Correspondence with my MP

As we suggested you all do, I wrote to my (Labour) MP. Here is our correspondence:

I am writing to you as a very concerned constituent.

No one knows what life will be like after we leave the EU. No one knows what agreements can be reached with the EU and with other countries regarding trade, movement of people, services, etc. No one knows even if any deal will be possible, never mind one that will be at all beneficial to the UK and its citizens.

We are heading towards the Brexit cliff edge on the Brexit bus, plastered with outlandish promises no one can possibly keep, with Theresa May at the wheel, foot to the floor, in the dark with no headlights.

This is sheer madness. Whatever people thought – or were led to believe – they were voting for last June, it couldn’t have been this.

May says she will produce a White Paper but even if that’s published in the next few days, there cannot be sufficient time for proper Parliamentary scrutiny of her plans before the debates on the Article 50 Bill.

As you well know, triggering Article 50 starts the ball rolling and, at the risk of mixing up metaphors, that ball is helping the bus get to the cliff’s edge even faster. It doesn’t need pushed at the back by Labour MPs, unwilling to stand up for the constituents he or she represents.

The Bill will have its Second Reading next week. There will be amendments tabled, but there is no certainty that these will slow the bus down in any way. Indeed, they may simply give it further momentum. The only way to bring it to a halt, enabling us to regain our senses is to slam on the brakes and switch off the engine.

If May gets her way, there will be a cursory, token debate (the absolute minimum required to meet the letter of the Supreme Court’s ruling), the Bill will be passed, she will trigger Article 50 and in a mere two years we will be cast adrift having flown off that cliff and landed in the sea with one almighty splash with no lifebelts or lifeboats to save us from drowning.

It seems that Jeremy Corbyn will side with May and will not delay the Bill but will impose a 3-line whip on MPs to vote for the Bill.

This is unforgivable.

MPs may well have debated the Bill and some might even have their say, but there will still be no plan, no strategy and not a jot of evidence that we can survive – never mind thrive – outside the EU, whether that is in the EEA, under WTO rules, under the wing of Trump’s USA or having made some kind of special deal with the EU. No one knows. We are all still in this self-inflicted darkness created by lies and half-truths.

And having a take-it-or-leave-it vote on whatever deal May is able to make in two years cannot be sufficient. No one grounded in reality can expect that to be better for the UK.

Your colleague, Tulip Siddiq, has today taken a principled stand: I urge you to do the same – for your constituents, for everyone else and for the UK as a whole. Don’t be a part of the destruction of the UK. You can, instead, be a part of its inclusive, tolerant, progressive future in Europe by stopping this dreadful folly before any further damage is inflicted on us.

Please vote against the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill and for anything that drives us well away from that cliff’s edge.

Thanks and best regards.

Alan Henness

PS Myself and two friends launched a campaigning website yesterday to urge people to write to their MP to stop this Brexit madness: Citizen of Nowhere and the Twitter account, @NowhereCitizen

I followed this up a short time later:

Further to my previous email, I note that your colleague, Heidi Alexander, has tabled a ‘reasoned amendment’ to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.

This in itself won’t stop us exiting the EU and it won’t prevent the Bill being reintroduced later. But it will allow vital time for the Government to produce the White Paper it has promised, and for MPs to take a full and proper democratic role in shaping our future. I believe that a thorough analysis of the White Paper must be undertaken by MPs before Theresa May is handed the power to invoke Article 50.

I strongly urge you to support and vote for her amendment.

Please also support any amendments that allow you to retain control of the process, ensure you receive regular reports on progress, and that there is an escape route should negotiations not result in a better deal for the UK than we currently have.

Thanks and best regards.

Alan

He replied:

Dear Mr Henness,

Thank you for writing to me with your concerns about the triggering of Article 50 and the important task which parliament has to undertake in the coming weeks and months as it seeks to reconcile the outcome of the referendum vote with the best possible economic future for our country.

You will understand that I have received many dozens of letters making powerful arguments on both sides of the debate and it is quite simply impossible for me to respond to every specific and detailed point which many of you have quite properly made. Please be assured that I have considered all the arguments made to me most carefully in arriving at my own decision. I have not given any different response to those on the opposite side of the argument to you as I believe that all my constituents have the equal right to know where I stand and why.

As my constituent, I owe you my best judgement. This is it:

When Theresa May became Prime Minister after the referendum she made it clear that she would not give “a running commentary” on Brexit. The Labour Party demanded parliamentary scrutiny, a white paper, a vote to trigger article 50 and a parliamentary vote on the final deal after it is negotiated. The new Prime Minister refused them all.

The Labour Party in the House of Commons, and the Judiciary through the courts have now secured all these vital elements of democratic accountability.

The Supreme Court made it clear that the referendum vote determined that the UK would leave the European Union; but that it was for Parliament to determine how it should leave. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Although I voted and campaigned to remain, I am first and foremost a democrat. That means that I acknowledge that I lost the referendum vote. That means that I abide by its result even though I disagree with it. But I also agree with the Supreme Court that I must now as a Member of Parliament try to shape how we leave the EU in the best interests of the British people. That is why Labour has tabled a number of key amendments to the Bill.

64% of Labour voters across the country voted to Remain. But the majority of Labour MPs serve constituencies that voted by a majority to leave. The Labour Party is therefore presented both with a conflict of interests and a conflict of principles like no other party. In many ways we are much more representative of the divisions in the country over Brexit than any other political party. My view is that we must resolve the conflicts of principle and leave the conflicts of electoral interest to resolve themselves.

It is a uniquely valuable principle of our democracy that MPs have a special duty of care towards their constituents. We hold surgeries to deal with their individual problems and we represent them to various bodies and authorities to demand their rights. But our duty to represent our constituents does not in my view allow us to undermine the principle of democracy as a whole. I have enormous sympathy with all those of my colleagues who have wrestled with their conscience between the principle of democracy and the principle of representing their constituents but I am clear that I will respect the referendum result however much I disagree with it; and then I will try to mitigate its effects to secure the red lines that I and all my colleagues believe are so important.

Only by voting at 2nd Reading to trigger Article 50 do we move to the position where we can amend the bill and hold the Government to account to ensure: Tariff-free access to the Single Market to protect jobs and our economy, the protection of social and environmental rights, security for EU citizens currently living in the UK and a meaningful vote at a stage of the negotiations where it is still possible to change the outcome. Triggering Article 50 is only the beginning of a long process. We must and will hold the government to account every step of the way and secure an outcome that may not entirely satisfy either the 48% or the 52% but that is acceptable to the 100%. That is how democracy functions.

Finally I would ask everyone to reflect on how they would have felt if their side had won the referendum, but parliament had set aside the result and done the opposite. The anger that would be generated if politicians ignored the outcome would be immense and justified. I believe that leaving the EU will make us poorer. But undermining our own democracy would make us much poorer still.
Yours sincerely,

My response to him:

Thank you for your response.

I believe, however, you are incorrect on several issues:

The Supreme Court judgement

I think you have misunderstood the judgement. You claimed that “The Supreme Court made it clear that the referendum vote determined that the UK would leave the European Union.” The SC made no judgement on the referendum or what it decided but simply – and rightly – concerned itself with the issue it was asked to consider: that of the democratic role of Parliament and MPs such as yourself in the process. It ruled that it is up to Parliament and Parliament alone to decide to trigger Article 50 – despite all attempts by the Conservative Government to ignore the essential democratic role of Parliament via the Royal Prerogative. If the Bill is passed, Parliament will hand that power directly to Theresa May for her to use as and when she sees fit with no further recourse to Parliament.

Although you seem to think the SC ruled on the meaning of the referendum, I hope I don’t have to point out that there was no threshold for acceptance set in the European Union Referendum Act but that it was clearly stated that the result was not binding on Government or Parliament. MPs do not slavishly have to follow the perceived result. Nor do they have to follow the party line – you are more than capable of thinking for yourselves.

The referendum

There is no doubt that the wording on the paper was a binary choice between remaining in or leaving the EU, but all of us – even you – put our mark on the ballot paper in the environment of the news reports, the campaign leaflets, the promises on busses and posters, the media hype (including the Daily Mail, etc) and the (sometimes extreme) rhetoric of the campaign.

Those who demand we leave continually cry, “It’s what the people voted for!”, but you would have to be blind to just about all that took place in the run up to the referendum if you were to take the close-run result as being an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

There were misleading statements, mis-truths and downright lies on both sides, sometimes dressed up as credible projections and thoroughly considered positions, but, I believe, predominately on the side of those campaigning to leave. The ‘Brexit bus’ was a powerful advert for the advantages of leaving (something Angela Eagle called ‘cynical manipulation’ in the Commons this afternoon) and I think it would be utterly wrong to dismiss those false claims of a Utopia outside the EU as not having had a significant influence on how people voted. There is, after all, evidence that this was the case and that many voted for something that is not, and never has been or ever will be, deliverable by anyone. Yes, the people have spoken, but it was not a fair and free vote.

It is clear that those who voted to leave are going to be sorely disappointed when we are all not immensely better off, with a vastly improved NHS, full employment, with complete autonomy over our laws, our trade and our affairs and, of course, no more immigrants. All these things were irresponsibly promised by those with nothing to lose and everything to gain. Some of those making these rash promises are no longer around to be called to account.

Perhaps Leavers won’t care about loosened environmental legislation, lower protections for workers, even more benefit cuts to the poor, the disabled, the unemployed and the unfortunate in society and about the general race to the bottom threatened by Theresa May. Sadly, that is quite a likely outcome of the road we are taking. Decades of hard work by Labour, Trades Unions, environmentalists and other social reformers could be undone at a stroke. The fact that these outcomes fit nicely with Conservative ideology should not escape your notice..

I do find it difficult to understand how anyone living and working in Brent could be xenophobic – never mind racist – given the tremendous and generally harmonious diversity here, but it is true that many elsewhere voted for Brexit on those grounds. The rhetoric of the Leave campaign tapped into those fears and ramped them up even though they withstand no scrutiny whatsoever, particularly those concerning the contributions made by immigrants (from both the EU and elsewhere) to our society, culture and economy and the alleged burden on the NHS. Some of the campaigning against immigration was, frankly, difficult to stomach. The fact that there was frequently no distinction made between immigration from the EU and from countries outside the EU was very concerning, particularly when not properly challenged by a media with a distorted sense of ‘balance’ and impartiality.

The referendum was clearly highly charged and emotional, but that is no basis on which to carve out the economic, political and social future of our country – a future that will be set for generations to come by decisions about to be made in Westminster. Such momentous and historic decisions need to be based on solid evidential grounds and reasoned arguments. But there was a dearth of both of those in the campaigning. We had the status quo – imperfect as the EU is – but we were being asked to commit to a future based on wishful thinking and wild fantasy.

You will be aware of the aphorism by Pierre-Simon Laplace as made famous by Carl Sagan that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Truly extraordinary claims were being made by the Leave campaigns, yet not a jot of good evidence was provided that they would be able to deliver on the promises made. It was solely a campaign of rhetoric, primarily by those who never thought they would ever have to make good on those promises. Chickens are coming home to roost now and excuses are being made, but still no evidence or reasoned argument is forthcoming.

I think it is clear that those who voted for Leave did so for a wide variety of reasons, as they are perfectly entitled to do. I certainly do not call them stupid, ignorant or racist for doing so or think any less of them for it. As I said, their decisions were made under a veil of misinformation and I do not think MPs should be at all reticent at making a decision that is based on their considered view of what’s best for his/her constituents and what’s best for the country as a whole – those two duties are, as you rightly point out, the basis on which they are elected. You have no duty to implement the result a non-binding referendum, particularly considering the circumstances in which it was held and it is not undemocratic to put the flawed result to one side. There can be no hiding behind any ‘principle of democracy’ when we all know the reality of the referendum campaign.

The White Paper

I find it astounding that MPs are willing to take such a momentous step without – even after seven months – any real idea what the Government is thinking its strategy might be, never mind any solid basis for what the UK will look like in the future.

Parliament should at least demand that the White Paper be published and considered before notification under Article 50 is given. The question here is why the rush? Why can’t we see what the Government has to say before giving May carte blanche to press the button? Given that (barring exceptional circumstances), we will leave two years later come hell or high water, don’t you agree that we need to take stock of the whole situation before making that final commitment?

The Deal

MPs have been promised some sort of discussion and maybe even a vote on whatever deal May is able to strike. It’s likely to be Hobson’s Choice, however, regardless of how bad the deal is (remembering we have precious few experienced negotiators and that they are unlikely to be able to get a deal that is much good), all MPs will be offered is a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It will be too late then to step back. I seriously doubt that, in the event of rejection, the EU27 will have any stomach for yet another round of negotiations with the troublesome Brits. The deal will not be agreed and we will leave, with not even a scrap of paper in our hands. Anyone who thinks that will be good for the UK is living in cloud cuckoo land.

There are many more arguments, of course, and you know them all: I sincerely hope you have read your copy of Ian Dunt’s Brexit: What the Hell Happens Now? If you haven’t I ask that you do, even if you have to stay up all night. It is a powerful and evidence-based commentary on the vast number of issues that will need to be resolved if Brexit is to be ‘successful’. I also do not think that anyone who understands that complexity can accept that it is even possible, never mind that a good solution can be found in the time available.

You have the power to stop this folly in the name of both your constituents and the greater good of our country. You said that you must ‘try to shape how we leave the EU in the best interests of the British people’. But if the Conservatives get their way, just how much control (meaningful or otherwise) do you really believe MPs will be handed by the Conservatives? Recent history and your time as an MP will tell you MPs will be grudgingly granted only the most minimal and cursory of roles in any deal. The Conservatives – and Theresa May in particular – will not give away anything the letter of the SC’s decision does not force on them: MPs are likely to be bystanders in the impending demolition of the UK, even if the amendments to mandate the Conservatives file an occasional progress report to Parliament are passed tomorrow. The Conservatives will leave no means by which they can be properly held to account.

A General Election might clear the air on this, but I cannot imagine anyone in the Labour Party would relish the prospect of trying to fight it in their present circumstances. The winners are quite likely to be the Conservative and the LibDems. And if the Conservatives win, they will be even more energised and empowered. Labour will be an also-ran – and that cannot ever be good for democracy.

Your final sentence (“leaving the EU will make us poorer. But undermining our own democracy would make us much poorer still”) is equivocation. Our nation will be economically poorer if we leave and it could take a generation or much more to recover. The democratic ‘poverty’ of setting aside a flawed referendum result and acting in the overall best interests of the country will be forgotten after the next batch of MPs are elected.

As Ken Clark wisely said today: the decision to leave the EU for “an unknown future” is “baffling every friend of the British throughout the world”. He will be voting against the Bill tomorrow and I urge you to re-think your stance and join him.

Alan

Future responses will be added below.

The UK left the EU at 23:00 GMT onFriday 31 January 2020
As of 23:00 GMT on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a third country with respect to the European Union.