Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog

  • Home
  • What Diplomats Do (book)
    • Reviews
  • Blog
    • Politics
    • International Affairs
    • Civil Liberties
    • International
    • Family History
    • Family Today
    • Arts & Entertainment
    • Computers
    • Miscellaneous
  • Other writings
    • Politics
      • Civil Liberties
      • UK Politics
    • Photos
    • Family
      • Contemporary
      • History
      • Photos
    • Miscellaneous
  • Links
  • Contact me
  • About
    • About Brian
    • About Ephems, Brian’s blog
    • Privacy

The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger

by Brian · 25 January, 2017

Dear all,

The following is the full text of a new Ephems blog post at http://www.barder.com/4837, “The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger”. Please write any comments on it at the bottom of http://www.barder.com/4837, not in reply to this circular email (which is not a blog post).  You need to visit that website to read other people’s comments as well as to contribute your own, whether supportive or dissenting. Here is the text of the blog post:

>> Those of us who remain convinced that Britain’s place and future should be in the European Union with our closest friends, partners and allies have a plain duty to continue campaigning against Brexit. That means persuading public and parliamentary opinion, even now, that the referendum’s narrow result was a terrible mistake.  Following the judgment of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the best hope for averting the calamity of Brexit is for parliament to refuse permission for the government to trigger Article 50 by the end of March, or indeed at all. There is no conceivable justification for convinced Remainers in the House of Commons or the House of Lords to vote in favour of the forthcoming government Bill to authorise the A50 trigger. If they do, they will be failing to act in accordance with their best judgement of British interests, which they are elected or appointed to exercise on behalf of the British people. Voting for, or even abstaining on, what you believe to be a disaster for the country is clearly contrary to reason. We all “respect” the referendum result, but that means only that we recognise it as a fact. ‘Respecting’ it can’t possibly mean that we have to agree with it (when we don’t) or feel obliged to support its implementation, any more than ‘respecting’ a Tory election victory requires a Labour opposition to pretend to agree with the Conservatives’ election manifesto or to work to give effect to its policies regardless of its belief that they are reactionary and damaging. That belief obviously imposes a duty on those who hold it to do everything legally possible to persuade public and parliamentary opinion that those policies are wrong and should be changed or reversed. That’s what the Opposition is there to do.  Mr Corbyn’s and some other Labour leaders’ inability or unwillingness to understand this and to act accordingly is a national tragedy. 

Anyway, the referendum was not a “decision” by the British people, nor “an instruction” to parliament or the government, as Mrs May likes to claim.  It was advisory, a snapshot of the opinions of voters in both camps seven months ago.  If it had been binding, there’s little doubt that the Act setting it up would have stipulated a majority much greater than 52% to justify such a political, economic, social, legal and diplomatic earthquake as Brexit would entail.  The reckless and unconstitutional promises of a few politicians to act to put the result of the referendum into effect, whichever way it went, can’t affect its status either in law or in practice.  No referendum result can possibly oblige those who disagreed with the majority of the referendum voters to change their minds or to act in ways that are contrary to their deepest convictions.  The idea that if the referendum had gone the other way by an equally small (or any other) majority, the fanatical Brexiteers would have dropped their antipathy to the EU and all its works, and would have “respected” the result in the sense of switching allegiance and working to strengthen Britain’s role in Europe, is obviously for the birds.  At least one prominent Brexiteer openly promised to continue to work to get the UK out of the EU even if the referendum went against him.  There’s nothing ‘undemocratic’ about seeking to change public and parliamentary opinion in the direction that you believe best serves the country’s interests. 

So Labour and other MPs and members of the House of Lords who worked with often passionate conviction for the Remain campaign, in accordance with established Labour policy (never formally reversed), have a clear obligation this week or next to vote against the promised Bill required to authorise the Tory government to trigger A50, which otherwise will be the first and probably irrevocable step in Britain’s self-inflicted expulsion from our continent’s most significant economic, trade and political association. Labour should of course vote Yes to any proposed amendments to the Bill designed to improve the conditions on which we leave if Brexit can’t be stopped. But rejecting the Bill itself, with or without amendments, is essential if we are to avert calamity.  Those who know this but still vote for it, or even abstain on it, will violate their consciences and their judgement, and even more unforgivably our country, our interests, and Britain’s place in history.  I appeal to all MPs and peers, of any party and none, who recognise that Britain should remain in the EU, to vote No to Article 50.  It may be your — and our — last chance.

Note:  An earlier version of this post first appeared earlier today in the website LabourList as “This may be our one chance: Labour MPs have a duty to vote against article 50” at http://labourlist.org/2017/01/labour-mps-have-a-duty-to-vote-against-article-50/, where it is already attracting some predictably ferocious comments from the Brexiteers.  Thoughtful comments, whether or not dissenting, on the version here will of course be welcome, as always.  Abusive comments will be deleted. <<

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With best wishes from a cold and foggy Wandsworth in south-west London 
Brian
25 January 2017  
      

Search this site

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No.
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences 
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome
  • Notes for May (not Her, 2017)
  • Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript)
  • The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • The duty of MPs and peers who support remaining in the EU is to vote against the Bill authorising an Article 50 trigger
  • Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

  • Next story The Brexit Article 50 trigger Bill : a greater betrayal
  • Previous story Farewell to Brexit: some valedictory reminders

Recent comments


    Harry Barder and his ancestors (5 comments)
    • Christopher Barder { I have an obituary of your father given by mine, the latter is no longer with us, and he talked ... }
    • Robert Marcus { Can anyone connect me to the Barders of Bolney Hall in Sussex who rescued my father Hans Marcus from persecution ... }

    The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences (6 comments)
    • Abhinav { If there is another election this year, they will likely keep all of their current seats and may well gain ... }

    A new angle on House of Lords reform (3 comments)
    • Abhinav { The House of Lords must be reformed. As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, ... }

    The Barders of Krakow and London in the 18th century (5 comments)
    • V9Poker { Great post. “I have an almost complete set of photos of the south and north banks of the river between ... }
    • Sarah Wray { Hello. My name is Sarah i am the grandaughter of John Barder. Brother of Sam Barder. So Donald Barder and ... }

    The Quartly Engravers (3 comments)
    • Hilda McDonnell { My mother's printer / compositor grandfather James or Jim Foster (b. Bethnal Green 1839-d. Invercargill, New Zealand, 1916) emigrated to ... }

    Syria: myths and omissions (with personal postscript) (8 comments)
    • xMarine1066 { Brain Now that more information on the staged Chemical Attack have come to the for, maybe a follow-up artical on ... }

    A scandalous injustice: 4,614 IPPs stranded indefinitely in our prisons, 77% of them for crimes... (12 comments)
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Thoughts { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Updates on Law Matters { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – My Ramblings { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }
    • John Worboys case shone light on IPP injustice | Letter – Law Blog { […] he wrote in June 2016: “Since it is inherently impossible to prove a future negative, few IPPs have managed ... }

    More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos (9 comments)
    • Peter Martin { @Brian, You say: <em>"And secondly, my rough guess is that 10 per cent or more of the votes cast for ... }
    • Brian { Brian replies to Peter Martin: I don't accept for a minute that criticism of the leader of the Labour party, ... }

    Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. (5 comments)
    • Peter Martin { I suppose the key concession would have to be on freedom of movement. By far the majority of people in ... }
    • Kevin Jones { Cameron was dead meat by the time he tried to get concessions from the EU and May is going about ... }
    • William Spurgeon { I think the EU is prepared to make concessions - in fact, it made concessions to Cameron on migrants' benefits ... }
    • Acilius { The referendum was a paradoxical idea from the start. Leave was always going on about the importance of Britain's constitutional ... }
    • Peter Martin { I don't believe it would be too hard to get a majority for staying in the EU, but there would ... }

    Margaret Annie Wood (3 comments)
    • Don Knibbs { Thanks for sharing all of that information. I'm related to Sarah's husband, Edwin George Knibbs. }
  • Older »

Get posts by email

Subscribe for email updates

Your full name

Recent posts

  • Was the 2016 Brexit referendum binding on parliament or the government? Answer: No. 2 August, 2017
  • Stop Brexit!  Time for the Labour majority to stand up and be counted 5 July, 2017
  • More heresies on the election arithmetic and the manifestos 20 June, 2017
  • The 2017 Election Arithmetic and its consequences  9 June, 2017
  • How to vote on Thursday: a minority Labour government would be the best outcome 2 June, 2017

Search this site

Brian Barder's website and Ephems blog © 2021. All Rights Reserved.