Lucy
Well-Known Forumite
I know of only one person who voted leave, and that was because their mum told them it was better in the old days (the mum is late 50s). Intelligent people voted remain too.
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Leave or Remain?
- Thread starter andy w
- Start date
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
My point was in response to the narrative that all leave voters are thick, racist, and influenced by a bus. The reality from the leave voters I work with is very very different.
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
No, what is wrong with English politics is that, like you have just demonstrated of yourself, too few people understand the " whole order and tenor of our constitution".
Let me refer you to Burke's speech of 1774 -
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion … You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of [Stafford], but he is a member of parliament."
- look up the rest of it if you can be arsed. As you can see, this is not exactly a novel concept.
See also Winston Churchill 'Duties of a Member of Parliament' ,1955 -
"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate. Burke's famous declaration on this subject is well known. It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there in no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy."
So no, he is not in Parliament to "represent the wishes of the people who voted for him", especially if he believes those wishes to be detrimental to the 'honour and safety ' of the UK.
PeterD
ST16 Represent.
Is this a Kyoto parody account?
Thehooperman
Well-Known Forumite
I've actually received a reply to my email from Mr Lefroy. It's so long winded quoting the entire agreement that I can't post it all on here.
It is interesting that he states that his constituents are concerned about the backstop agreement and fisheries (both affecting us locally, of course) but nothing about concerns such as agricultural issues or local jobs or local economy problems that may be caused by a no deal.
Cue
Well-Known Forumite
He could just vote for what's best for his constituents as it seems they don't always know what's best for them (hence the "majority" voting Leave) instead of voting for them to jump off a cliff. Strange idea.
Your bars for "very intellikgent" and "well research and thought out reasons" are very low.
Your bars for "very intellikgent" and "well research and thought out reasons" are very low.
Tilly
Well-Known Forumite
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
I also received the same email. I shall copy it so everyone knows what our MP thinks and is doing:
"I will be supporting the EU Withdrawal Agreement/Political Declaration in the vote on Tuesday.
Below are set out key points in the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration and my reasons for supporting them, including addressing points which constituents have raised with me.
The full texts are at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...d-future-relationship-with-the-european-union.
The Withdrawal Agreement
• Gives us a time-limited implementation period that provides a bridge to the future relationship, allowing businesses to continue trading as now until the end of 2020.
• Provides a fair financial settlement;
• Ensures no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, with a UK-wide backstop respecting the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK. This agreement legally commits both sides to use best endeavours to ensure the backstop is never used. If either side fails to do so, this could be referred to an independent arbitration panel. This includes a mechanism which either the UK or the EU can trigger to review the arrangements, which could ultimately lead to the backstop ceasing to apply.
• Protects the rights of UK citizens living in the EU, and EU citizens living in the UK
The Political Declaration
• Ends free movement of people. There will be a new skills-based immigration system.
• Provides for a free trade area and deep cooperation on goods, with zero tariffs and quotas.
• Gives the UK the ability to strike trade deals around the world.
• Calls for ambitious arrangements for services and investment, alongside new arrangements on financial services.
• Contains new and specific arrangements on digital matters, covering a wide-range of areas, reflecting the growth and prominence of global digital trade.
• Ensures the UK will be an independent coastal state, with commitments to ensure sustainable fishing levels and a new fisheries agreement with the EU.
• Ensures the UK will be outside the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy.
• Provides for open and fair competition, in line with the overall economic relationship with commitments by both the UK and the EU on state aid, employment and environmental standards, and relevant tax matters.
• Commits to comprehensive and close reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation to keep people safe.
• Enables a close and flexible partnership in foreign policy and defence.
The objectives of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration are to ensure firstly that we leave the EU as smoothly as possible (with an implementation/transition period until 31st December 2020 during which trade relationships continue as now) in accordance with the result of the referendum; and secondly that the new relationship encompasses a close trade agreement through a free trade area, cooperation on security, health and law enforcement. At the same time, the UK will have control over immigration, agriculture and fisheries and freedom of movement will come to an end. The European Court of Justice will also not have general jurisdiction in the UK in the areas where it does now.
I will be voting for this Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration, and cannot support leaving the EU without a deal. While I campaigned to remain in the EU, the Agreement puts into effect the result of the referendum to leave while the Declaration provides for a long-term free trade relationship between the UK and EU which will, if handled constructively, be to our mutual benefit. The EU as a whole remains by far the UK’s largest trading partner, and is particularly important for jobs, livelihoods and public services in our region of the West Midlands as well as the UK as whole.
On specific matters which constituents have raised with me:
Northern Ireland Protocol/’Backstop’
Constituents have raised with me concerns about the length of time the UK may be in the ‘backstop’ (or Northern Ireland protocol) which is in place to ensure the continuation of the ‘soft’ border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in accordance with the Belfast Agreement. The EU and UK are legally bound to work with "best endeavours" to have the future relationship in place through treaty (or treaties) by the end of the Implementation Period - 31st December 2020. The future relationship, ensuring a ‘soft’ border, would mean that there is no need for this ‘backstop’.
If, by July 2020, it appears that the negotiations on the trade agreement will take longer, the UK can request an extension to the implementation period as an alternative to the ‘backstop’ coming into place in 2021. Therefore, if the trade agreement is not in place by 31st December 2020, the UK has a choice of either extending the Implementation Period by one or two years or entering the ‘backstop arrangement’.
The ‘backstop’ involves the UK entering a temporary customs union with the EU with Northern Ireland continuing to have regulatory alignment for good. All this would be replaced by the new trade agreement when it was concluded. The intention would be to do this as quickly as possible.
If the UK were to enter the ‘backstop’, the UK could call for a review at any time when we consider that the future relationship is ready and hence the ‘backstop’ is no longer necessary. If both sides agree the future relationship is ready we would leave the backstop. This judgement would need to be taken in good faith. If there is a disagreement, a special conference would try and resolve the differences. If that failed to reach an agreement it would go to independent arbitration as to whether the ‘backstop’ is still needed to meet the objective or maintaining a ‘soft border’. .Article 50, under which the UK will have left the EU, does not provide for the ‘backstop’ to be a permanent solution. It can only be a bridge to the future relationship.
It is clear that this is one of the most difficult matters in the agreement for many MPs and I understand this. I nevertheless agree with the Attorney General when he said on 3rd December, in supporting the Agreement:
“I do not believe that we are likely to be entrapped in the backstop permanently. I can give reasons why I say that, but my right hon. and learned Friend has foreshadowed them. So I agree with him: this represents a sensible compromise. It has unattractive and unsatisfactory elements for us, but it is for the House to weigh it up against the potential alternatives and to assess whether it amounts to a calculated risk that this Government and this House should take in these circumstances, weighed up against the realities of the alternatives.”
Since the vote was postponed on 11th December, due in part to concerns over the Northern Ireland protocol, the Prime Minister has been working to obtain reassurances that MPs have been seeking. The vote will now take place in the week beginning 14th January 2019.
kyoto49
Well-Known Forumite
Part TWO
Payments to the EU
The payments being made in the Withdrawal Agreement relate to commitments already entered into by the UK for the period to 31/12/20 (which would mark the end of 21 month transition period) together with other liabilities (less assets) related to our membership of the EU.
Extension of the transition period
The provision to extend the transition period until the end of 2021 or 2022 is optional and every effort will be made to ensure that it is not necessary and that the final agreements are in place by December 2020. That will not be easy but, given that the UK and EU start from a position with common regulations, it is by no means impossible. There is no doubt that individual countries (who each have to agree the final arrangements) will make their own demands. That is the case in any negotiation and will be the case in negotiating each future trade agreement.
Services
For services, the Declaration provides for:
“Ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on services and investments, delivering a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ WTO commitments and in line with Article 5 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, with substantial sectoral coverage, covering all modes of supply and providing for the absence of substantially all discrimination in the covered sectors, with exceptions and limitations as appropriate.”
This is not as extensive as the Single Market in Services (which the EU has not itself completed) but it provides for considerably more access than is currently the case with most of our other trading partners.
Compliance with rules made by the EU
We will not be involved in setting EU rules during the transition period as we will have left the EU. In the future, if we reached a trade agreement in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Political Declaration, we would comply with EU standards/rules when selling into the EU just as we would with any overseas market, and just as others would into our market. Many rules are set through international standards into which we will have input just as we do now.
Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
After the end of the transition period, the ECJ will have no general jurisdiction in the UK as it does now. It will still be involved in ‘winding down’ matters, such as EU citizens’ rights and existing business disputes (for a time-limited period). As the Attorney General said on 3rd December:
“The Court cannot get involved, once the winding down has taken place, in the resolution of individual disputes between the citizens and businesses of this country. Members really must understand that. It will be over: the ECJ’s jurisdiction will be finished once the winding down takes place.”
Fisheries
There will be a fisheries agreement negotiated alongside the other agreements as we leave the Common Fisheries policy. I have no doubt that it will be a difficult negotiation. But it will have to be an agreement which is fair to UK fishermen and women and which puts protection and sustainability of fish stocks at its heart
Leaving without an agreement on WTO terms
Some have made the point to me that leaving immediately without an agreement and trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) would work for the UK. I cannot agree. No other major trading nation operates simply on WTO rules. They all are either part of larger common markets, or have made bilateral or multilateral agreements with other countries which go well beyond WTO rules. The Government said that it would implement the result of the referendum in the national interest, and both the Conservative and Labour parties confirmed this in their manifestos at the 2017 general election. That is why I consider it vital that we have an orderly exit from the EU, followed by a comprehensive free trade agreement with close relationships in security, policing, data, research, education and many other areas. This is provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration.
Second referendum
The Government made it clear at the time of the referendum that the result would be implemented. Both Labour and Conservative party manifestos for the 2017 general election said that there would not be a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said that Parliament would be given a decisive say. The Government and Parliament agreed, and this is what is now happening.
Payments to the EU
The payments being made in the Withdrawal Agreement relate to commitments already entered into by the UK for the period to 31/12/20 (which would mark the end of 21 month transition period) together with other liabilities (less assets) related to our membership of the EU.
Extension of the transition period
The provision to extend the transition period until the end of 2021 or 2022 is optional and every effort will be made to ensure that it is not necessary and that the final agreements are in place by December 2020. That will not be easy but, given that the UK and EU start from a position with common regulations, it is by no means impossible. There is no doubt that individual countries (who each have to agree the final arrangements) will make their own demands. That is the case in any negotiation and will be the case in negotiating each future trade agreement.
Services
For services, the Declaration provides for:
“Ambitious, comprehensive and balanced arrangements on services and investments, delivering a level of liberalisation in trade in services well beyond the Parties’ WTO commitments and in line with Article 5 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, with substantial sectoral coverage, covering all modes of supply and providing for the absence of substantially all discrimination in the covered sectors, with exceptions and limitations as appropriate.”
This is not as extensive as the Single Market in Services (which the EU has not itself completed) but it provides for considerably more access than is currently the case with most of our other trading partners.
Compliance with rules made by the EU
We will not be involved in setting EU rules during the transition period as we will have left the EU. In the future, if we reached a trade agreement in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Political Declaration, we would comply with EU standards/rules when selling into the EU just as we would with any overseas market, and just as others would into our market. Many rules are set through international standards into which we will have input just as we do now.
Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
After the end of the transition period, the ECJ will have no general jurisdiction in the UK as it does now. It will still be involved in ‘winding down’ matters, such as EU citizens’ rights and existing business disputes (for a time-limited period). As the Attorney General said on 3rd December:
“The Court cannot get involved, once the winding down has taken place, in the resolution of individual disputes between the citizens and businesses of this country. Members really must understand that. It will be over: the ECJ’s jurisdiction will be finished once the winding down takes place.”
Fisheries
There will be a fisheries agreement negotiated alongside the other agreements as we leave the Common Fisheries policy. I have no doubt that it will be a difficult negotiation. But it will have to be an agreement which is fair to UK fishermen and women and which puts protection and sustainability of fish stocks at its heart
Leaving without an agreement on WTO terms
Some have made the point to me that leaving immediately without an agreement and trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) would work for the UK. I cannot agree. No other major trading nation operates simply on WTO rules. They all are either part of larger common markets, or have made bilateral or multilateral agreements with other countries which go well beyond WTO rules. The Government said that it would implement the result of the referendum in the national interest, and both the Conservative and Labour parties confirmed this in their manifestos at the 2017 general election. That is why I consider it vital that we have an orderly exit from the EU, followed by a comprehensive free trade agreement with close relationships in security, policing, data, research, education and many other areas. This is provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration.
Second referendum
The Government made it clear at the time of the referendum that the result would be implemented. Both Labour and Conservative party manifestos for the 2017 general election said that there would not be a second referendum. The Labour manifesto said that Parliament would be given a decisive say. The Government and Parliament agreed, and this is what is now happening.
BobClay
Well-Known Forumite
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
What you omit is whether you think, in your opinion, that this is something he should, or should not, be supporting.
What was the nature of your furious petitioning?
Would supporting the EU Withdrawal Agreement amount to "represent[ing] the wishes of the people who voted for him", or would it be a 'betrayal' of the 'Will of the People'? I can't keep track of what you people actually want - though apparently the suggestion that what that might be might be a trifle (what's the word?... erm 'nebulous'? ... yes, nebulous) nebulous, generally leads to an outcry that the 17.4 million - note that 'they' never say 52%, only ever 17.4m, because 17.4m sounds like a lot, yet 52% doesn't - were all absolutely 100% committed to the one course of action that is whatever the person questioning them said it might not be.
Should Jeremy the Frog be for it, or agin it?
In the opinion of you and/or your highly educated colleagues?