WORLD EXCLUSIVE. Leaked letter from UK to the Kremlin

Someone has just leaked me this extraordinary letter. It appears to be addressed to President Putin at the Kremlin, but who can it be from?

Dear Vladimir,

I’m sorry about the delay in getting the trade war with the EU underway, but now we’re motoring. I’m as keen as you are to destroy the EU. I know perfectly well how embarrassing it is to have neighbours who are more prosperous, more efficient and more democratic.

Of course I am aware that without your money, bots, lies, dirty tricks, etc. I would never have got my job, but you have to understand I’m in a very tight corner. Even some of the foolish people who voted for Brexit have begun to see through my lies! So, apologies once again that it has taken so long.

And I appreciate you invading Ukraine so the mendacious right wing press and my stupid MPs could trot out the line about: ‘We can’t change prime minister! There’s a war on!’

And I can understand that you’re cross about me sending weapons to Ukraine, but you have to see it from my point of view. This has got to look good! If too many people start to think I am in your pay and in your pocket, the outlook for me could be really bleak.

Onwards and upwards!

Your friend in the FUK (Former United Kingdom) 

Brexitwatch: a new reply from Sir Keir Starmer. (Spoiler alert!) Looks just like the old one

I've had a reply from Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who happens to be my MP, to my criticisms of Labour's reply (see my post of 23 January) to my original criticisms of Labour's policy on Brexit. I attach this latest reply below, and you will see it bears an extraordinary resemblance to Labour's original reply (see my post of 17 January), which I had already demonstrated to be completely unsatisfactory. 

It is almost as though Labour has a standard pro forma response to anyone who raises anything that casts doubt on the Great God Brexit. Personally, I don't see how determinedly ignoring the Brexit disaster can win the next election for Labour, but what do I know? I'm only a voter. Anyway here's the letter: 

Dear John,

Thank you for writing to Keir to share your thoughts on Britain’s exit from the EU. He has asked me to respond on his behalf.

I am sorry that it has taken us so long to get back to you, the constituency office has received a huge amount of correspondence recently and we have had to prioritise urgent Covid-19 related casework. That said, I would like to assure you that we have still been reading and monitoring policy inquiries throughout this period and ensuing that Keir is fully briefed on the issues which are being raised by local residents. Your strong views, arguments and observations have been duly noted and shared with the relevant policy teams.

The old divides of Remain and Leave are over. At the end of December, Labour had two options: Johnson’s flawed trade deal with the EU, or the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal, which would have meant substantial tariffs and barriers to trade. Neither one was ideal. Neither one would deliver for jobs, business or the economy. 
 
We have always said that to crash out with no deal would be unthinkable. It would have created enormous uncertainty, endless negotiations and inflicted huge damage to businesses in highly exposed sectors, including manufacturing and farming.
 
With no option of renegotiating left, we voted in the national interest by rejecting no deal.
 
Voting for this deal did not mean that we welcomed it. However, compared with the alternative, this is the better option for business, supply chains, the economy and jobs. This deal will provide some stability and certainty for businesses. Without it, we would have faced no deal which would have meant investment and jobs lost across crucial sectors.

But, this is Johnson’s deal. He and his Government will own it and they must take full responsibility for their slowness and lack of preparedness – and for the promises they make and break. There was no reason that a deal this unambitious for the UK had to be left until the final days of the transition period. The decision to delay this deal has done unnecessary damage to businesses and the economy.
 
Moreover, this deal falls far short of what the Government promised. It neglects services, which account for 80 per cent of our economy, and weakens our security measures. There was very little time for Parliament to scrutinise the deal properly because of how quickly it had to be passed. So much for ‘taking back control’ – this Government is arriving at the last minute with a deal that is more ‘be grateful you’ve got anything’.
 
More holes will be exposed in the coming weeks and months which must be mended in the future. This Tory Government must now get into action and properly support British industries with adjusting to new trading rules, building up local supply chains and expanding in to new markets.
 
The biggest challenges facing our country and our planet require co-operation and international solutions, and a Labour government will work with others with shared values to tackle those.

Now that a trade deal has been agreed, the task of securing the economy, protecting the NHS, and rebuilding the country will only have just begun. A Labour government will build on the foundations of this deal, stand up against any Tory attempts to dilute workers’ rights and environmental standards, and make the United Kingdom the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old.
 
Thank you once again for your email. Please do not hesitate to get back in touch if there are any further points that you would like to raise.
    

Best wishes,
 
Annie Peterman
Research and Communications Officer
Office of Keir Starmer QC, MP
Member of Parliament for Holborn & St Pancras
Leader of the Opposition

Brexitwatch: stop treating pro-EU voters as unpeople - my reply to Labour

On 17 January, I posted Labour's reply to my emails asking Sir Keir Starmer to keep his promise and vote against Boris Johnson's Brexit deal. Here's my response:

Dear Sir Keir,

I was disappointed when my emails urging you to oppose Boris Johnson's catastrophic Brexit 'deal' were responded to by someone identified just as 'Lee from the Labour Party'. Is this taking a leaf out of the Tory playbook, where comments come from an anonymous 'Downing Street source'?

It is such a completely unsatisfactory response that I do not have time to respond to all its inadequacies, so here are a few:

1. The 'old divides of Remain and Leave' are not 'over'. It is true, of course, that there are no more 'Remainers'. We have been dragged out of the EU against our will, so we cannot 'remain'. But the division between pro and anti-EU voters in the UK is at least as deep as ever. All polling suggests that pro-EU people are in the majority, and among Labour voters, they probably outnumber anti-EU by around 3 to 1. In spite of that, Labour has decided to ignore pro-EU people because it seems to believe the only way to election victory is by winning anti-EU votes in the so-called former 'Red Wall' seats.

I can tell you that we who are pro-EU are sick and tired of being treated by Labour as though we are unpopular relatives, who unfortunately have to be invited to the party because you want our votes, but who are expected to sit in a corner trying to make ourselves invisible and under strict instructions to shut up.

2. If Labour had voted against Johnson's deal as I urged, it would still have passed comfortably, so the 'it was the only way of avoiding no deal' excuse won't wash.

3. Every day new Brexit disasters appear: fishermen who can't sell their fish, hauliers who bypass the UK, companies who give up exporting, consumers facing huge price rises, etc. If Labour wants, it can go around saying: 'nothing to do with us, guv, even though we voted for it. It's all that Boris Johnson's fault.' We'll see whether the voters buy that line.

4. As you voted for the 'deal', Lee's comments about how useless it is are irrelevant.

5. Lee says: 'Labour are focussed entirely on making this the best country to grow up in and the best place to grow old in.' This is the kind of vacuous drivel I expect from the Tories. You don't make a country better by making it worse - by making its people poorer, by stripping them, their children and their grandchildren of their rights, by making their country weaker and more divided.

Labour's performance on Brexit has been shameful. Half-hearted on opposing it in the referendum campaign, voting to trigger Article 50 when the government had no credible plan, turning a blind eye to the cheating, lying, gerrymandering and possible foreign interference that won the vote for Leave, etc., and now treating pro-EU voters as unpeople. Labour may want us all to go away, and let you have a quiet life in which no one ever says a bad word about Brexit. But we're not going anywhere.

Lee says Johnson's deal is no good, so let's see Labour fighting to tear down the barriers it has put up. Where's the campaign to rejoin Erasmus, to restore freedom of movement for musicians, artists, technicians, and what about the many others in less glamorous jobs who would like to go on working in Europe, where's the demand to get mutual recognition of professional qualifications? Why hasn't Labour set up a forum with business to find out what are the barriers stopping them trading with Europe, and working with them to get them removed?

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: a (sort of) reply from Sir Keir Starmer

The story so far: I wrote to Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, who is also my MP, urging Labour to oppose Boris Johnson's disastrous Brexit 'deal', because supporting it would mean Labour would be tainted with its damaging consequences and would be disqualified from complaining about them (see my posts of 6 and 27 December). As you know, Labour whipped its MPs to support the deal and the vast majority obeyed. The main excuse being that if Labour opposed it, there was a danger of 'no deal', even though the deal would have passed comfortably without Labour votes.

I have now finally received a reply - not from Sir Keir, but from 'Lee' of the Labour Party. I will be responding but I would be interested in any thoughts readers have before I do. Here it is:

Dear John,

 

Thank you for your email to Keir Starmer MP in relation to Britain’s withdrawal from the E.U. At this point in time, Keir’s mailbag is so full that he has asked me to respond on his behalf. I’m very sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

  

Your strong views, arguments and observations have been duly noted and shared with the relevant policy teams.

 

The old divides of Remain and Leave are over. We now have two options: Johnson’s flawed trade deal with the EU, or the chaos of ending the transition period with no deal, which would mean substantial tariffs and barriers to trade. Neither one is ideal. Neither one will deliver for jobs, business or the economy.

 

We have always said that to crash out with no deal would be unthinkable. It would have created enormous uncertainty, endless negotiations and inflicted huge damage to businesses in highly exposed sectors, including manufacturing and farming.

 

With no option of renegotiating left, that is why we voted in the national interest by rejecting no deal.

 

Voting for this deal does not mean we welcome it: it is a choice between this and no deal. This is the better option for business, supply chains, the economy and jobs. This deal will provide some stability and certainty for businesses. Without it, we would have had no deal which would have meant investment and jobs lost across crucial sectors.

 

But, this is Johnson’s deal. He and his Government will own it and they must take full responsibility for their slowness and lack of preparedness – and for the promises they make and break. There was no reason that a deal this unambitious for the UK had to be left until the final days of the transition period. The decision to delay this deal has already done unnecessary damage to businesses and the economy.

 

Moreover, this deal falls far short of what the Government promised. It neglects services, which account for 80 per cent of our economy, and weakens our security measures. There was very little time for Parliament to scrutinise the deal properly because of the speed it must be passed as to avoid no deal. So much for ‘taking back control’ – this Government is arriving at the last minute with a deal that is more ‘be grateful you’ve got anything’.

 

More holes will be exposed in the coming weeks and months which must be mended in the future. Labour in Opposition and government would focus on improving and building on it and standing up for the country’s interests. This Government must now get into action and properly support British industries adjusting to new trading rules, building up local supply chains and expanding in to new markets, instead of casting them to one side as they have over recent months.

 

Labour are focussed entirely on making this the best country to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. This biggest challenges facing our country and our planet require co-operation and international solutions, and a Labour government will work with others with shared values to tackle those.

 

However, with the trade deal agreed, the task of securing the economy, protecting the NHS, and rebuilding the country will only have just begun. A Labour government will build on the foundations of this deal, stand up against any Tory attempts to dilute workers’ rights and environmental standards, and make the United Kingdom the best place to grow up and the best place to grow old.

 

Best wishes,   

  

Lee 

Membership Services and Correspondence  

The Labour Party 

 

Brexitwatch: Write to Labour again!

Disappointing to have had no reply to my email to Sir Keir Starmer (who happens to be my MP) urging Labour to vote against any Tory Brexit that fails to fully satisfy Labour's 6 tests. (see my post of December 6.)

So I'm having another go - see below. If you don't want Labour to back a Tory Brexit and be disqualified from complaining about its damaging effects, you should write to Sir Keir and your Labour MP if you have one.

Dear Sir Keir, hope you had a good Christmas. I am disappointed not to have received a reply to my email of 6 December (see below) particularly as I keep reading that you are going to instruct Labour MPs to support Boris Johnson's dreadful Brexit 'deal'. 

Every day, new details emerge of how it will damage people's lives, but if Labour votes for it, you will be disqualified from criticising its effects. Imagine the scene :

'He used to be Captain Hindsight, Mr Speaker. Now he's been demoted to Sgt Turncoat! Just a few days ago, he and the party opposite voted for our historic agreement with the EU. Now they're against it! I know he's a lawyer, who changes his brief as often as he changes his briefs, Mr Speaker, but he's no leader. Britain needs leadership, and the party opposite have shown once again that they're shallow, unprincipled opportunists, who have nothing to offer our country.'

In 2018, you promised me Labour would vote against any 'deal' that did not satisfy all its six tests. This one comes nowhere near. You should keep you promise and urge Labour MPs to vote 'no' to Johnson's deal.

Yours,

John Withingon

Brexitwatch: write to Labour

My MP happens to be the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer. Before the last election, he gave me a promise that Labour would vote AGAINST any Brexit deal that did not satisfy Labour's '6 tests'.

On 29 June 2018 at 22:55 STARMER, Keir wrote:

Sorry for the delay, John.

Yes, all six tests must be satisfied.

Otherwise, we vote against.

Best wishes, Keir 

The 6 tests can be found here. https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-starmer-labour-has-six-tests-for-brexit-if-theyre-not-met-we-wont-back-the-final-deal-in-parliament/

There are few certainties about Brexit, but two things we can be sure of are that any deal Boris Johnson achieves will bear no resemblance to what he promised while he was conning people into voting Leave and that it will not meet the 6 tests - especially test 2: 'Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?'

Any deal Johnson agrees will seriously damage our country. It would be an act of monumental folly by Labour to support such a deal, and would disqualify the party from protesting at any of the many damaging consequences that would flow from it.

So I have written to Keir Starmer again (see below). If you agree with me, write to Keir Starmer. If you have a Labour MP, write to them too.

Dear Sir Keir,

I hope that you and your loved ones are well. 

You may remember that before the last election, you gave me an assurance (see below) that Labour would vote against any Brexit deal that did not meet ALL the party's six tests.

I am sorry to have to ask you to repeat the promise, but I keep reading disturbing reports that Labour plans to vote in favour of Boris Johnson's Brexit deal, should he reach one. 

To put it mildly, it seems extremely unlikely that any deal he makes will satisfy the six tests, so can I have your assurance that Labour will not renege on its promise?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: Now Johnson is bragging about breaking the law - time to write to the Queen again

Just over a year ago, I wrote to the Queen to warn her of the danger of becoming an accomplice in Boris Johnson's illegal suspension of parliament (see my post of 30 August 2019, and 13 September 2019 for the Queen's reply).

It is likely that very soon now, the Queen will be asked to approve the UK Internal Market Bill, which by the government's own admission ('boast' may be a more accurate word) reneges on the Withdrawal Agreement Johnson signed with the EU, and support for which was the key policy that won him a general election just ten months ago, and breaks international law. Even prominent Brexiters like Lord (Michael) Howard and Lord (Norman) Lamont are unable to stomach this. 

So I have written to the Queen again, suggesting that her previous contention that 'I have to do whatever the prime minister tells me' is inadequate in a situation in which she is being asked to approve the UK breaking the law. Here is my letter:

Your Majesty,

 A year ago, I wrote to you to warn you of the dangers of simply following the orders of your prime minister. The result of following those orders was that you became an accomplice in an illegal prorogation of parliament. Now very soon, it is highly likely that your prime minister will instruct you to endorse the UK government breaking international law.

 I am sorry this crisis should have come upon when you are in your 90s and when you have given your country a long lifetime of devoted service, but you are The Queen.

 Unlike the prorogation, which Mr Johnson’s government at least pretended they believed was legal, with the repudiation of the Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, your government is actually boasting that it is breaking the law.

 This agreement you will remember was freely agreed to by the prime minister, was approved by Conservative MPs, who refused to allow parliament time to scrutinise it properly, and then became the centrepiece of the Conservative Party’s successful campaign in a general election just ten months ago.

 You very kindly got your deputy correspondence co-ordinator to reply on your behalf to my previous letter, but her assertion that you must always ‘act on the advice of your ministers’ is surely inadequate when they keep telling you to do things that are illegal.

 I would humbly urge you the next time you are instructed to perform or endorse an act that may be illegal to seek your own independent legal advice. Would it not also be wise to seek the views of the leader of the opposition, of the other five living prime ministers, and of previous Lord Chancellors?  

 As I wrote in my first letter: ‘The national interest of our country, and particularly the long-term interest, such as protecting our democracy, is not the same thing as what a particular prime minister or government happens to find convenient at a particular moment. So there needs to be someone in our constitution who plays the role of standing up for the national interest, when necessary, against the prime minister or government of the day.’

 There is no one but you who can do this. These are the most dangerous times the UK has faced since World War Two. Please do not let us down.

 Yours sincerely,

 

John Withington

Cummingsgate: a letter to the Durham Police and Crime Commissioner

As ever with the Dominic Cummings affair, every new statement from the authorities raises more questions than it answers. Durham Police now say Mr Cummings 'may' have committed a 'minor' breach of the lockdown with his notorious 'eye-test' journey to Barnard Castle.

This has prompted me to email Steve White, Durham's (elected) Acting Police and Crime Commissioner. (general.enquiries@durham.pcc.pnn.gov.uk). 

Dear Commissioner,

We all have an interest in trying to halt the spread of coronavirus, and so I have followed the matter of Dominic Cummings' journey to Durham closely. It prompts a number of questions.

1. Just before Mr Cummings' press conference, Durham Police changed their account of the contact they had had with him when he first appeared in Durham, revising it to say that when police officers saw him, they had discussed only matters of security. So, a family appears in Durham, where there is very little coronavirus, from another part of the country where there is a lot. Some of the family are ill (it is hard to know how many because the accounts from Mr Cummings and his wife are inconsistent). And the police officers don't ask any questions about what they're doing there? Or investigate whether they are in breach of lockdown rules? Is this properly discharging their duty to the people of Durham?

2. Over the last few days, while everyone knew there was a live police investigation into Mr Cummings, numerous cabinet ministers and Conservative MPs made prejudicial comments, asserting that Mr Cummings was innocent. By accident or design, this plainly puts pressure on Durham Police. Is prejudicial comment of this kind consistent with ministerial and/or MPs' codes of conduct?

3. Durham Police's statement refers to a 'minor' breach of the lockdown rules. There is surely no such thing, it is a breach or it isn't. Are you concerned that the police have been drawn into 'spinning' material for political reasons rather than objectively stating what they see as the truth?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Withington

Brexitwatch: the blame game

If you think Brexit is going to be a success, ask yourself this. Why are those responsible for it so desperately looking for people to blame?

The Tories have been doing it ever since the referendum result: the EU (for being 'inflexible'), Remainers (for being 'enemies of the PEOPLE'), foreigners (for being foreigners). Now Labour's in the game too. Having gone along with the Brexit disaster, it's claiming it's all the fault of the LibDems. Even the New European newspaper, for which I have great respect, seems to have fallen for this line. 

So here's the letter I sent to put TNE right (and which, to be fair, they published), and the cartoon that prompted it.

Election reflections: wakey, wakey Labour!

In the General Election, the Libdems' vote increased (by 3 times more than the Tories'), while Labour's vote collapsed, so Labour's Andrew Adonis used his New European column to call on the Libdems to disband! The NE has published the letter I sent in reply

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: a reply from the Queen

Her Majesty, or more precisely her deputy correspondence coordinator, replied very promptly and courteously to my letter (see my post of 30 August). 

The key phrase: 'as a constitutional Monarch, The Queen acts on the advice of her Ministers.' It is not the Queen's fault, but what it means is that Her Majesty has to do whatever the prime minister tells her.

This was fine during the era of 'decent chap' politics, when the British constitution was not much more than an assumption that no political party would foist on the British people any prime minister who was not a good sort, and that anyone who reached these exalted heights could be trusted not to behave undemocratically.  

Sadly in the era of Boris Johnson and a Tory Party that has gone mad, this is all hopelessly outdated, so it is worth writing to the Queen on this subject. There is just the chance that if she gets enough letters, the palace may be more resistant should Johnson appear with an even more unreasonable demand. 

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: inter-Remain party co-operation - a reply from the Greens' Caroline Lucas

Well done the LibDems and the Greens in the local elections! The outstanding results they achieved makes it all the more disappointing that there is no plan for pro-Remain parties to work together at the European elections on May 23.

As you can see from my posts of April 12 and 18, I wrote to the parties on this issue, and received a disappointing response from the Greens. I have now received a further reply from Caroline Lucas, the party's sole MP, which you can see below. I hope she has not underestimated the danger that splitting the Remain vote may lead to more of Nigel Farage's Brexit Party being elected as MEPs - a development that might make the EU less willing to grant any further delays to the UK's departure date.

Dear John,

Thank you for your email about the possibility of an electoral alliance of Remain parties in the forthcoming European Parliament election.

As someone who strongly believes that the UK’s future would be brighter, fairer and greener if we remained in the EU, and having been a co-founder of the cross-party campaign for a People’s Vote with the option to remain, I very much understand your desire to see the pro-Remain parties working together to maximise the pro-Remain vote in the European Parliament (EP) election. Unfortunately, however, the particular form of proportional representation that the UK uses for EP elections (the d’Hondt system) presents very significant practical barriers to the formation of a formal or even an informal electoral alliance.

In terms of a formal electoral alliance – that is, with the alliance’s name and logo appearing on the ballot paper – such an alliance would need to be approved and registered by the Electoral Commission. The deadline for seeking such approval by, and registration with, the Electoral Commission was in early February, long before the EU Council meeting on 10 April which granted the Article 50 extension to 31 October that makes it possible to hold the EP election on 23 May.

As for an informal arrangement – that is, with candidates standing under the banner of their own party, but some parties standing down in each region to give one pro-Remain party a free-run – the d’Hondt system, and in particular the division of the UK into electoral regions of varying size, makes it very difficult to predict with any certainty which party is best placed to maximise the benefit of being given a free-run in each region.

Furthermore, it is not at all clear how such an informal alliance could have ensured compliance with the Electoral Commission’s rules on campaign spending (and there would be little point parties standing their candidates down to give another party a free-run, unless they then campaigned jointly for that party’s candidates). These practical and legal difficulties would have made any negotiations between the various parties extremely complex. What’s more, although in principle I was open to exploring the possibility of working together, it quickly became clear that Change UK were unwilling to consider such an informal arrangement. And, contrary to some media reports, the Liberal Democrats did not make any approach to the Green Party on this issue.

In short, as attractive as an electoral alliance might have been, it was simply not a viable option (and the deadline for registering candidates has now passed).

I realise that this is disappointing, but can assure you that the Green Party, the Party’s excellent MEP candidates and I will all be campaigning hard over the next four weeks to maximise the pro-Remain vote and resist the opportunistic populism of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party and the far-right extremism of UKIP.  The Greens are well placed to build on the strong track record of our existing three MEPs on delivering not just a People’s Vote, but bold action on climate change too. We understand why many people voted for Leave in June 2016: the status quo is intolerable and we are pushing for the reforms necessary in both the UK and the EU to make a transition away from the current system – one which fails us all so badly, and hits the most vulnerable hardest.  

We have to redefine what success looks like in this EP election, and ensuring a majority of pro-Remain votes on 23 May is key – whether that translates into more MEPs, or not. If more than 50% of the voting public express a preference for Remain candidates, that massively strengthens the case for a People’s Vote, whereas alliances could in fact suppress the pro-Remain numbers (if traditional voters of one party felt unable to support a candidate from a different one, because although they agree on Remain, they have almost nothing else in common at all). Alliances might also not result in a pro-Remain MEP majority and strategically would not move us any closer to a ratification referendum. Even if the Brexit Party secures a majority of MEP seats, that will count for much less if the country has voted Remain overall and the pressure for a People’s Vote really builds.

I  hope that makes my position clear. I understand how worried and concerned you are, and hope that you will use your vote on 23 May to send a strong clear message in support of Remain.

Best wishes,

Caroline

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: 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