, I would urge you to resign now and start opposing something you must know will do terrible damage to your country, your constituents and all Labour voters.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

On 10 February 2017 at 15:45 STARMER, Keir wrote:

Thank you for your email.

Having campaigned passionately across the country for the UK to remain in the EU, the outcome of the referendum result last June came as a bitter disappointment to me. Along with many others in the 48% who voted to remain, I cherish not just the practical benefits of EU membership but also the fact of being an EU citizens.

But we lost the referendum and, as democrats, we have to accept the result. I acknowledge that some people disagree and believe that the result should be ignored. But having worked as a human rights lawyer in countries where citizens are either denied a vote or their votes are ignored, I cannot accept that argument.

Although the referendum was, technically, advisory, it was politically binding. None of us who campaigned day in and day out ever suggested that the exercise was simply advisory. I told people that they should vote, that it mattered and that there were consequences, and I’m not prepared to re-write history. That is why the Labour Party has repeatedly said that it accepts and respects the outcome of the referendum. It follows that the Prime Minister must be empowered to start the negotiations for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

Over the last three months Labour has been working to put in place proper scrutiny of the Brexit process. Although each step has been incremental, the Government has moved its from position from October – when they had no plan, were insisting there would be no running commentary and would not commit to a vote on the final Article 50 deal – to:

i)                    Publishing a 76 page White Paper on which Parliament can hold them to account. This was one of Labour’s planned amendments for Committee Stage, but this was withdrawn after the Government’s concession.

ii)                  A commitment to match reporting back procedures that are in place in the European Parliament during the Article 50 process.

iii)                A vote in Parliament on the proposed draft Article 50 deal before it is considered by the EU Parliament or Council, as well as a second vote on the final EU-UK deal that will shape our future relationship with the EU.

Taken together these show progress has been made.

What matters now is that we ensure that the Article 50 process results in the best deal possible for the UK and the rest of the EU and that we ensure that the UK has a strong and ongoing relationship with the EU in the future. Labour has consistently said that jobs and the economy must come first and we have been fighting for tariff-free and barrier-free access to the single market and for a deal that works for the services sector as well as goods. I have been travelling all over the UK talking to many communities and businesses about precisely what they need to get out of the Article 50 deal and will continue to do so.

But I want more than that. What many of us value about our relationship with the EU is the collaborative and co-operative approach in ensures in vital areas such as science, technology, medicine, arts, culture and, of course, policing and counter-terrorism. There is no reason why a new relationship with the EU cannot be forged on these principles and that is what I, and the Labour Party, will be fighting for. A values-led approach to our ongoing relationship with the EU, not the abandonment of any relation with the EU.

I am happy to talk this through with you further if that would be helpful.

Yours,

Keir