Brexitwatch: the last days of cake-and-eat-it?

I explained in my last blog (12 December) how Brexit is actually quite simple, and the consequences that flow from that for the UK are simple too.

Once we decided to leave, we could try to stay close to the EU, which would mean obeying most of its rules. Or we could have a more distant relationship which would make us poorer.

Boris Johnson and the Conservatives did not find this a very attractive choice, and have tried to shirk it for the last three and a half years by claiming there was some kind of magic have-our-cake-and-eat-it solution.

Johnson’s dishonesty, short-termism and general fecklessness has now left him painted into a very fight corner where the choice is between a rotten deal that makes trade with the EU a lot more difficult and the UK a lot poorer, and no-deal which makes trade even more difficult and the UK even poorer.

(Theresa May’s deal would have made us about 3% worse off than remaining; Boris Johnson’s deal (if he could get it accepted by the EU) would make us about 4% poorer, while no-deal would carry an eye-watering 8% penalty.)

He was supposed to finally take a decision between these unpalatable options yesterday, but once again he bottled it. But the decision and the abandonment of cake-and-eat-it can’t be put off beyond 31 December, unless Johnson takes another unpalatable action: seeking the extension to transition that he said would never happen ‘in any circumstances’, and which would enrage the Brexit fanatics who maintain him in power.

  

Brexitwatch: Boris Johnson - deal or no deal?

Sam Goldwyn warned: 'Never make predictions, especially about the future', and making predictions about Boris Johnson is especially hazardous because you can't believe a word he says (see my post of 5 January).

According to the crankish game theories of Johnson, or perhaps more important - Cummings, the UK will get a good deal only if the EU believes it is serious about 'walking away' from negotiations and settling for 'no deal'. (Though the consequences of no deal are now so widely recognised to be disastrous that Johnson-Cummings have had to try to rebadge it as an 'Australia-type' deal.)

There is no evidence that the EU are in the slightest degree impressed by this nonsense, but plenty that it keeps the more fanatically anti-EU element among Johnson-Cummings' supporters happy.

Nye Bevan asked: 'Why look in the crystal ball, when you can read the book?' And we have already seen Johnson-Cummings with their backs against the wall during the negotiations. They also threatened to walk away during the Withdrawal Agreement talks, but in the end they signed up to whatever the EU demanded, including things like a border in the Irish Sea that Theresa May had rejected. They and their nodding dogs then claimed this was a great victory.

Johnson-Cummings' attempt to renege on that agreement may mean that an even more humiliating climbdown will be required to get a deal on the future relationship, as the EU is probably unlikely to take much on trust from now on. But with a mendacious right-wing press still highly compliant on Brexit, if not on Covid, Johnson may still be calculating that he can repeat his earlier trick: surrender, then claim victory, while his media accomplices play along.

So, if I was forced to predict an outcome, it would be this one, though I wouldn't bet much on it. I'll be examining other possibilities over the coming weeks.

Brexitwatch: Boris Johnson - intimations of mortality

‘When a man is about to be hanged,’ said Dr Johnson, ‘it concentrates his mind wonderfully.’ Assuming that, during his time in the intensive care ward, Boris Johnson felt acutely reminded of his own mortality, what effect might that have?

Because you can’t believe a word he says, anything you write about Johnson is highly speculative, but I spoke to someone who claimed to know him, who told me something I found reassuring. He said the prime minister cares a lot about what the history books will say about him.

If he had died during his brush with coronavirus, they wouldn’t have made great reading: ‘He knew leaving the EU would be highly damaging for the UK, but he pressed on with it because he thought it would advance his own career. He undermined prime minister Theresa May on the pretext that her Withdrawal Agreement was not good enough, then once he had replaced her, negotiated one that was worse. He won an election under a slogan he knew was mendacious, and then when he was confronted with the worst crisis the UK had faced in decades, he proved completely unequal to the task.' Though the charge sheet would obviously be longer than this.

If Johnson is serious about being treated more kindly by history, he must realise there are a number of policies he is going to have to reverse. Most obviously, limiting the damage from Brexit by agreeing a close relationship with the EU to secure the frictionless trade on which the UK’s future depends.

So far the signs aren’t good. He has bizarrely ruled out any extension of the transition period which ends on December 31 at which point, the UK is in danger of crashing out of Europe with a huge hit to jobs, public services, businesses etc.

But the lesson for Boris Johnson of his intimation of mortality is surely this. If there is something you need to do, do it today. There may be no tomorrow.

Brexitwatch: What's Boris Johnson up to?

Three years ago, I was asking: 'What is Theresa May up to?' (see my blog of 9 October 2016) and never coming to any satisfactory conclusion. Now I'm pondering the same thing about Boris Johnson.

Mrs May would never have won any prizes for honesty, unless her opponent was Boris Johnson. The fact that you can't believe a word Johnson says makes it even more difficult to guess what is his policy (assuming there is one).

Like others, I even speculated that if he won a decent parliamentary majority, Johnson might sell the Tory Brexit fanatic ERG down the river just as he betrayed the DUP, and try to negotiate a less damaging form of Brexit by seeking to stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Unfortunately, his announcement that there will be no extension of the transition phase beyond the end of this year suggests he's still firmly in the fanatic camp. Nobody much seems to think that any deal that does not seriously damage the UK can be done by 31 December 2020.

It's a bizarre move in that it weakens even further the UK's poor negotiating hand. The EU is under no pressure to reach a deal by that date, but now Johnson is, which puts him at the EU's mercy.

So why did he do it? Is the man who was attacking Brexit as madness as recently as 2016 now a fully paid up Brexit fanatic? Was it part of a deal to get Nigel Farage to stand down hundreds of his candidates, without which Johnson would not have won his majority?

Or is it a demonstration, that just as with Theresa May, getting a good deal for the UK is not the priority, and that his actions are posturing, designed instead to curry favour with those at home he believes he needs to keep him in power?

Electionwatch: the latest Great Brexit Lie

The whole Brexit project was and is based on lies, and one particular lie is now central to Boris Johnson’s campaign – that electing him as prime minister will ‘get Brexit done’ and that the country will then be able to forget about it.

Why anyone would believe anything Mr Johnson says is a mystery to me, but apparently some people do, so let everyone understand that the one thing a Tory win will not do is ‘get Brexit done’.

Let’s assume Johnson gets a majority. He then presumably brings his ‘deal’ back to parliament. It passed second reading once with a majority of 30, but with Brexit, the devil is in the detail. When the UK decided to join the EU nearly half a century ago, MPs gave approval by a much bigger majority – 112, but when the detail was voted on, the margin shrank to 8 votes, so Johnson is likely to be extremely vulnerable.

If MPs decide to do their job and read the legislation properly, there will be lots of amendments and, bearing in mind his ‘deal’ is even worse than Theresa May’s, on some of them Johnson is likely to be defeated – People’s Vote, giving MPs control over negotiations? Which, is why he pulled his ‘deal’ from parliamentary scrutiny in the first place.

That is obstacle one. But let’s assume Johnson clears that and gets his deal through parliament. Brexit done and dusted? No way. Far from being the end of anything, that is just the start of a long and complex negotiation of a new trade deal with the EU.

It took Canada seven years to reach agreement with the EU. Some people will tell you the UK can do a deal much quicker, but they tend to be the same people who promised that we would be able to have our cake and eat it, that the Withdrawal Agreement would be the easiest negotiation in history, that Brexit would make us richer not poorer etc, etc.

All their promises have turned out to be worthless. And the UK’s position is fatally weakened by the Brexiters’ inability to agree on what they want: no deal, May’s deal, Johnson’s deal, soft Brexit, hard Brexit. They fooled you once. Are you really going to fall for it again?

Far from ‘getting Brexit done’, uncertainty will rule for years with Johnson landing the UK with a whole new set of nail-biting cliff edges. 31 January - if we have not agreed a deal, we will have to ask for another extension or leave without a deal. If Johnson can negotiate that obstacle, the UK goes into a transition period. By 1 July, Johnson has to decide whether he wants to extend that beyond the current end date of 31 December 2020. If he agrees, and if the EU agrees, the next cliff edge comes on 31 December 2022. At every cliff edge, a disastrous no-deal with food, medicine and fuel shortages looms.

Meanwhile, Scotland, Northern Ireland and probably Wales will be determinedly fighting Johnson’s plan to take them out of the EU against their will.

There’s as much chance of a Johnson victory ‘getting Brexit done’ as there is of me playing centre forward for England. If you want to stop Brexit dominating our politics for the foreseeable future, the only way is to stop Brexit altogether.

Brexitwatch: Beware. Is 'no deal' a Boris Johnson dead cat?

Back in the autumn of 2016, when Theresa May (remember her?) was peddling her 'no deal is better than a bad deal' nonsense, here is what I blogged on 9 October 2016:

'Is Mrs May engaged in a softening up exercise, conjuring up the most disastrous picture of Brexit imaginable, so that when she comes up with something that damages the country a bit less, Remainers will be pathetically grateful and go along with it? 

Beware! Every Brexit is a bad Brexit. The only good Brexit is no Brexit.'

Now Boris Johnson is our prime minister. He once wrote that if you were losing an argument, the thing to do was to 'throw a dead cat on the table' - meaning you should come up with a suggestion so alarming that everybody was so distracted by making sure your alarming idea did not come to fruition that they forgot the real point.

With Johnson, the only thing you can count on is that you can't believe a word he says, so it is possible that he's wickedly irresponsible enough to take the UK out or the EU with no deal (and, therefore, of course no transition period either). Equally, 'no deal' may just be a dead cat designed to make us forget how disastrous any Brexit will be. 

Either way, we need to remember: Every Brexit is a bad Brexit. The only good Brexit is no Brexit.

Brexitwatch: nail the 'over the line' myth

It’s surely one of the most mendacious of all the Brexit clichés. We keep being told that we have to get Brexit ‘over the line’.

You ‘get over the line’ when you finish a race, and once you’re over the line, the race is over. But with Brexit, it’s completely different. Leaving the EU, if we are foolish enough to do it, won’t be the end of anything. It will be the start.

Whether we leave with no deal, or with May’s deal rebranded as Johnson’s deal, leaving the EU will kick off years, possibly decades of uncertainty as we try to negotiate a future arrangement with them. And, just as they have over the last three years, the EU will hold nearly all of the cards. And as the Brexiters still haven’t decided what they want, it will be a depressing and demeaning experience.

So getting Brexit ‘over the line’ doesn’t stop the nightmare. The only way you can achieve that is by stopping Brexit.

Brexitwatch: does the Tory Party face richly deserved extinction?

Is the Tory Party heading for richly deserved extinction? At the Peterborough by-election the Tories saw their share of the vote fall by 25 percentage points. At the European elections, they won just 9 per cent of the vote. At the local elections they lost more than 1,300 seats. Donations to the party have fallen by half.

And the latest Private Eye reveals the picture is even worse. Although the party appears to own a lot of property, such as Conservative clubs and buy-to-let properties, very little is owned by the party centrally.

Almost all of it is in the hands of local associations and trusts, and those local associations are starting to abandon the parliamentary party, with shedloads of local officeholders backing the Brexit Party at the European elections. Now the fear is that local branches will start giving up on the party, affiliating with Nigel Farage’s lot instead, and taking the property with them.

Is this one of the reasons why we are getting unadulterated pandering to the party’s worst, most reactionary instincts from those trying to replace Theresa May.

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: Tell her again! No to Theresa May's blind Brexit, and tell your MP again

Write to you MP and tell them to tell her again. No to Theresa May's blindfold Brexit. My MP is Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer:

Dear Sir Keir,

It will take a long time, maybe forever, for Labour to live down the image that tells us everything. The party sits idly by, too cowardly to take a view, so ensuring that the best opportunity so far for ordinary folk like us to be given a vote on our future is lost. Brexit is the biggest crisis this country has faced in my lifetime, but time and time again, Labour fails those who depend on it. As for the 17 of your UKIP 5th columnists who voted with Theresa May, what action will be taken against them? None at all, I suppose, as usual.

And now, emboldened by the leadership's spineless response, are those same Labour Kippers, plus maybe a few others, going to ensure that Theresa May's disastrous Tory blindfold Brexit gets through at the third time of asking, while we the great unwashed are told that we must never be allowed to change our minds?

Labour needs to swing wholeheartedly behind stopping Brexit and to expel the UKIP 5th columnists. This may be painful for a time, but it will give the party the chance of having a future. If you go on colluding with the Far Right Brexit project, you will never be forgiven.

Here's an alternative to Labour's hopeless prevarication and obfuscation. Why not now immediately revoke Article 50 because nothing sensible can be achieved by Theresa May's foolishly self-imposed deadline of March 29? Parliament should then set up a grand committee of all MPs who support Brexit. (This might simply be self-selected or it might be limited to those MPs who have spoken in the Commons in favour of it.)

That committee would then be given the task of deciding what the Brexiters want, and devising a plan to be put to parliament. Once MPs had agreed the plan was credible, and had a good chance of being accepted by the EU, it would then be put to the government. Parliament, hopefully, would also consider it against other criteria such as, for example, how much damage it would do to our country.

The government would then consider the proposals, and report to parliament on its suggestion as to how to proceed.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: write to the Speaker to stop Theresa May forcing through her blind Brexit

Theresa May's disastrous blindfold Brexit has twice been overwhelmingly rejected by MPs, but she's planning to bring it back a third or even a fourth and a fifth time. Surely that's outrageous especially when she denies the British people a second vote after a very close, highly dubious referendum? Shouldn't there be a law against it?

Well, there is. According to House of Commons' rules, once MPs have rejected something, it should not be put again during that session of parliament https://news.sky.com/story/an-ancient-rule-means-bercow-could-take-drastic-action-on-brexit-11664555

So the Speaker, John Bercow, could rule it out. He has already shown himself a courageous defender of democracy, and I have written to him again to ask him to save us from having a Brexit no one wants foisted on us by the increasingly dictatorial Theresa May. If you agree with me, please write to him too:

Dear Mr Speaker,

I have already thanked you for your sterling work defending the rights of parliament against an executive that seems to have been driven mad by Brexit, but I am now very disturbed at actions by the prime minister that seem calculated to bring parliament into disrepute.

Obviously you know far more about this than I do, but I had understood that if a measure was rejected by parliament, a government was not allowed to put it to MPs again in that parliamentary session. Theresa May has already had two goes with her blindfold Brexit, and MPs have overwhelmingly rejected it twice, but she appears to be determined to try a third, and even a fourth or fifth time. Surely this should not be allowed, especially when Mrs May has decreed that voters should never be allowed to change their minds about Brexit!

Even worse, she seems to be using taxpayers' money to bribe Labour and DUP MPs to support her. In addition to the damning reaction of MPs, it seems clear from polling evidence that her 'deal' is also extraordinarily unpopular in the country with both Leave and Remain voters. So if by some chicanery, she does manage to force it through, far from 'healing divisions' in the UK, it is likely to only make people more angry than ever, and that anger will probably be directed against a parliament that is behaving in a way most people cannot understand.

Please help us.

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: Theresa May's blindfold Brexit breaks a key promise

By next week, perhaps sooner, Theresa May will have made another attempt to steamroller her blindfold Brexit through parliament. Although it was heavily defeated last time, MPs, unlike the British people, are to be given a chance to change their minds.  

I fear it may get through as the all-mouth-and-no-trousers Tory Brexit fanatics of the  laughingly named 'European Research Group' (found out where Calais is yet, lads?) cave in and join in an unholy alliance with Labour's UKIP tendency - MPs like Kate Hoey, Caroline Flint, Sir Keith Barron, Dennis Skinner and Graham Stringer - who usually betray their party on Brexit issues and support Theresa May.

If the blindfold Brexit does go through, it breaks an undertaking given on a number of occasions by Theresa May who promised MPs they would have 'sufficient detail about all aspects of the future relationship' with the EU BEFORE they would have to decide whether it was a good idea to leave.

In fact, MPs will have no idea about our future relationship when they vote. Is it going to be the as-distant-as-possible one favoured by the Brexit fanatics? Official analysis - from a pro-Brexit government, remember - says such a deal sometimes refered to as 'Canada-style' and sometimes favoured by the ERG, would make us 6.7% poorer than staying in the EU over the next 15 years, and it doesn't solve the Irish border problem. Even the least damaging Brexit - staying in the single market and the customs union - sees us 1.4% poorer. 

A no-deal Brexit would, of course, be a disaster - leaving us an unsustainable 10.7% worse off. No wonder Theresa May admits it might mean martial law. If MPs have any concept of their duty to our country, they will refuse to back any Brexit until they know exactly what the government is trying to achieve.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/economic-forecasts-strike-blow-to-theresa-mays-brexit-deal

Brexitwatch: a reply from Labour's UKIP tendency

In this blog on 1 February, I posted the email I sent to the 14 Labour MPs who voted for Theresa May and against their own party on the Yvette Cooper amendment to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit. They obviously feel it's important we should face the dangers of food and medicine shortages, martial law etc (I wonder if any of them would like to apologise now Theresa May has double-crossed parliament again?)

Here's the reply I got from perhaps the most fanatically pro-UKIP Labour MP, Kate Hoey (London Vauxhall), and below it are my replies to her reply:

Thanks John I was pleased to join with 13 of my Labour  colleagues to help vote down the Cooper amendment which was designed to help thwart Brexit.  The country were told explicitly that there [sic] vote mattered and the result would be implemented. Indeed 8 million pounds spent on a Gov leaflet to every household saying exactly that. Parliament voted for the decision of the referendum to be honoured and also voted overwhelmingly to invoke Articke 50.It was also in our election manifesto that we would implement the referendum

I disagree with your dire warnings about the future outside the EU and look forward to being an independent  country co-operating with the rest of the world including our near neighbours in the EU.

Leave means Leave 

Best wishes 

Kate

'Leave means leave' eh, Kate? especially Honda and all the other companies who are quitting. Are you satisfied yet, or do you want to see more jobs lost and more closures?

I'm not sure how 'Sorry you lost your job and your public services, but it was the will of the people' is going to play. But you'll be pleased your old mate Theresa May has double-crossed parliament again. Expect you'll be supporting her as usual. 

Dear Ms Hoey,

Why is it that when you put arguments to Brexiters, instead of engaging with those arguments, they just respond with the same empty slogans they've been trotting out for years? I suppose it's because they don't have any arguments.

1. You say Yvette Cooper's amendment was designed to 'thwart Brexit'. No. It was designed to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Something that anyone who cares about the UK should have been supporting.

2. It doesn't matter how much David Cameron spent on a leaflet. You Brexiters are dragging us out of the EU under the pretext of strengthening 'parliamentary sovereignty'. So you will know that parliament makes the law in this country, not a Tory Prime Minister. The 2016 referendum was explicitly advisory and non-binding on MPs. It offered bad advice, and it is the duty of all MPs to act in the national interest and reject it.

3. As I said in my email, the referendum result cannot be 'implemented' because the Brexit that you and your UKIP and Tory colleagues promised is not being and cannot be delivered. So the referendum result is of no relevance to the decisions MPs now have to make.

4. They are not my warnings. Virtually everyone who has examined Brexit seriously has concluded that it will make the UK poorer and, disgracefully, rob young people of the opportunities that people of our generation took for granted. Far from being more 'independent' outside the EU, the UK will be weaker and more dependent.

I note you decided to ignore the other points I made. I assume this is because you have no answers to them.

But if you intend to carry on helping Theresa May inflict her Far Right Brexit coup on the UK, I do not see how you can continue as a member of the Labour party.

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: 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: 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: the question every MP should be asking themself

There are some honourable exceptions, but the performance of most MPs during the Brexit shambles - the worst political crisis in the UK since World War Two - has been shameful.

Among the items on the charge sheet:-

1. Never bothering to have a proper debate on the implications of the 2016 referendum result
2. Pretending that an advisory, non-binding referendum was binding and giving it a status equivalent to the word of God.
3. Deliberately ignoring the fact that the referendum was won by lies, cheating and law-breaking.
4. Voting to trigger Article 50 when it was plain that Theresa May's government did not have (and still does not have) the faintest idea what it wanted.

For the last two and a half years, most MPs have fecklessly kicked the can down the road, but now they are nearly out of road. Now every MP needs to look in the mirror and ask themself this question:

Do I really want to be remembered for knowingly damaging jobs, public services, businesses, people's savings and pensions, and the UK's standing in the world because I did not have the guts to tell the British people the truth: that Brexit is a terrible mistake and must be stopped immediately?

Good luck getting the right answer.

Brexitwatch: get your MP to support the real opposition

Labour want a People's Vote on the Brexit terms only if they cannot get a general election. They could try to get a general election by moving a motion of 'no confidence' in Theresa May's government, but this they refuse to do. So hey presto! Labour can avoid supporting a People's Vote.

Is this because Jeremy Corbyn and his circle are as desperate as Theresa May to push Brexit through in the face of mounting opposition from the majority in the country? I do not know, but I do know that the SNP, the LibDems, the Greens, and Plaid Cymru increasingly look like the real opposition.

They have put down a motion of no confidence in the government. Write to your MP and demand they support it. This is what I have sent to mine who happens to be Labour's Brexit spokesperson, Sir Keir Starmer:-

Dear Sir Keir,

Having refused to try to help the British people yourselves, I trust you and all Labour MPs will be supporting the motion of no confidence in the government brought forward by the SNP, LibDems, Plaid Cymru and Greens. Or are you just going to go on sitting on your hands so Jeremy Corbyn can help the Tories push through his beloved Brexit?

I trust also that Labour MPs will NOT be taking their Christmas holidays but will be staying at Westminster, with or without government approval, to explore what you can do to save our country.

I look forward to hearing from you,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: the alternative to a People's Vote

Brexiters like Theresa May claim that holding a referendum on the terms of Brexit will be a 'betrayal'. Regular readers of this blog will know I regard this excuse as hypocritical poppycock, but I would like to try to bring the country together, so I offer an alternative route out of the Brexit quagmire in which the UK is currently stuck.

The government should immediately revoke Article 50 because nothing sensible can be achieved by Theresa May's foolishly self-imposed deadline of March 29. Parliament should then set up a grand committee of all MPs who support Brexit. (This might simply be self-selected or it might be limited to those MPs who have spoken in the Commons in favour of it.)

That committee would then be given the task of deciding what the Brexiters want, and devising a plan to be put to parliament. Once MPs had agreed the plan was credible, and had a good chance of being accepted by the EU, it would then be put to the government. Parliament, hopefully, would also consider it against other criteria such as, for example, how much damage it would do to our country.

The government would then consider the proposals, and report to parliament on its suggestion as to how to proceed.