Forum Topic

Article 50 For the record, how our MPs voted

MPs voted to pass the Article 50 bill last night without two proposed House of Lords amendment. As the local media doesn't seem to be very interested in what our local parliamentary representatives did I thought it worth documenting hereHanding the Government a majority of 48, MPs voted down an amendment designed to protected the rights of EU nationals living in Europe by 335 to 287.They also scrapped a second amendment which would have given Parliament a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal by 331 to 286, a majority of 45.Our local MPs Virendra Sharma (Ealing Southall) Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) and Steve Pound (Ealing North) all voted against scrapping the two ammendments. I will also add that Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth)also voted against scrapping the two ammendments. I mention her because if the Boundary Commission Review recommendations are followed the Northfield Ward of the Borough of Ealing will move from Virendra Sharma's Parliamentary Constituency of Ealing Southall to Ruth Cadbury's of Brentford and Isleworth.

George Marquez ● 3157d10 Comments

>More broadly however, simply blaming our MPs is somewhat naive; people seem to forget that Theresa May offered the EU an opportunity to agree security for EU nationals in the UK in exchange for the same security for our citizens living abroad in EU member countries.This is a myth.

Paul James ● 3153d

It certainly won't heal with divisive, bigoted, ill-informed and plain wrong comments such as 'The North or Brexitland as I prefer to call it...' posted by somebody with a very similar name to yours on another thread a couple of months ago. [fyi the third biggest pro-brexit vote in the UK was in Castle Point (ie Benfleet, Canvey and their little friends in SE Essex -  bit ironic that Canvey only exists because Dutch settlers reclaimed it from the Thames]. But I suppose that poster and others of like mind can always play the game of 'blame and slag off Essex man and Woman' -  almost as popular among the London metrosexual sneering classes as 'blame and slag off the Northerners' - and with as little foundation.

Chris Veasey ● 3153d

James, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'security for EU nationals' and can't find any mention of Angela Merkel rejecting an offer relating to this. The EU isn't in a position to reject or accept any offer right now simply because they need to work out a common position. What we offer them is fairly irrelevant because the biggest hurdle is 27 nations agreeing on a common position. The good news is that this is probably going to be one of the least contentious parts of Brexit with both sides recognising this is literally a case of beggar thy neighbour. The rights and entitlements of EU nationals here and UK nationals in the EU will be much reduced but that is just an unavoidable consequence of the ending of freedom of movement but we still have significant labour shortages in key industries and Europe has an excess of labour.As the mandate for Brexit is based on 'the will of the people' that ends if there is a reasonable cause to doubt the will of the people has changed. The problem that the current Government will face is that reversion to WTO rules will involve a huge dislocation of our economy. I don't know whether you saw the select committee questioning of David Davis but it was quite clear this isn't a contingency that they have planned for. He was refreshingly honest but totally clueless. If operating under WTO rules does become a serious option then lots of people are going to be told they are losing their jobs and the job security of many more will be called into question. It is inconceivable at this point that the 'will of the people' will be that we leave the EU on such terms. The problem, as was pointed out earlier, is that a second referendum isn't really a practical option because it gives the EU an incentive to give us a terrible deal. However, if we are getting a terrible deal anyway then the pro-Remain majority in the House of Commons is likely to come into play. As I said earlier - I don't understand what the emergency brake is in all of this but all politicians have an aversion to doing anything that is unpopular. At this point the sheer ineptitude of Jeremy Corbyn has given the Government a free hand but they can't bank on that situation lasting forever. My hope would be that our democratic system works well and accurately determines what the will of the people actually is at the key juncture.

Andy Jones ● 3155d

Thank you for the information James, I missed Theresa May offering the EU an opportunity to agree security for EU nationals in the UK in exchange for the same security for our citizens living abroad in EU member countries.The whole scenario is so complex that if you blink you miss something important. What is interesting is that the higher-end of the UK media has missed Poland falling out with the EU over a perceived stitch-up over the Polish rotating presidency slot that has left the un-loved Tusk in that role. Poland is refusing to sign off on anything the EU does and is threatening to veto everything it can as the EU pushes its two-speed Europe plan forward. If this threat is carried out it will makes the next few months or years very very complicated for Brexit.

George Marquez ● 3155d

There is a great deal of difference between a general election and the recently held referendum. You are not castigated for being against the party in power, in fact it is taken for granted under our parliamentary system that a fair number of people will be against the party in power and will do their best to make their opinions heard. And all know that in a maximum of five years, they will have the opportunity to vote a different party with different policies into power. Or even the same party, but with different policies. Leaving the EU has no such escape clauses.As for the EU members not accepting the suggestion of a deal on the side, before the UK has actually applied to leave, well that to me at least is fully understandable. The British parliamentary process for leaving was still under way, the UK has still not applied to leave the EU. Until yesterday it was still feasible that the UK parliament might vote down the bill and decide not the apply to leave under Article 50. Under what basis do you imagine that the EU could accept such a deal? The so-called undemocratic EU would have to go through a process as well, with either an EU parliamentary discussion and voting, or the Council of Ministers agreeing and then voting at a national level and acceptance by all countries.

Sue Rowe ● 3155d

Similarly, I know a good number of people from EU member nations, in particular Eastern Europe, who add huge value to both local society and economy. These people share a sense of insecurity now, and are worried about what may happen to their right to stay here - understandably.More broadly however, simply blaming our MPs is somewhat naive; people seem to forget that Theresa May offered the EU an opportunity to agree security for EU nationals in the UK in exchange for the same security for our citizens living abroad in EU member countries. There are 3.3m EU citizens here and somewhere over 1m of our folk abroad. Seems like we were the more gracious of parties in the offer, unfortunately the EU and most vocally, Angela Merkel, declined to take up this offer presumably to keep people as a negotiating lever. It is very important to be aware of this as it is far too easy to simply blame our government.If I understand the original comment correctly, 3 of our local MPs wanted to uphold the House of Lords position that we should guarantee right to remain here for EU national in the U.K. despite the EUs rejection of a like for like agreement, Although sympathetic to people affected, it is shocking that these MPs continue to attempt to obstruct democracy. The Article 50 vote was very simple - a vote to trigger Article 50 only. The bill did not include any other conditions or points of debate - trigger article 50 - yes or no. Sadly an unelected set of peers saw an opportunity to again try to stimy democracy by attempting to broaden the parameters of the vote. I have no issue with debating the welfare of EU citizens living here but please do not allow the politics of this to encourage a belief that the Article 50 vote was about said people, it was not.Lastly, and just a personal opinion, it's all too convenient to say people who voted leave would now vote remain and therefore we should hold another referendum. This attitude makes a mockery of our democratic system, a system we are privileged to have unlike some countries in the world. It is unreasonable to say "oops I change do my mind s let me have another try". Perhaps a little like "oops I didn't study hard enough so didn't get a good grade in my exam, let me just retake it" or "oh, I accidentally said I quit my job, surely I can have it back". We should not patronise our voting population by saying they voted with less information than exists now - we vote in any election based on available information at the time and by using our own judgement to make a decision. Please let's avoid the Sturgeonesque politics of calling for another referendum every time things don't go our way.

James Putland ● 3155d

The amendment on EU citizens is well meaning but ultimately irrelevant - the damage has been done on this issue and the pieces can't be put back together. As a colleague who is an EU citizen explained to me recently - before the EU referendum England was her home and now she is an expatriate. Given the value her skills bring to our economy there would be no question of her being deported but she can't plan for the future in the way she used to. For instance what is going to happen if she gets a long term illness - even under the most generous deal the chances are that she would have to return to her home country regardless of the impact on the rest of her family.On the meaningful vote amendment I am still trying to work out how this plays out. Clearly it is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty not to allow the two Houses to have a say on the Brexit deal. However, the Government is probably right to think that the EU would be highly incentivised to give us a bad deal if it was likely that parliament was going to throw it out. Similarly offering a second referendum would only ensure that the EU would have a motivation for making the terms of departure unattractive.The question then is that even with these precautions if the deal that we get is still unpalatable do we have any sort of parachute? We've heard today that the Government has not made any projections on the 'no deal' scenario. There is only a small minority of ministers or senior figures within the Conservative party who believe that reversion to WTO rules is a viable option and they divide into libertarian hawks like Gove who believe you really need to destroy the British economy to rebuild it or Boris who doesn't have a clue what is going on but likes being Foreign Secretary. All of the others recognise that the 'will of the people' moves against them fairly sharply once the full implications of this start to play out. However, if there is no second referendum and no meaningful vote in parliament are we really in a situation where we will have to continue along a path which the majority of MPs and the majority of the people think is wrong?

Andy Jones ● 3156d

I wonder if this rift will ever heal. I don't see any cohesive way forward.

Penelope Crocker ● 3156d

Our local MPs seem to be the only MPs with any moral backbone at all in the entire country.I'm very proud of them!

Paul James ● 3156d

Good.

Penelope Crocker ● 3156d