John Stonehouse: my part in his downfall

If you’ve been watching the ITV drama series Stonehouse https://www.itv.com/watch/stonehouse/10a1973/10a1973a0001, you’ll know the Walsall Labour MP John Stonehouse faked his own death in November 1974, creating the impression that he’d been drowned off a beach in Miami, only to turn up later in Australia where he was arrested. Later he was gaoled in the UK on various fraud charges.

At the time, I was a reporter at ATV, then the ITV company for the English Midlands, and I covered the story extensively. Shortly after his disappearance, I remember interviewing (sadly only by telephone) an American detective who told me he thought someone might have made Stonehouse ‘an offer he couldn’t refuse’ and that the MP might currently be ‘wearing a concrete overcoat.’

The detective turned out to be wrong, but the most surprising thing about the affair for me was that I had done a discussion programme with Stonehouse shortly before the General Election of October 1974 in which he and a Conservative MP had knocked lumps off each other in the customary manner. I’ve always wondered whether Stonehouse already knew he was going to fake his death a month later.

I did a number of interviews with his election agent, Harry Richards. This is one from May 1975:

https://www.macearchive.org/films/atv-today-06051975-john-stonehouse-affair

Brexitwatch: should your MP be on holiday?

Just over 10 weeks until we get medicine, food and fuel shortages that go on for months, plus a hard border in Northern Ireland, and where are our MPs? On holiday. 

To their credit, 100 realise that this is inexcusable, and have signed a letter demanding the immediate recall of parliament.

Is your MP among them? If not, shouldn't they be? My MP is Labour's Brexit spokesman, Sir Keir Starmer, and, astonishingly, his name is not here. Equally astonishingly, Jeremy Corbyn's is also absent.

This is what I have written to Keir Starmer:

Dear Sir Keir,

1. I was very disappointed to see that your name does not appear to be on the list of those demanding the immediate recall of parliament. I trust you will be signing without further delay. Future generations may find it very hard to understand why some MPs thought their holidays were a bigger priority than doing all they could to save the country.

2. I welcome Jeremy Corbyn's offer to lead a government of national unity to prevent the disaster/catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit. It now seems plain that no such government is achievable with Mr Corbyn as prime minister. Surely it is vital now for Labour to propose a government under a Labour MP who would be able to command the support of MPs from other parties. Those who fail to do everything in their power to prevent no deal will not be forgiven.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: People's Vote - write to the Labour Party chairman

One of the most painful aspects of Brexit is listening to unscrupulous Labour Party spokespeople tying themselves in knots of bewildering complexity as they try to avoid answering the simple question: 'Does Labour back a referendum on any Brexit terms that are agreed?'

It is being reported that one of the main opponents of a People's Vote is Labour chairman Ian Lavery, the MP for Wansbeck. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/06/labour-chairman-attacks-corbyn-over-second-referendum-plan

If you want a referendum, write to him at ian.lavery.mp@parliament.uk.

This is what I have sent him. Feel free to borrow, adapt, etc

Dear Mr Lavery,

I am writing to you in your capacity as chairman of the Labour Party. I read that you are doing everything you can to prevent the British people being allowed to vote on the terms under which they are dragged out of the EU. 

Well, if we 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 people voted for is not being and cannot be delivered. 

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 the party 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: 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: don't let Theresa May run the clock down. Another crucial vote

Thanks to an amendment from Conservative MP Dominic Grieve, parliament now has a chance to put an end to Theresa May's strategy of running down the clock until MPs have no alternative but to accept her rotten 'deal'.

It means that if her 'deal' is defeated, she will have to come to parliament with a Plan B in 3 days:-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/09/brexit-how-will-the-amendment-to-stop-theresa-may-running-down-the-clock-work

The vote is this afternoon. So write to, facebook, tweet your MP NOW. This is what I have sent to mine, Sir Keir Starmer:

Dear Sir Keir,

Thank you for supporting Yvette Cooper's amendment. I trust that you and all Labour MPs will now be supporting Dominic Grieve's amendment to ensure that Theresa May is not allowed to waste any more time or money if her 'deal' is voted down.

I also trust that any Labour MP who decides to back this incompetent and discredited government will face severe disciplinary action.

btw why weren't you doing this morning's interview on the 'Today' programme? Barry Gardiner always comes over as completely evasive and must lose dozens of votes for Labour every time he opens his mouth.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: write to your MP NOW

It feels as though the Brexit phoney war is finally over. I know there are rumours that Theresa May may try to kick the can even further down the road, but don't count on it. The big debate is finally on. If you want to stop Brexit or at least get a referendum on Theresa May's 'deal' (which, of course, isn't a deal at all but a wish list to try to negotiate with the EU over the next decade or so), you need to write to your MP NOW.

My MP happens to be Sir Keir Starmer, Labour's Brexit spokesperson. This is what I have sent to him:

Dear Sir Keir,

There is no longer any excuse for proceeding with Brexit, and in any proper democracy, it would have been buried long ago.

1. It will make the UK poorer, and damage most the people Labour is supposed to care most about.

2. It will make the UK weaker on the international stage.

3. It will hand a victory to those who stoke the fires of intolerance and xenophobia.

4. The referendum which is being used as the excuse for pursuing it was won by lies, cheating and law-breaking and was in any case advisory and non-binding.

5. The Brexit that people voted for cannot and will not be delivered.

Following your promise of June 29 that Labour would vote against any deal that failed to satisfy your six tests, I assume that you and all your Labour colleagues will be voting against Theresa May's so-called 'deal'. I trust also that firm disciplinary action will be taken against any Labour MPs who continue to try to prop her up.

Labour should now be working to bring this sorry story to a close at once before it does any more damage to our jobs, rights and public services, by demanding the immediate withdrawal of Article 50. If you and your colleagues do not have the stomach for this, then I trust you will at least support the demand for a referendum on the Prime Minister's terms, with Remain as an option on the ballot paper.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: is this Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit Achilles Heel?

My MP happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer. I have written to him many times and most of the time he has an answer, even if I do not always consider it satisfactory, but there is one question I have asked him several times and I have never received an answer. It is this:-

Sir Keir has admitted that Brexit has no benefits, and that Labour was proceeding with it only because of the referendum result. So now it has been demonstrated that the referendum was won illegally, why is Labour not demanding that it be stopped?

If you have a Labour MP who has not declared against Brexit or for a People's Vote on any Brexit terms, I urge you to write to them to ask why they are still demanding implementation of the result of a bent referendum. Below is one of my emails to Sir Keir on this topic:-

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. 

Follow me on twitter @disasterhistory

Brexitwatch: a potentially important promise from Labour

Last month, I received an assurance from Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer, who happens to be my MP. The party has 6 tests, which are supposed to form the criteria against which it will take a decision on any Brexit deal. Worryingly they had been rubbished at a private meeting by Labour's 'shadow international trade secretary' Barry Gardiner.

After I raised this with Sir Keir, he reassured me that Mr Gardiner had 'retracted' his comments, and 'reiterated: if the PM's final A50 deal fails the six tests, Labour will vote against.'

This appeared very significant. From what we have seen so far, it looks likely that any deal might fail all six tests, but two in particular would seem impossible to pass:

1 That the deal should deliver 'the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union'

2. That it must 'deliver for all regions and nations of the UK'

But I felt I needed to clarify Sir Keir's promise a little, so I emailed him as follows:

Dear Sir Keir,

Thank you for this. Just to be clear. I take it to mean that if the final deal fails ANY of the six tests, then Labour will vote against it?

It has taken me a while to get a reply, but now this has come through:

'Yes, all six tests must be satisfied.

Otherwise, we vote against.'

That seems to be crystal clear. 

Brexitwatch: write to your MP NOW. Support amendment 124 TOMORROW and keep us in the Single Market

Staying in the Single Market is the 'will of the people'. It is also the least damaging form of Brexit, and it solves the otherwise insoluble Irish border problem. This is what I have written to my MP.

Dear Sir Keir,

I know from your previous emails that Labour believes it has to support the Tories on Brexit, however damaging it may be, because it is the 'will of the people'. As you know from my previous emails, I disagree.

However, if you want policy to be dictated by the 'will of the people' that also means we must stay in the Single Market. Every Tory MP elected in 2015 stood on this promise and throughout the Referendum campaign, Leave campaginers such as Boris Johnson, Owen Paterson, Daniel Hannan, Arron Banks, even Nigel Farage, were falling over themselves to assure us we would stay in it.

With such a narrow majority for leaving the EU, it is plain there was a majority for staying in the Single Market. Happily that is also the kind of Brexit that will do least damage and it will solve the otherwise insoluble Irish border problem.

I know that amendment 124 is not a Labour amendment, but on this occasion, I trust you and your Labour colleagues will put country before party and vote for this amendment.

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

Brexitwatch: Free speech for Jeremy Corbyn (and every other MP)

Over the next two days, the UK's Parliament is debating the government's triggering of Article 50 to give notice we are leaving the EU. The EU referendum, of course, was advisory only, so no MP is required to obey its result, but Jeremy Corbyn and most others are choosing to pretend they are, so let's indulge them.

Most MPs know leaving the EU will severely damage our country, so here is the speech that every MP should be making: 

"I have no wish to frustrate the wishes of the British people as demonstrated in last June's referendum. But if we leave the EU on unsatisfactory terms, that will do terrible damage to our country.

After pressure from Parliament, the Prime Minister has finally agreed that she will produce a White Paper setting out how the government intends to secure a satisfactory agreement with our EU partners.

It is clearly premature to trigger Article 50 before Parliament has had a proper opportunity to examine those plans so I will be voting against triggering Article 50 until the government has demonstrated that it has a credible plan for life outside the EU."

Why is it so hard to say that?

Brexitwatch: Article 50 - another letter to my MP

I try not to pester my MP with too many letters, but Labour's astonishing capitulation over Article 50 - roughly translated as: 'We demand a White Paper but we're quite happy to approve A50 without bothering to look what's in it' - I felt left me no alternative but to write again.

To recap, my MP is Sir Keir Starmer, who happens to be Labour's spokesperson on Brexit.

Dear Sir Keir,

I wrote to you a few days ago about Labour's bizarre support for Brexit, but I am afraid the party's incomprehensible behaviour of the last few days compels me to write again.

Did you hear Neil Kinnock on Tam Dalyell this morning? 'He had a razor-like ability to identify absurdity and then denounce it.'

A couple of days ago Jeremy Corbyn scored a rare success when Theresa May announced that she would, after all, produce a White Paper on how the government proposes us to extract us from the EU.

How utterly absurd then for Labour to commit itself to supporting the Tories and UKIP on triggering Article 50 when it has not even seen the White Paper and has no idea whether the Prime Minister's plans make any sense.

NO responsible MP should be supporting the triggering of A50 until they have had a proper chance to examine the White Paper, and if that means Theresa May is unable to meet her plan to trigger it by the end of March too bad. She has had eight months to set out her ideas. If she chooses to leave it until the last minute, that's her problem.

Can't Labour see that it's more important to try to minimise the damage to the country from Brexit than to facilitate the Tories' meeting a completely artificial, self-imposed deadline?

And what about the government's contempt of Parliament exhibited by its production of an A50 'bill' that would fit on the back of a fag packet with room to spare? Are Labour not even going to resist that?

You know my view. I will not support any party or politician who votes to take us out of the EU. But I assume you care about the future of the Labour party, and I cannot believe you are going along with this nonsense. I fear that many Labour voters will never forgive you.

Yours in sorrow and anger,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: to keep Britain in the EU write to your MP NOW

The moment of truth is approaching. Once Theresa May activates Article 50, it will become much more difficult to keep Britain in the EU. So if you want to prevent Brexit, it is important to write to your MP NOW. It is generally believed that MPs are more impressed by letters than emails.

My MP is Sir Keir Starmer, who happens to be Labour's spokesperson on Brexit, but what I have written to him could be used as the basis for a letter to any MP. I reproduce it below:-

Sir Keir Starmer, MP,

House of Commons,

London, SW1A 0AA

23 January 2017

Dear Sir Keir,

I call on you and your Labour Party colleagues to oppose the government’s plan to activate Article 50 and give notice that we will leave the EU.

You and your colleagues are behaving as though they are compelled to go along with Brexit, but you are not.

Throughout the campaign, one of the leading demands of the Brexit side was that the UK Parliament should be sovereign. Well, the UK Parliament decided that the referendum on EU membership should be advisory only. There is, therefore, no legal requirement to take us out of the EU.

Nor is there any moral requirement. The Leave side won by a very narrow majority (which, judging from by-election results since the vote, has already evaporated) in a referendum in which almost 30 per cent of people abstained.

The Leave victory was secured by a systematic campaign of lies and deception (as has been admitted by a number of the Brexit leaders) and its leadership offered no coherent alternative to EU membership.

So if you and your Labour colleagues vote to support the triggering of Article 50, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of your constituents and of Labour voters support staying in the EU, that is a CHOICE that you are making.

And I find it difficult to understand how any MP who cares about the future of our country could make such a choice. There is no evidence of any kind that leaving the EU will benefit us, and a huge volume of evidence that we will be harmed by quitting.

In those circumstances you and your colleagues have a duty to do everything in your power to prevent this disastrous step. This is the most crucial decision Parliament has had to make in decades, and your duty to your country and your constituents outweighs any considerations of party loyalty.

As an intelligent man, you must know that once you allow the government to trigger Article 50, leaving the EU will be inevitable. Even if you can persuade Theresa May to seek Parliamentary approval for the deal she has been able to negotiate with 27 other countries, the European Parliament etc (good luck with that one, Theresa!) you will be faced with a fait accompli.

You will either have to accept the terms she comes back with, however bad they may be, or leave with no agreement at all, which would be a complete disaster.

No. Labour cannot sit on the fence any longer. This is the last chance to keep us in the EU. It is fight or flight time, put up or shut up. And if Labour continues its present policy of chasing the UKIP vote, I fear the wipe out in Scotland will be repeated in many other parts of the country.

Theresa May has no coherent plan for a viable alternative to EU membership. She does not even appear to know whether, once activated, Article 50 can be revoked if negotiations show that the Brexit the British people have been promised cannot be delivered.

For my part, I will not be voting for any politician or political party that supports leaving the EU.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Brexitwatch: Write to your MP

If you are not prepared to stand by and watch Britain dragged out of the EU on the basis of a Brexit campaign founded on a pack of lies which won the support of less than 38 per cent of the electorate, you need to write to your MP. This is what I have sent to mine.

'As a representative, and not a delegate, clearly your responsibility now is to exercise your judgement as to the best way of avoiding further serious harm to us, your constituents, and to the country as a whole. In the absence of any plan of any sort from the Leave campaign, this can only be achieved by a clear statement from Parliament that it rejects the result of a fatally flawed referendum, and affirms that the UK will remain in the EU.

We are already suffering serious economic damage from the referendum result - job losses, cancelled investment, value of people's savings and pensions slashed by the falling pound, and miscellaneous other effects, e.g. the loss of £7bn+ from the taxpayers' holding in RBS, not to mention racist violence against minorities in our country:-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-racial-racism-abuse-hate-crime-reported-latest-leave-immigration-a7104191.html

This cannot be allowed to continue. Parliament must act.

The EU referendum result lacks legitimacy for the following reasons:-

1. The Leave campaign deceived people into voting for it by lying. It broke at least four promises in the first 24 hours after the result 

http://disasterhistorian.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/brexitwatch-lies-and-broken-promises-so.html

And large numbers of pro-Leave voters now wish they had voted Remain.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-bregret-leave-petition-second-remain-latest-will-we-leave-a7105116.html

2. Even Nigel Farage has admitted that a 52-48 margin of victory would not be sufficiently decisive and would require a second referendum

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

If we had been voting to have a one day strike instead of to leave Europe, the proposition would have been rejected as having insufficient support:

'The government has long emphasised that, it does not consider a majority vote valid if it is less than 40% of the eligible electorate, when it is union members voting for a temporary public sector strike. Given that an EU exit is far more important and permanent, how will MPs justify treating the 37.4% of the vote to leave as sufficient, especially when the majority is so small and significantly composed of old people who won’t be affected by the outcome?'
Professor John Veit-Wilson
Newcastle upon Tyne

The Brexiters plainly have no plan, but I am sure that you do. I look forward to hearing what it is.'