Sep 19: Want A Brexit Deal? -Tell Your MP

CommonSense

I’ve watched the Brexit debate seriously for about a year, mainly through BBC2 News and I’m concerned not only about Brexit but also about our Parliamentary democracy which seems to be degenerating around Brexit. I raised my concerns by sending Emails to the BBC with my considered views. Not one of them to my knowledge has ever been aired. Many `experts’ and pundits are given air to their views but the public are lucky to get a `sound bite’. Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless. Why for example should an MP be allowed to say he/she is campaigning to remain in the EU when he/she has a mandate to leave it but no member of the public challenge him/her? The BBC like many media organisations pick and choose whose opinions and what opinions are aired (but this is NOT an attack or question against any of them). So I joined this forum for one reason only - to urge people to write or Email their MPs to urge them to support and vote FOR the Withdrawal Agreement. It is your right to do so whatever your MP thinks. My reasons are as follows:

1. Currently (28/09/19) we are heading to crash out of the EU on 31/10/19 so urgent action is required to avoid this if you want a deal. We are waiting to see the results of Boris Johnson’s re-negotiation efforts around mid October, but in my opinion ( as per point 2 following), there is unlikely to be any significant change.

2. Since the Government and EU drew up the Withdrawal Agreement (WA), the EU has never changed its stance that it cannot be renegotiated. They have offered assurances about the Backstop, they have stated their willingness to consider viable alternatives. But they have also said that no real offer from the Government has materialized and that any requested extension to Article 50 should be supported by a viable reason. They have already given us 2 extensions. Therefore the chance of a further extension seems remote.

3. The policy driving Brexit comes from Government but the progress is under Parliament’s control. The authority to negotiate with the EU was and still is vested in the PM AND GOVERNMENT AND NO ONE ELSE. During 3 years and more since the referendum there has been a general election and neither the political shade of the Government nor its aim or policy has changed despite the barrage of criticism of Government from opposition MPs (by opposition MPs I mean those from Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP etc and Conservative `rebels’). So, that opposition has FAILED: failed in its calls for elections and referenda, failed in its acrimony. If the Government changed right now to a different shade (Labour for example), they would have the same tools available to them (negotiating for example) as the Government now and they would throw away their old `opposition hymn sheet’ and use the `Government hymn sheet’ -the one that the present Government is already using. They would also have the same EU to negotiate with. Therefore we would be in exactly the same position -facing the offer of the Withdrawal Agreement and needing to decide Deal or No Deal. All MPs needs to recognize that compromise is already embodied in the WA and that what is required is to SUPPORT the Government in its efforts to make progress with Brexit by unequivocally voting for the WA (but No Deal is a valid option….). Then the Government could get on with the real job rather than Parliament remain in an obstructive, self-destructive mode that is affecting the whole nation.

4. The democratic decision of the people’s referendum to leave the EU can not be nullified on any basis. The facts of Brexit are buried in complication, so deeply that even now there appears to be no consensus even among MPs and experts what constitutes good alternative trade arrangements. The only consensus seems to be that No Deal is undesirable. But here’s the folly. Some MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement (ie they voted No Deal) then not only complain about getting what they voted for but want it ‘taken off the table’. You can’t have up without down, you can’t have right without wrong, you can’t have yes without no. You can’t have Deal without No Deal. Some MPs even openly state their opposition to leaving the EU. These MPs are not fit for the office in my opinion.

5. Parliament wanted and got a `meaningful vote’ on any negotiated arrangement with the EU but many MPs used it tactically, hence the reason why the 3 votes so far are meaningless (the tactics are useless) and have brought about stagnation. Parliament’s only real options are:

A - for MPs to vote again on the Withdrawal Agreement but this time only vote No Deal if they genuinely want No Deal and accept the responsibility if No Deal results ( I would think from what has been said that the result should be overwhelmingly Deal, ie WA accepted) OR

B - ask the EU for a further extension. If an extension is granted it will change nothing and will prolong and compound the situation making it even worse. If the EU refuses an extension the decision may be made for us -No Deal.

6. MPs have speculated, made guesses about possible trade arrangements in disorganized fashion in Parliament and only see No Deal where there is an alternative -Deal. If they opened their eyes and took a good look at the WA, they would see it has positive aspects, with outright advantages over No Deal, for example, rights for EU and UK expatriate citizens, agreements on fisheries, continued co-operation between various agencies. These agreements would come into effect immediately the WA is accepted. The WA is NOT a trade agreement but provides for an implementation (or transition) period with business as usual, during which real trade arrangements can be actually negotiated.

7. It has already been emphasized that the Backstop is a last resort insurance if negotiations fail – a sensible policy designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement, to maintain the Irish Border situation much as it is now. It is not a devious trick. It has been emphasized that if the Backstop was actually invoked it would not be a permanent lock and that the EU’s own rules prevent this. The idea that the EU is a tyrannical monster which wants to hold us permanently against our will is borne of sheer, ill distrust.

IronGiant

When my brother rang me up to urge me to do something regarding Brexit I put the phone down on him .

GadgetObsessed

The last thing I want on TV is more views from individual members of the general public. (That applies to pretty much any subject - not just Brexit.) Primarily this is because any such statements from individuals are entirely unrepresentative of anyone other than the individuals themselves.

However, I am interested in seeing the views of the public as a whole. For example, survey results that say that X% of people do or don't support a No Deal Brexit.

GadgetObsessed

Is your real name Jo Johnson?

Bl4ckGryph0n

The use of language is very biased in that post, but hey fair enough if you feel that way.
I would kindly propose you check your facts though, as for example on point 7 you are way out. It’s nothing to do with distrust, it’s the legal construct. I ask you to think yourself, why would anyone in any situation have a clause in a contract which is not in your favour and sign it? Purely on the say-so of the other party that they never intend to use it? Well if that is the case then rewrite that part; or set it to not used. That is common sense.  Easy and we can move on.

CommonSense

Thanks for your reply. I agree entirely with your first comment where those public views are not complete: `Many of these views are controversial and the sound bites meaningless'. But this often applies to so-called experts as well but they get far more air time than the public, certainly more than me! My view as stated I consider 99% complete and clear.

On your second comment I would ask first do you accept that we are leaving the EU, because THAT was the result of a public survey? Secondly the example you suggested doesn't give the opportunity of the public giving a complete decision because you aren't asking them fully what they DO support. They might say I don't support a No Deal Brexit but this doesn't say what they DO support. Just supposing that everyone in the country wrote to their MP saying either `I want the Deal' OR 'I want No Deal.' What would you have? You'd have a referendum on Deal or No Deal.

rampant

The EU doesnt want us to leave.... the MP's who we voted for dont want us to leave.. The BBC doesn't want us to leave. Everything is always negative. It  was one of my major factors to leave the UK given the sh*t-mess our politicians have made of the whole affair.

The opposition want the UK to negotiate in public, want all the details up front. This weakens the negotiating efforts.

IronGiant

What if they were in a constituency that voted to Remain so more than half of them wrote to their MP saying "I want to remain"?

CommonSense

Thanks for your reply. Let me be precise here. Regarding your third sentence, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you are implying that the Backstop is not in our favour. Yes, many contracts have been signed without reading them properly and that signee lived to regret it and of course there are rogues out there. I don't know the whole facts of the Backstop but I personally trust the EU and our Government on this. The Irish border issue is in my opinion even more intractable than Brexit -history shows that. I do know that the Backstop has been designed, respecting the Good Friday Agreement which was all about maintaining peace in Ireland, Northern Ireland in particular. In that sense the real issue here is not Brexit but the `Irish Problem' because I think that it is on the Backstop that the Brexit question pivots. I think that you are suggesting that if the Backstop was invoked that something would result eg a Customs Union, complete or partial, which means (to some people) that we wouldn't then be leaving the EU and (to other people) that we would be splitting the Country.
My opinion, based on what I have seen and heard, is that the Backstop must remain or be replaced with something that does the same job -so you can't win on that. But ask yourself what will happen if No Deal results? I think there will be a return to a troubled Ireland (which will also affect the Mainland) and we will be plunged into trade chaos. If we don't trust the EU then we won't have a good relationship with them under No Deal. But accepting the WA will show trust which I think would be a healthy trust. But this is all speculation. Only time will tell what will happen.

CommonSense

Thanks for your reply.
First of all you haven't said what the less-then-half-of-them voted for. Let's assume they said Leave.
It doesn't matter and this is the whole point about the calls for further referenda. We already had one which decided Leave (I voted Remain but I accept the Leave result). You can't keep having referenda until you get the result which suits only SOME people. An MP has a duty to represent the interests of the whole country which comes BEFORE representing the interests of his/her constituency. I would suggest that the only Brexit case where the interest of constituencies matters about the same as the national interests is in Northern Ireland. There we have unionist MPs and we have republican MPs who have opposing views which we know from history led to violence. And as I just replied to another member, the Backstop is included in the WA to try to prevent a return to that situation. I also said that Brexit is hinging around the Backstop and therefore the `Irish Problem'. In my opinion it is up to the Irish to sort out their differences and this resulted in the Good Friday Agreement which the Backstop respects. On the Mainland MPs must decide which best represent the interests of EVERYONE: Deal or No Deal.