MUST READ: A nail in the coffin of Brexit-phobic House of Lords

Despite their disgraceful attempts to do so, the Lords won't stop Brexit. But in shamelessly attempting to thwart the democratic will, they have achieved something: the British people are now alive to the necessity to scrap this corrupt institution and replace it with something better

Empty it and start again

Stephen Mitchell

On 22 June 2018 11:40

This week has put the future of the House of Lords in doubt – even though their attempts to frustrate the EU (Withdrawal) Bill have not succeeded.

Despite all their grandstanding and outrage, attempts by the Upper House to undermine the will of the people and reverse Brexit were forcefully rejected by MPs, and talk of the Lords’ abolition made it to Westminster Hall.

Debates across the Parliamentary estate resulted unfavourably for the bloated, unelected House of Lords.

This began on Monday 18th June, when Robert McBride’s overwhelmingly popular public e-petition – calling for a Referendum on abolishing the House of Lords – was debated in Westminster Hall. With 169,000 signatures behind the petition, it was refreshing to see a passionate gaggle of Parliamentarians from the Conservatives, Labour and Scottish National Party debate in the name of public interest.

Curiously, no Liberal Democrat MP thought the debate worthy of their time, despite theirs being the party which forced the Coalition Government to introduce a reform bill in 2012.

Conservative MP Paul Scully – a passionate Brexiteer – introduced the petition, and eloquently outlined the pivotal faults of the institution. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill amplified these faults, laying bare the snobbery of Peers – the majority of whom are failed politicians enjoying their status – and luscious expense accounts - without needing to worry about accountability.

Parliamentarians from both sides of the aisle came together to criticise the overstepping of the Lords’ constitutional role, and the anachronism of an unelected, increasingly large, Upper Chamber.

As with many debates, especially regarding e-petitions, the immediate effect may be small. In this case, the Minister of the Constitution, Chloe Smith MP, pledged little more than ‘a reduction in size of the Upper House’. BIG DEAL.

Most change in Government is incremental. Hopefully, this debate was nothing less than a step in the right direction. Of all the various futures imagined in Westminster Hall, the status quo or – heaven forbid – a return to the pre-Blair era of only hereditary peerages, was thankfully not discussed.

When right wing Conservatives, the far left of the Labour party and the SNP all find common ground, serious reform is surely afoot.

Not long after the MPs spoke in Westminster Hall, Peers congregated on the red benches to attempt to defeat the Government. Lord Hailsham (former Tory MP, Douglas Hogg) re-introduced the ‘meaningful vote’ amendment to The EU (Withdrawal) Bill – the last of the attempted ‘wrecking’ amendments. In calling Brexit a ‘national calamity’, the worst fears of Brexiteers were confirmed, and the Lords’ true colours revealed.

The EU (Withdrawal) Bill ping-ponged back to the Commons on Wednesday, where it was finally laid to rest. Dominic Grieve MP, former Attorney General and arch-Europhile Conservative, tabled what was essentially the same amendment as Lord Hailsham. It called for a ‘meaningful vote’ whereby Parliament would take control over the negotiations if Theresa May failed to reach a deal - or if Parliament voted down that deal - come the New Year.

Constitutionally perverse, and motivated by ant-Brexit sentiment, this is a red line for Brexiteers.

In the face of public rage - and the potential to bring down the Government - Dominic Grieve finally capitulated. He relented on his vociferous threats and simply crumbled, voting against his own amendment. This left the mafia of anti-Brexit Conservatives – including Anna Soubry, Kenneth Clarke and Antoinette Sandbach – flummoxed, with only 6 Tories rebelling against the Government.

So, it was another loss for the Remoaners, and a final defeat for the Peers. A yank to the ground from their high horses.

As with the Westminster Hall debate, The EU (Withdrawal) Bill highlighted those in both parties who very clearly respect democracy and their constituents. Labour’s Graham Stringer, John Mann, Kate Hoey and Frank Field all rebuffed their Whip and sided with the Great British Public. Frank Field, earlier in the week, penned a piece for the Daily Telegraph calling for the abolition of the House of Lords, which just goes to show how dire the situation is for the likes of Lord Hailsham and co.

Public sentiment has undoubtedly shifted, followed by increasing pressure by the Commons as high-profile Conservative ‘Remoaner’ MPs in prominent ‘Leave’ constituencies are being castigated by their own voters.

Conservative Remainiac, Antoinette Sandbach MP had the temerity to report one of her own constituents to the police, about a perfectly reasonable letter this pensioner wrote to Sandbach to question her loyalty to her predominantly ‘Leave-voting’ constituency.

With the Lords’ posturing over Brexit, it’s clear the public are frustrated with the role of the Lords in the legislative process. One or both of the major parties will, no doubt by 2022, feature reform or abolition of the Lords in their manifestos.

The more the House of Lords attempts to usurp power from the people of the United Kingdom, the more enthusiastic the Great British Public will become for the bloated, outdated, hugely costly and increasingly irrelevant Upper House to be replaced by something – anything – much better.

A recent ComRes poll commissioned by We, The People illustrated the extent of the public’s ire. 76% of respondents think the House of Lords is ‘Out of touch with the British people’; 79% think the chamber is an ‘outdated throwback’; and 79% believe most Peers are ‘cronies, retired or failed politicians’.

This is hardly a surprise when findings from the Electoral Reform Group show the disproportionate number of Peers from London and the South East, and hardly any from the North of England.

The House of Lords has brought upon itself a PR disaster – the sight of well-spoken former Civil Servants, has-been politicians and hereditary peers, patronising the Great British Public has not gone unnoticed.

When 17.4 million proud Britons voted in 2016 to Get Britain Out of the European Union it was seen as a final opportunity for their voice to be heard inside the ‘Westminster Bubble’. The House of Lords have not scored a win in their attempts to block Brexit, but the fact they attempted to has started the countdown to their retirement.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6826/a_nail_in_the_coffin_of_brexit_phobic_house_of_lords

MUST READ: Westminster's rebellion against the people

The majority of Britain voted twice – in the 2016 EU Referendum and the 2017 General Election – to Get Britain Out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, and the job of our parliamentary representatives is to fulfil the public’s wishes, not climb on their high horses and refuse to come down. We must get Britain out as soon as humanly possible

Sill the Palace of the People?

Stephen Mitchell

On 14 June 2018 14:09

Talk of rebellion has been all the rage since the 2016 EU Referendum. The vote itself was a momentous one, as the 17.4 million proud Britons who voted Leave did so against the advice of all the elite political classes in Westminster and Brussels.

The result certainly took Westminster by surprise, and ever since politicians from all parties have made transparent attempts to turn back the clock, seemingly without caring if it means rebelling against their own electorate.

After the 2017 General Election, Prime Minister Theresa May was left with an uneasy coalition of divided Tory MPs and the Democratic Unionist Party.

Having no majority unfortunately empowered disloyal Remoaner parliamentarians, and Theresa May has battled with this reality for a year now. This has no doubt driven her many concessions and capitulations so far in the negotiation process with Brussels.

But election pledges cannot simply be tossed out the window. In the Conservative Manifesto, published for the 2017 General Election, specific commitments were made in black and white: ‘As we leave the European Union, we will no longer be members of the Single Market or Customs Union’.

Theresa May is still in Number 10 in no small part because of these promises. Every single Conservative MP elected in 2017 therefore takes advantage of their constituents if they vote in Parliament for amendments which seek to keep us tied to those central pillars of the European project.

With such a slim working majority in Parliament, the Prime Minister -- and her army of Whips -- spend an inordinate amount of time desperately hoping to keep the number of potential rebels in the low single digits, as crucial legislation like The EU (Withdrawal) Bill meanders through Parliament. So far, they have succeeded in avoiding outright defeats – but at what cost?

All the last-minute politicking and deal-making being forced onto Number 10 by those disloyal and antidemocratic rebels seems to have succeeded only in weakening our negotiating hand with the European Union. The ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ mantra has been side-lined in favour of a deal at any cost, and potential concessions on free movement and customs arrangements are on the table.

Frankly, this isn’t good enough, and both the Conservatives and Labour – for the sake of keeping their promises to the British electorate – should use more discipline on its members.

Rebellious MPs have a long and vibrant history in our democracy, and it would be disingenuous to decry every single rebellion against any Government Whip without a consideration of the merits. We celebrate, proudly, the legacy of the Maastricht Rebels as they fought against then-Prime Minister John Major’s disastrous decision to ratify the Euro-federalist Maastricht Treaty in 1993.

That rebellion rightly put British people first, when the Government was intent on ceding everything to Brussels. The exact opposite is true today, as Theresa May’s Government delivers on the mandate 17.4 million Britons gave in the 2016 EU Referendum.

Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) rules have centralised control over the candidate selection process. Local associations can only approve candidates on the CCHQ-approved list, and the central Conservative Party reserves the right to deselect prospective candidates without local consultation, or by removing the Whip from an existing MP. These are worthwhile tools to be wielded, tools which are used when a particular individual is under investigation, for example. Why none of this has been put to use so far against rebelling MPs, and indeed Ministers, is astounding.

It is therefore refreshing to hear Bracknell Conservative Association voicing its concerns over their MP Dr Philip Lee’s grandstanding this week. The junior Justice Minister resigned from Government because he believed he knew better than his constituents – who voted 53% to Leave in 2016. Also revealed were his sympathies and frequent correspondence with George Soros’s Best for Britain outfit, who openly deride the Great British Public and seek to overturn Brexit fully.

For a Government Minister to seek advice from such a group amounts to nothing less than a betrayal. Whilst the Chairman of Bracknell Conservatives reminded Philip Lee his theatrics didn’t change the opinion of the majority of his constituents - and the majority of the country – and his ‘actions would count against him’ in the next election, there was no rebuke from either Number 10 or CCHQ. Whilst we hope Bracknell Conservatives show more backbone than the central party, this is all surely far too little much too late.

Philip Lee is not alone in ignoring the views of his own constituents.

These last weeks the sheer contempt many MPs show to their voters came into clear view as Antoinette Sandbach MP, of Eddisbury, reported a constituent to the police for what Sandbach called ‘harassment’ after writing a perfectly reasonable letter to her MP, about her continual Remain stance.

The people of Eddisbury voted 53% for Leave in the 2016 EU Referendum, and yet Mrs Sandbach continues with her shrill support for the Remain campaign, and has begun threatening legal action against people in her constituency who contact her – righty – to question her loyalties.

What is more repugnant is the refusal, unlike in Bracknell, of her constituency Association to reprimand this conduct. In fact, Eddisbury Conservatives and CCHQ have been obstinate when Get Britain Out requested contact details for the Chairman in order to publicise our anger at Sandbach’s actions on behalf of our supporters.

This astonishing affront to democracy is by no means limited to the Government benches. The Labour Party – once a bastion of working class values – has all but abandoned the millions of hard working, patriotic Britons who previously trusted them.

The Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was an infamous Brexiteer up until when it really mattered – in the Referendum campaign and its aftermath. Under his leadership, Labour are refusing to truly acknowledge the will of the people. Every other week a new Labour Brexit policy springs up in the press, despite the reassurances of its 2017 General Election Manifesto that, if in power, Labour would ‘accept the result of the Referendum’ and leave the Single Market and Customs Union.

A stark illustration of Labour’s indecision arose this week as just shy of half a dozen MPs resigned from the opposition frontbenches to rebel – in different directions – against a Lords amendment to The EU (Withdrawal) Bill which sought to keep UK membership of the European Economic Area, and thereby the Single Market.

Only 15 Labour MPs remembered the result of the 2016 Referendum and voted down the ‘wrecking’ amendment from the bloated and unelected Upper House. The vast majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party, therefore, either voted for an amendment to make us a rule-taker from Brussels or abstained entirely. This is nothing short of a slap in the face of the millions of Labour voters – and the nearly 200 Labour constituencies – who voted to take back control in 2016.

For any major political party, let alone the party of Government, to threaten and patronise voters is an affront to our democratic tradition.

The majority of Britain voted twice – in the 2016 EU Referendum and the 2017 General Election – to Get Britain Out of the Single Market and the Customs Union, and the job of our parliamentary representatives is to fulfil the public’s wishes, not climb on their high horses and refuse to come down.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6820/westminster_s_rebellion_against_the_people

Brexit means Brexit: Mrs May, words are not enough

Theresa May has already uttered the important words -- Brexit means Brexit. Now she needs the courage to back them up with actions, and that means putting an end to the nonsense about the customs union. It's all getting tiresome and boring. Let's just get Britain out

Theresa May needs to steel up on Brexit

Stephen Mitchell

On 7 May 2018 07:08

Less than a year to go until the United Kingdom officially leaves the European Union and Prime Minster Theresa May is once again on the backfoot.

May’s handling of Brexit as premier has largely consisted of the unusual and confounding situation of her rhetoric being explicitly simple - ‘Brexit means Brexit’ - whilst also remaining infuriatingly ambiguous.

This awkward situation manifests itself most distinctly with the current argument over Customs Union membership. Vote Leave’s leading lights, and the PM herself, have always maintained Leaving the EU also meant quitting the Single Market and Customs Union, and yet the issue still dominates the headlines and the negotiations, with Leave voters and businesses at a loss for what to expect.

Last week in the House of Commons, MPs debated a backbench motion for the Government to include an objective to negotiate a ‘customs arrangement’ with Europe – language which not so subtly expresses a desire to remain within the existing framework.

The chamber was half empty, but the symbolism of 13 rebel Tory MPs is potent, not least because meaningful votes are scheduled within the next few months, so any headaches now will soon evolve into full blown migraines for the whips.

May has consistently been unable to keep her Cabinet in line with her positions. Former Home Secretary Amber Rudd, resigning on Sunday due to her role in the Windrush scandal, put her foot in her mouth when she suggested the final status of the UK’s position in the Customs Union had yet to be agreed in Cabinet.

This is of course despite No. 10’s continuous claims to the contrary. Whilst we are happy to admit this may simply be a case of Rudd misspeaking while her mind was focussed on other things - namely how her career was falling apart – the whole episode illustrated May’s tenuous grasp on her own highest officials.

Rudd’s newly announced replacement and fellow Remainer, Sajid Javid, doesn’t alter the Brexit balance of the Cabinet per say, but is widely regarded as being less ideologically tied to the EU than his predecessor, and less likely to favour a half-baked‘customs partnership’. This is a good sign as the Home Secretary will sit in May’s Brexit ‘war Cabinet’ of senior ministers.  

Negotiations of any kind inevitably lead to climb downs and compromise, but they should never be allowed to undermine the basic negotiating positions of the party involved. In this case, the vote to Leave the European Union came with some certainties: we stop paying Brussels every year, we can set our own tariffs and strike our own trade deals, and we control our own immigration system.

Related

• History will not be kind to the "broken people" of Remain
• No, the EU hasn't kept the peace in Europe since WWII
• Brussels now flanked by mortal enemies on four sides
• Brexit vs Remain equals globalists vs little Europeans

Everyone who’s honest knows that to accomplish this we must Leave both the Single Market and the Customs Union, so it is not blind partisanship to cry foul when select elected officials (all of whom voted to Remain) are now demanding continued EU membership.

We don’t want to play second fiddle to Brussels anymore -- that was the point of Brexit. This must apply to the negotiations: it is imperative we begin our new journey from a position of strength.

The recent news that the Government will publish a 50-page dossier setting out our trade priorities is welcome and is frankly coming far too late. If we continue down this road of only reacting to the EU negotiators, then we will see the exact same result David Cameron discovered: intransigence.

Brexit isn’t inherently a Conservative only task, but it is their shoulders which must now carry the burden of this profound responsibility. Having the nationalists and the Lib Dems parroting the Remain line is to be expected, and we can hope the majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party back the demands of their own Leave constituents to support the Government’s negotiating position, especially if they are to form a government in the future.

For now, though, it is May’s party which has to deal with the negotiations, and it is imperative the party fall in line with her original propositions.

It wasn’t the mandate she wanted, but May is in this for the long run and must play her hand strongly.

She must do more to unify her party, no easy feat for sure, in order to quell embarrassing spectacles in the Commons.

Having Johnson, Gove, and Fox on the verge of resignation every other week is no way to run a Cabinet. But the startling thing with Theresa May is this: the important words have already been uttered – ‘Brexit Means Brexit’. She just needs to put the action behind them in order to Get Britain Out.

Stephen Mitchell is a Research Executive at grassroots, cross-party campaign Get Britain Out

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6797/brexit_means_brexit_mrs_may_words_are_not_enough