Writing to my MP
From: [ ]
To: gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk
Date: 11 January 2019 20:27
Subject: Please support a second EU referendum
Dear Ms Furniss,
I have written to you on two previous occasions, about different issues, but did not receive a reply. I realise you must receive a lot of correspondence, but I hope this occasion will be different and you will be able to respond to the points I am raising, especially as they concern our future as a nation.
I am talking, of course, about Brexit, and specifically about the Labour Party's position on Brexit.
Labour are arguing against asking voters to reconsider decisions they made in 2016 which directly addressed the question. Instead, they say, there should be another general election. This would ask voters to reconsider decisions they made in 2017, which don't directly address the question. I have to say this seems rather self-serving.
More than that, though, it assumes the choice that should be put to voters is not whether we should Leave or Remain in the EU, but only whether we should be forced to endure a Tory Brexit or a Labour Brexit. Only 6,000 votes separated Leave and Remain in Sheffield, so that feels like the wrong question. But more than that, voters can only make a meaningful choice if we know what each of those options means.
As of today, we know that a Tory Brexit means Mrs May's deal or No Deal. You don't need to tell me, as I am fully convinced that No Deal would be a disaster and Mrs May's is a terrible deal that compares very badly with the deal we have now as a member of the EU. But I can at least see that it does attempt to honour the referendum result by "taking back control" in a number of areas. Some of that control is uncertain, and contingent on escaping the Backstop, but there is a logic to it.
I'm afraid I cannot see the logic to Labour's version of Brexit. It's not enough to say it's not as bad as the Tory version. We need to know what's good about it.
If I've understood right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), a Labour Brexit would see the UK:
- in a permanent customs union with the EU
- in a relationship akin to the single market (including ongoing financial contributions to the EU budget and potentially signing up to the Four Freedoms, including freedom of movement)
- protecting workers' rights and environmental standards by continuing to adhere to EU rules
Now, those might well all be very laudible aims, but the result doesn't look very much like Brexit. It looks rather more like "BINO" ("Brexit In Name Only"). Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that this plan honours the referendum result in anything more than a very technical sense? Can you explain how it addresses the reasons why people voted Leave?
The only tangible difference I can see is that it reduces the UK's status from "rule maker" to "rule taker". What do we get in return? What benefits would there be over remaining an EU member?
I can't see any. It just looks like an exercise in damage limitation when compared with a Tory Brexit. If that's the case, Labour should stop accepting Brexit as something inevitable and that "damage control" is good enough. Labour should have the courage to tell voters they were sold a lie and that there is no left wing case for Brexit - as your colleague, David Lammy MP, did in his excellent speech earlier this week.
I am asking you to please campaign for the following, both in Parliament as MP for Brightside and Hillsborough, and to your party leadership to adopt as official Labour policy:
1) immediate suspension or revocation of the Article 50 notification, while we as a country sort this mess out;
2) a full public consultation, aimed at identifying the underlying issues behind WHY people voted Leave or Remain in 2016, and a national strategy to tackle those issues;
3) having done that, and had the informed debate we should have had in 2016, a second referendum to settle the question of our EU membership once and for all - with Labour campaigning strongly in favour of Remain.
The strategy in 2) should inform what happens next, whether it's the terms of how we Leave or the changes we need to make to the status quo if we choose to Remain.
I think this is the only sensible way forward and I hope that you will be able to confirm you will campaing for it, or something similar. If you disagree with it, I would also be very interested to understand your reasons why - and in particular if you believe your constituents have anything at all to gain from ANY of the versions of Brexit on offer.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Many thanks,
[name and address]
To: gill.furniss.mp@parliament.uk
Date: 11 January 2019 20:27
Subject: Please support a second EU referendum
Dear Ms Furniss,
I have written to you on two previous occasions, about different issues, but did not receive a reply. I realise you must receive a lot of correspondence, but I hope this occasion will be different and you will be able to respond to the points I am raising, especially as they concern our future as a nation.
I am talking, of course, about Brexit, and specifically about the Labour Party's position on Brexit.
Labour are arguing against asking voters to reconsider decisions they made in 2016 which directly addressed the question. Instead, they say, there should be another general election. This would ask voters to reconsider decisions they made in 2017, which don't directly address the question. I have to say this seems rather self-serving.
More than that, though, it assumes the choice that should be put to voters is not whether we should Leave or Remain in the EU, but only whether we should be forced to endure a Tory Brexit or a Labour Brexit. Only 6,000 votes separated Leave and Remain in Sheffield, so that feels like the wrong question. But more than that, voters can only make a meaningful choice if we know what each of those options means.
As of today, we know that a Tory Brexit means Mrs May's deal or No Deal. You don't need to tell me, as I am fully convinced that No Deal would be a disaster and Mrs May's is a terrible deal that compares very badly with the deal we have now as a member of the EU. But I can at least see that it does attempt to honour the referendum result by "taking back control" in a number of areas. Some of that control is uncertain, and contingent on escaping the Backstop, but there is a logic to it.
I'm afraid I cannot see the logic to Labour's version of Brexit. It's not enough to say it's not as bad as the Tory version. We need to know what's good about it.
If I've understood right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), a Labour Brexit would see the UK:
- in a permanent customs union with the EU
- in a relationship akin to the single market (including ongoing financial contributions to the EU budget and potentially signing up to the Four Freedoms, including freedom of movement)
- protecting workers' rights and environmental standards by continuing to adhere to EU rules
Now, those might well all be very laudible aims, but the result doesn't look very much like Brexit. It looks rather more like "BINO" ("Brexit In Name Only"). Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that this plan honours the referendum result in anything more than a very technical sense? Can you explain how it addresses the reasons why people voted Leave?
The only tangible difference I can see is that it reduces the UK's status from "rule maker" to "rule taker". What do we get in return? What benefits would there be over remaining an EU member?
I can't see any. It just looks like an exercise in damage limitation when compared with a Tory Brexit. If that's the case, Labour should stop accepting Brexit as something inevitable and that "damage control" is good enough. Labour should have the courage to tell voters they were sold a lie and that there is no left wing case for Brexit - as your colleague, David Lammy MP, did in his excellent speech earlier this week.
I am asking you to please campaign for the following, both in Parliament as MP for Brightside and Hillsborough, and to your party leadership to adopt as official Labour policy:
1) immediate suspension or revocation of the Article 50 notification, while we as a country sort this mess out;
2) a full public consultation, aimed at identifying the underlying issues behind WHY people voted Leave or Remain in 2016, and a national strategy to tackle those issues;
3) having done that, and had the informed debate we should have had in 2016, a second referendum to settle the question of our EU membership once and for all - with Labour campaigning strongly in favour of Remain.
The strategy in 2) should inform what happens next, whether it's the terms of how we Leave or the changes we need to make to the status quo if we choose to Remain.
I think this is the only sensible way forward and I hope that you will be able to confirm you will campaing for it, or something similar. If you disagree with it, I would also be very interested to understand your reasons why - and in particular if you believe your constituents have anything at all to gain from ANY of the versions of Brexit on offer.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Many thanks,
[name and address]