This letter, signed by over 500 concerned citizens, has been sent to The Times in support of the call for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. This will be debated in the Commons on Dec 11th after a petition on the matter was signed by over 120,000 citizens.
If you wish to support this initiative;
- add a comment to this post or
- email email@example.com or
- DM @BritainStays providing: Name, email address and how you voted on June 23rd (optional)
Our signatories so far: 1000 citizens pdf 231117
Letter to the Editor
On 11 December, Parliament debates a petition “to hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”. We write to you as a group of one thousand concerned citizens of no fixed political affiliations.
We believe that the case for a referendum on the “deal” to be negotiated by the Government on our departure from the EU is strong, and should be agreed by Parliament. The original referendum posed a simple question to an issue which is very complex. The campaign that was then conducted was abysmal on both sides, and presented citizens with information that was misleading or just plain untruthful. We all know the result but it is worth spelling it out. An advisory referendum produced a small majority of those who voted in favour of leaving the EU. The vote to leave represented 37% of the eligible voting population of the country. Worth noting that the government’s threshold criteria for industrial action which causes disruption to services is 40%. The referendum result did not meet the government’s own democratic threshold. This seems to us at the very least, a dubious basis on which to take a decision which will have a significant impact on the life of every citizen, and in particular, the young.
We are not doom-mongers who believe our country cannot succeed economically outside the EU. However, during the course of the negotiations the government has held with the EU it has become apparent that the transitional costs of leaving have been underestimated, and have not been explained to the people. Further, apart from the short term transitional costs, we believe that in order for this country to compete economically at the highest level as a single Nation, a massive further and continuing investment will be required in infrastructure, and particularly education and skills for the population. This need, and how it might be funded has not so far been addressed by any of the parties in Parliament.
But we do not believe the cost to the country should be measured in economic terms alone; departure from the EU to stand on our own will also damage our political standing. It is not that we will not be able to rely on support on many issues from members of the EU, many of which are of course our partners in NATO. We will no longer be present at the table when EU positions are discussed. Rather than being able to influence the nuances of the European position directly, we will find ourselves faced with positions which may not align perfectly with ours. Nor can we count on always being on the same side. There are issues that may divide us from the EU 27. Our position in every global negotiation will be affected, and we may find decisions being taken in spite of our views, simply because we will be easier to ignore, or we will not be able to stand against a consensus in which we are not included.
The vote to leave was predominantly an English vote. The people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The unity and possibly the survival of the UK as it is will be weakened if Brexit is driven through on the basis of the EU referendum. All the people of the United Kingdom deserve to be consulted about any deal negotiated by the government.
We know that the referendum vote was divisive, and it is common knowledge that many of our politicians now fear that any repeat of the vote, whatever the outcome, will deepen those divisions. We would argue that a failure to address the deep sense of grievance about the way in which the referendum was conducted will be equally damaging. If the government calculates that those who did not vote, or who voted in favour of remaining are the more reasonable people who will eventually accept leaving the EU on the basis of the present mandate, we fear they may prove to be grossly mistaken, and the damage to our country’s unity will not heal for a generation, or possibly longer.
By allowing the initial referendum Parliament in effect abdicated its responsibility as the representatives of the people in the EU issue. That responsibility cannot now simply be taken back. It is clear that both those who voted to leave the EU and those who voted to remain have doubts about the deal the government is trying to negotiate. The people are entitled to be asked to make a final judgement on the deal. A vote in Parliament alone will be equally or even more damaging than a referendum in which the population will have been seen to speak for itself. Full information on the economic cost and the potential political impact on our international standing of the government’s deal, of remaining in the EU and of leaving without a deal should be provided and independently verified, and the people as a whole should make a choice between those options.
Parliament’s initial response to the petition it will debate on 11 December was ill judged. The wording was peremptory, patronising, and smacked of contempt for serious citizens with legitimate concerns. We believe the people as a whole are entitled to take the final decision. Only if that is done, transparently and democratically, is there a chance that the divisions the have been opened will be able to heal around the final result, whatever that should be.
We therefore urge Members of Parliament to agree to a referendum on whatever deal (or not) the government negotiates.
The UK can control migration from the EU without ending FoM or having to leave the Single Market
Now that the UK seems to have lurched back from the cliff-edge that Theresa May had planned for us I think we have an opportunity to look sensibly at the Brexit options available to the UK and in particular to examine Labour’s approach.
Jeremy seems to be far more pragmatic by pursuing a “Jobs First Brexit” with the retention and creation of jobs taking priority.
This is excellent news – however he is also saying that we need to control migration. This would seem perfectly sensible until he infers that the only way to get control is by ending Freedom of Movement which in turn means leaving the Single Market.
Actually the UK does not have to end FoM and leave the Single Market in order to control the migration from the rest of the EU.
It will be interesting to actually understand what is meant by “control” as the UK already has a fairly comprehensive package of controls available within the EU.
We have the powers to control migration. What we need is a leader prepared to implement them.
The controls don’t come without cost. At present the UK does not track migration from the EU, we let EU Citizens come and go without registering and we don’t require EU citizens to produce EHIC cards when using the NHS. See what happens if you want to work in Belgium or receive medical treatment in France.
Jeremy has suggested that migration has caused harm at the lower end of the market by “unscrupulous employers” bringing in low paid workers in favour of British citizens. The evidence for this is pretty patchy however there are mechanisms to stop this if the UK can prove it is suffering harm, at present we can’t show this is happening.
Similarly if there is a surge to a particular region the migration can be halted/suspended to give time for public services etc. to catch up. Again this would require the UK to be able to show that harm is being caused.
Now is the time for a grown up discussion about migration. We need to decide upon the powers we need to use and then look at the powers we already have. If there is a gap then we have something real to negotiate for rather than silly wish lists and populist rhetoric.
Jeremy – now is your time.
References and links can be found in WE ARE BEING LIED TO
As Yvette Cooper said recently “You can’t believe a word she says”
Theresa May has decided that lying is better than losing votes. She is using the Trump tactic of not worrying about being caught in a lie as the people calling her out won’t vote for her anyway.
Trump has shown that believers will still believe and the others are a lost cause anyway.
This is hugely cynical and plumbing new depths even for UK politics.
She is helped by the massively supportive mass media not even mentioning the lies.
But, of course, she has not worried about lying in the past.
I have been keeping a bit of a list of the more brazen lies. Here they are:
- Argued for Remain, now argues for Leave (one of the positions is deceitful)
- Lied about UK law concerning consulting Parliament
- Them blamed Gina Miller for obstruction by making her follow the law
- Continues to lie that 17.4m of the British electorate voted to leave the Single Market and Customs Union, end Freedom of Movement and eliminate any influence by the ECJ. Some might have but there is no way they all voted for this.
- Lied that the UK economy would be strong after leaving the Single Market
- when CEBR and Government studies show that all forms of Brexit are worse than Remaining
- Lied about immigrants saying they were putting pressure on the public services
- Falsely blamed immigrants for stealing UK native jobs
- Announced the Dementia Tax then scrapped it and famously lied that “Nothing has changed”
- Said publicly, 6 times, that she would not call a snap election, then called a snap election
- and blamed the Remainers because they were suggesting they would scrutinize the Exit deal
- Accused the SNP of playing politics
- Then blamed them for dividing the UK
- Claimed in 2017 that the country was “coming together” when all studies showed it was more divided than ever before
- Promised to enfranchise long-term ex-pats
- we are still waiting….
- Continues to say that the choice is between her deal and no deal when the the courts have ruled that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally to stop Brexit
- Claims a new public vote would undermine democracy
- Claimed that Government there was “No special deal” with Nissan to secure the X-Trail and QashQai models in Sunderland
- Claimed that the £20bn NHS additional funding was coming from a “Brexit Dividend”
- Claims her deal “protect jobs” when in fact it just reduces the number of lost jobs when compared to a “No Deal”. Every form of Brexit will cost jobs when compared to Remaining in the EU.
I really don’t think we have ever had a PM quite as cynical, arrogant and, given these lies, corrupt.
I cannot believe that we want to be governed by someone with such a wayward moral compass.