Dear ..... ,
I am writing to all Members of both Houses of Parliament in the hope that you will combine to reject the result of the Referendum of 23rd June 2016 and prevent Britain’s exit from the European Union.
I and millions of others are appalled at the stubbornness with which the Government is pushing ahead and its apparent desire to appease populist politicians and their followers rather than represent the nation’s best interests at this critical time.
I and millions of others are appalled at the stubbornness with which the Government is pushing ahead and its apparent desire to appease populist politicians and their followers rather than represent the nation’s best interests at this critical time.
I will be delighted to support you in any way I can, in which case please do contact me. Please also feel free to forward this email if you wish.
I summarise the case for rejecting the UK’s departure from the EU as follows. I greatly hope that you will find the time to consider it.
1. Above all, the UK is a representative democracy not a plebiscitary democracy.
This is something of which to be rightly proud and we should defend it robustly. Parliamentarians are representatives not delegates. The principle was best set out by Edmund Burke to the Bristol electors in 1774, and I’m sure it’s familiar to you. It can be read here:
Most Parliamentarians pay at least lip service to this defining constitutional principle. We know already that the majority of both Houses of Parliament, after years and often decades to review the matter, believe that the UK should stay the EU in the national interest. All you have to do is be brave enough to honour Burke’s principle and thus your consciences, and vote to do so.This is something of which to be rightly proud and we should defend it robustly. Parliamentarians are representatives not delegates. The principle was best set out by Edmund Burke to the Bristol electors in 1774, and I’m sure it’s familiar to you. It can be read here:
2. The reason for calling the Referendum was illegitimate.
Fearing a high UKIP vote at the 2015 General Election, David Cameron put the short-term benefit of his political party over the long-term benefit of the nation, including the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. I do not make a party-political point when I ask you to agree that this was a shameful thing to do.
Fearing a high UKIP vote at the 2015 General Election, David Cameron put the short-term benefit of his political party over the long-term benefit of the nation, including the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. I do not make a party-political point when I ask you to agree that this was a shameful thing to do.
3. The Referendum’s threshold for change was set too low.
No respectable organisation would let a constitutional change of this size and impact be decided by a simple majority of those who turned out to vote. If this principle holds for a youth club committee then it surely holds for a major nation of 60 million people.
No respectable organisation would let a constitutional change of this size and impact be decided by a simple majority of those who turned out to vote. If this principle holds for a youth club committee then it surely holds for a major nation of 60 million people.
4. Voters did not make an informed choice in the Referendum.
As has been clearly shown since June, even those who led the Referendum campaigns didn’t know what the choice entailed! How therefore can the public be said to have made a clear, informed decision? It can’t. Neither side had plans in the event of a “No” vote. In particular, the Leave campaigns’ lies and distortions were exposed or admitted within hours of the result, as was the rapid desire of many of its leaders to quit the field in the spirit of sauve qui peut. Having surprised themselves by winning, they clearly just didn’t know what to do next. Even seven months later there is still confusion at the heart of the Government.
As has been clearly shown since June, even those who led the Referendum campaigns didn’t know what the choice entailed! How therefore can the public be said to have made a clear, informed decision? It can’t. Neither side had plans in the event of a “No” vote. In particular, the Leave campaigns’ lies and distortions were exposed or admitted within hours of the result, as was the rapid desire of many of its leaders to quit the field in the spirit of sauve qui peut. Having surprised themselves by winning, they clearly just didn’t know what to do next. Even seven months later there is still confusion at the heart of the Government.
5. The Referendum campaign was unfitting of a mature democracy.
Deceptions were perpetrated and admitted by both sides but above all by the Leave campaigns. The press coverage, particularly from Leave-supporting newspapers, was largely mendacious and deceitful. Michael Gove's dismissal of "experts" was more than a cynical ploy to grab votes; it was an implicit attack on the very institution in which he and you serve and whose sovereignty he claimed to want to extend. In short, the Referendum campaign was not a sign of a vibrant, mature democracy but an insult to it and a national embarrassment.
Deceptions were perpetrated and admitted by both sides but above all by the Leave campaigns. The press coverage, particularly from Leave-supporting newspapers, was largely mendacious and deceitful. Michael Gove's dismissal of "experts" was more than a cynical ploy to grab votes; it was an implicit attack on the very institution in which he and you serve and whose sovereignty he claimed to want to extend. In short, the Referendum campaign was not a sign of a vibrant, mature democracy but an insult to it and a national embarrassment.
6. The Referendum was inappropriately used as a protest vote.
Stoked by the Leave campaigns and their press supporters, many voted Leave out of ignorance, anger, fear and a wish to hit politicians and economic and other interests by whom they felt betrayed or rejected. Their scapegoat – as so often – was foreigners. A referendum of this kind and on this question was no place for such a protest vote, however justified the anger. (To support this point, I shall conclude this email with a list of legitimate complaints for which the EU simply cannot be blamed. Rather, they are due our own poor governance: that is, the exercise of our own sovereignty untrammelled by EU involvement or interference.)
Stoked by the Leave campaigns and their press supporters, many voted Leave out of ignorance, anger, fear and a wish to hit politicians and economic and other interests by whom they felt betrayed or rejected. Their scapegoat – as so often – was foreigners. A referendum of this kind and on this question was no place for such a protest vote, however justified the anger. (To support this point, I shall conclude this email with a list of legitimate complaints for which the EU simply cannot be blamed. Rather, they are due our own poor governance: that is, the exercise of our own sovereignty untrammelled by EU involvement or interference.)
7. Rejecting the result of the Referendum is not “anti-democratic”.
Even disregarding the many democratic failings of the whole process, the Referendum result was explicitly not made binding so there is no constitutional impediment to rejecting it. Moreover, about 3 million people who had rarely or never been bothered to vote did so on 23rd June. Nearly all voted Leave. This helped swing the result. Leavers have no right to lecture the rest of us about democracy if so many of them couldn't even be bothered until now to cast a vote for which others fought and died.
Even disregarding the many democratic failings of the whole process, the Referendum result was explicitly not made binding so there is no constitutional impediment to rejecting it. Moreover, about 3 million people who had rarely or never been bothered to vote did so on 23rd June. Nearly all voted Leave. This helped swing the result. Leavers have no right to lecture the rest of us about democracy if so many of them couldn't even be bothered until now to cast a vote for which others fought and died.
I call on Parliamentarians to stand up, to be brave and now work together to halt this trek from progress before it is too late. I call on you to be proud to risk your personal careers and party's fortunes for the good of the nation, and not to run scared of your voters' wrath. I ask you not to let a government’s desire to appease those who shout the loudest threaten the future of this great country for the second time in a century.
Addendum
The Leave campaigns lost the argument even if they narrowly won the vote. We must now defend, restate and massively extend the case for remaining beyond the narrowly economic and focus on the cultural issues that are equally at stake.
The Leave campaigns lost the argument even if they narrowly won the vote. We must now defend, restate and massively extend the case for remaining beyond the narrowly economic and focus on the cultural issues that are equally at stake.
To address the undoubted anger and disillusion of Leave voters we must make clear that most of the things about which they are incensed are NOT due to the European Union.
So I hope that we will all be brave enough to ask ourselves the following: Compared to other EU nations of similar wealth and size, does the UK in general have
• a better education system and higher levels of literacy?
• better health and social care systems?
• better standards of health, food and diet?
• higher economic productivity?
• a more equitable distribution of wealth?
• better urban environments and better quality housing?
• better transport systems and better quality roads?
• more independent shops and restaurants, and fewer corporate chain stores in our high streets?
• higher standards of public behaviour, and less alcohol-fuelled night-time aggression?
• and yes, better national football teams (I exempt, probably temporarily, that of Wales)?
• a better education system and higher levels of literacy?
• better health and social care systems?
• better standards of health, food and diet?
• higher economic productivity?
• a more equitable distribution of wealth?
• better urban environments and better quality housing?
• better transport systems and better quality roads?
• more independent shops and restaurants, and fewer corporate chain stores in our high streets?
• higher standards of public behaviour, and less alcohol-fuelled night-time aggression?
• and yes, better national football teams (I exempt, probably temporarily, that of Wales)?
Sadly, the answer to all these questions about vital indicators of our nation's health is "No". In respect of all of them, comparable European nations are ahead of us, often significantly so. Yet in the UK, the EU has control over none of them.
Things have slipped behind on our governments' - and our - watch. They are our doing.
I am a patriot yet I've never been afraid to admit that the UK has a huge amount to learn from our neighbours about how to live and how to live well, and it has never been more important than now. In short, for all the great things that we can and should offer Europe, the simple fact is that we DO need the EU more than they need us. We must not be complacent. We should be opening ourselves up not closing ourselves down.
Thank you very much for reading this, and I repeat my offer to support you if you agree with what you have read.
Yours,
Peter Roberts
Peter Roberts
No comments:
Post a Comment