For three years I have worked with like-minded colleagues in Parliament to faithfully follow the clear instructions given to us by the majority of the British people. I have voted against the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement twice. I voted against taking No Deal off the table and I voted against extending article 50 and changing our date of departure. However, today I have reluctantly concluded that the best option for the United Kingdom is to support the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement.
Later this evening the House of Commons will be asked to vote on a number of options selected by the Speaker. All of these options, in my opinion, are worse than the Withdrawal Agreement. For those who want to leave without a deal, that option has gone. We will not be leaving on Friday and I am as disappointed about that as anyone. However if the Withdrawal Agreement is not passed we may not leave the European Union at all.
Those like me, who voted to leave, hoped and believed we could leave with a Free Trade Agreement and in doing so could ensure we kept and enhanced our very close friendship with our nearest neighbours. I now know that is not going to happen and when you’re out numbered and outmanoeuvred, sometimes it is better to take what you can rather than dig your heels in and lose everything.
In the event the Prime Minister brings the Withdrawal Agreement back to the House of Commons for a third vote I will, without enthusiasm and with a heavy heart vote for it.
Your honesty is commendable.
However, what I find incomprehensible is how between two thirds and three quarters of MP’s can deliberately flout the wishes of the majority of the British public to leave the EU by implementing a series of actions by which they are determined to prevent us leaving the EU at all.
Given that MP’s are supposed to represent those who voted them in, how is it possible that MP’s can substitute their own contra opinions for those of the electorate?
I totally agree! is still a betrayal as we have been backed into a corner.. slice of bread or a Whole loaf.. Germany is still in charge.
I understand your reluctance to support the Withdrawal Agreement but, as you say, the alternatives a much worse. However, it does seem that leaving without a deal is still a legal option but is, unfortunately, an option that will be subverted by a remainer parliament.
Royston, you have acted honourably in trying to deliver what the nation voted for but now, in the end game, getting half a Brexit is better than no Brexit!!
Do you believe, in your faithful and disinterested judgement that leaving the EU is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain?
Do you believe that you owe your constituents, not your industry only, but your judgment and you betray, instead of serving us, if you sacrifice it to your constituents opinion?
If you can answer yes to both questions then you must follow the course you have chosen.
We will not forget.
No such thing as half a Brexit. This agreement is a highway to remaining locked in to the EU and I hope those who support it can still sleep at night when they realise the enormity of what they have done. When in doubt, take the moral democratic decision and keep your integrity.
Indeed we will not forget.
You have a majority of 31. Over 7000 of your constituents signed the recent Revoke Article 50 petition!
The Leave campaign lied to the public therefore people made their decision upon inaccurate information.
If referendum happened today we would NOT be leaving EU – just ask Tegan @ Britain Bites Back (FB page! 😊)
#peoplesvote
I understand doubts that a “Remainer” parliament has been a difficulty in this instance. I’m not sure that a sovereign parliament pitted against the direct democracy of the referendum could work in the manner you hoped and believed. Especially as you say your view is not generally held by members. Is the constitution designed for this? Were your views of Brexit widely accepted as the only model by the people voting in the referendum? Under our current constitution only a completely “hard Brexit” committed party with a well defined and supported mandate elected at a general election would stand much chance of bringing about the change you want.
I’m totally amazed by the behaviour in the commons, by the so called mp’s, who are totally disregarding the will of the people who put them there and if I may be so bold, pay your salaries.
To vote conservative again, I would want ” no deal ” back on the table. I have every faith in the British Peoples resilience to survive. I am also a firm believer, that if we had known where this was leading to, when we had the common market vote, we would not now be in this mess.
May’s deal is not Brexit. Any May/Corbyn deal is even less like Brexit and no deal is now off the table unless the EU tell us to go away (what a farce).
I hate to say this, but the only chance we have of getting Brexit is either a General Election, in which we probably will give the Labour party it’s biggest majority in it’s history or a second referendum.
The second referendum should be Leave the EU with NO DEAL or Remain. The fight has been a long one, but we should not give up now, we should be patient and we will eventually get the right result.
Bernard Calland
4 April 2019
Royston, I respect your stance, you have indeed been unwavering in this regard.
The whole Brexit process has been handled very badly by the government. The referendum only delivered one verdict – that we should leave. The result was a small majority and certainly not a national consensus. I don’t think it is a “remainer” parliament as some have said, but the past few years have clearly shown that there is no consensus, even among leave supporters in parliament , of what “Leave” actually means. For this reason the government should have sought a consensus in parliament about what kind of Brexit could get support BEFORE triggering Article 50.
It was not necessary to negotiate with the EU before consulting parliament. The EU’s position has been entirely predictable even before the referendum. The integrity of the single market (the EEA) has always been their highest priority, and the NI border was always going to be the sticking point. This was blindingly obvious to anyone who took the time to understand the nuance of the issues. In fact, the movement of food and livestock across borders is an essential aspect of maintaining the EEA and is enshrined in EU law so would never be open to negotiation. (Bend the rules in NI and what will happen on the Eastern border of Europe?). So no deal or no customs union => hard border in NI or border in Irish Sea (backstop) => possible end of Good Friday Agreement or weakening of Union. It really is between a rock and a hard place and anyone who offers simple solutions (Boris et al.) has really not understood the problem.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is exactly what was predicted by “so called experts” before the referendum. So, to anyone who was paying attention it’s not a surprise at all. We have been let down by politicians who have repeatedly responded to highly complex and nuanced problems with simple soundbite solutions.
I am going to vote for you. I feel like you actually care about us and our decision to leave the EU. I do not support a soft brexit or revoking article 50. I want what we voted for.
Fiona Onasanya a convicted criminal who has served time for perverting the course of justice. In casting the deciding vote in favour of the latest Stop Brexit with no deal exit was that legal. Being allowed into Parliament to cast the deciding vote once again perverting the course of justice and democracy for 17.4m people. If they hadn’t let you out early….Surely the Electronic ankle tag should limit her privileges and invalidate her vote.