OCCAM BLUSHED AND THE BREXITEERS RUSHED

A central component of the Brexit campaign was parliamentary sovereignty: more specifically, the need to “take back control”, as Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC explained in a recent letter to The Times. As such, it is time that we allowed it to take its course.

There must be a parliamentary debate (which could go either way) based on the noble and ancient principle that once Parliament confer rights on us, the British people, which they did via the European Communities Act, only they and not the PM and government alone (previously, the Monarch) can revoke said Act.

We live in a parliamentary democracy. A representative democracy. The reasons are plain: direct democracy does not work on such a large scale and nobody wants a fully fledged monarchy. That is why we plunge our hands deep into our pockets and fork out large sums of money to pay our MPs to make decisions for us.

If it were otherwise, our democratic and sovereign parliament would be the puppet of the government and in this case the puppet of an unelected new PM, who could be taking action based on a squalid campaign and a marginal referendum result.

By way of conclusion, Geoffrey Robertson QC has remarked that to invoke Article 50 without parliamentary consent would make a mockery of our representative democratic system which countless “Parliamentarians fought and died for in the civil wars of the 1640s.”

Excerpts from Ryan Dowding’s blog piece: Occam Blushed and the Brexiteers Rushed: The Question of Article 50

Posted in Article 50, brexit | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Leave Campaign’s Most Toxic Legacy

One week before voting for the EU Referendum took place, a UK MP was brutally murdered, and to judge by the almost total absence of any mention of this since the day of the vote, people seem to have forgotten about it.

Perhaps a timely reminder is due.

Jo Cox was the Labour MP for Batley and Spen in Yorkshire. Whilst on her way to a constituency meeting, she was shot and stabbed by Thomas Mair, who apparently had mental health issues and links to several far Right organisations. By all accounts, she was a dutiful MP, much admired and respected by her constituents.

In the bewilderment, grief and dismay that followed, campaigning was temporarily suspended. However, the mere mention of her name seemed to provoke the Leave campaign into accusations of Remain capitalising on her murder. Evidence of Mair’s apparent connection to the far Right was derided, and his mental state alone blamed for his actions.

It’s really not appropriate to identify and analyse why Mair did what he did. He could have been a mentally unstable “lone wolf” as many Remainers seemed to think, or he could have carried out the attack knowing full well what he was doing, and with the collusion of others. We simply don’t know enough to say, as the due process of the Law has not yet proceeded far enough.

However, what we do know is that there has been a sharp rise in the UK figures for racially motivated hate crime since the Referendum; 42% up, in fact, with incidences of arson attacks and verbal and physical abuse.

By pandering to the xenophobic inclinations of a certain section of the UK electorate, the Leave camp legitimised the feelings of those for whom race and nationality were an issue. The UKIP “Breaking Point” poster that was unveiled on the very same day that Jo Cox was murdered – and then hastily withdrawn – was a prime example of how Leave attempted to appeal to the basest impulses of xenophobes, bigots and racists. Indeed, a very common aphorism to read at the time was a variation on the following: “Not all Brexiteers are racists, but all racists are Brexiteers.” Yes, it may be glib and trite, but it is essentially accurate. How, logically, can it not be?

After decades of effort expended by communities, charities and politicians fighting racist political parties and organisations, the Leave campaign, with the assistance of the right wing press, stoked up  pressure that allowed far Right inclined voters to vent their feelings via the ballot box. Then, the very next day after the vote, some of these ignorant and misguided people thought they had carte blanche to start harassing and persecuting immigrants.

And this abuse is still ongoing…

All this showed a total lack of vision – a hallmark of the Leave campaign – and should have been anticipated.

However, not only did Leave allow elements of xenophobia to be integrated into their campaign, permit their cause to be boosted by it, and then not foresee its effects, they went on to state that the rise in racist attacks and abuse was nothing to do with them.

Daniel Hannan MEP, of the Leave campaign:

“This apparent increase in racist attacks in the UK has nothing to do with our campaign. You will always get people who do these sorts of things.”

But back to Jo Cox.

Until Mair is tried, it is futile to try and figure out the motives for his actions which resulted in her death, and whether the sole responsibility for them was his. However, in the case of post-Referendum attacks on immigrants, responsibility is far easier to place.

By means of its anti-immigration tactics, Leave encouraged feelings of xenophobia and then capitalised on them. However, when the hate crimes started the very day after the vote, any connection with the Leave campaign’s activities was denied.

Not just short on ideas and foresight, but totally lacking any sense of responsibility for the damage they have caused to race relations in UK society, the Leave campaign has left us with a highly toxic legacy that will contaminate our country for many years to come.

By Steve Cobham, SY2E Editorial Staff

 

Posted in brexit, consequences, EU, EU migrants, Hate Crime, immigration, post-Brexit, Racism, referendum | Tagged , , , ,

Brexit Mandate? What Brexit Mandate? by Andy Knott

Video | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

UK Democracy & Parliamentary Sovereignty must prevail, not lies, deceit or sectional interest.

Article 50 has not yet been triggered and until such a time as it is we are still part of the EU.

The referendum result is advisory and – we all accept – persuasive, but not decisive.

There must be a parliamentary debate (which could go either way) based on the noble and ancient principle that once Parliament confer rights on us, the British people, which they did via the European Communities Act, only they and not the PM and government alone (previously, the Monarch) can revoke said Act.

If it were otherwise, our democratic and sovereign parliament would be the puppet of the government and in this case the puppet of an unelected new PM, who could be taking action based on a squalid campaign and a marginal referendum result.

That is not the sort of democracy I want to live in.

The lawyers have now had their say. Below is an opportunity to have yours!

Let Parliament Decide on whether the UK Remains in the EU

By Ryan Dowding a member of the SY2E – Remain in the EU Steering Group

 

Posted in Article 50, brexit | Tagged ,

Letter to the PM from over a thousand lawyers calls for: “a free vote in Parliament.”

The PM has just received a letter from over a thousand of the country’s most prominent lawyers. In this letter they outline the flaws in the referendum and the need for a clearer and more informed decision by Parliament in it’s capacity as the UK’s Sovereign Authority.

These barristers have pointed out to Mr Cameron and Parliament that the referendum was advisory and not legally binding.

Citing that the referendum “was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered”, and “Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.”.

The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, unlike many other important polls, “presumably because the result was only advisory”, they said.

They also note the “emerging reality” of article 50 negotiations being negotiations centered around the UK’s exit terms and not defining a future relationship.

They further add: “For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.”

Aidan O’Neill, a constitutional and EU law specialist who also signed the letter, said: “The Brexit referendum has made clear that the UK is not a united nation-state, but a divided state of nations. Adding: “Precipitate or unilateral action by the UK Government to trigger Article 50 will simply further divide us.”

This view is endorsed by SY2E, we believe that at this point in time cool heads and calm deliberation are necessary to the UK’s survival as a union of nations and to the well-being of it’s citizens.

Posted in Article 50, brexit | Tagged , ,

Barrister explains why Article 50 won’t be triggered – UK Democracy & Sovereignty rules.

A London law firm has started legal action to force a parliamentary debate and vote on leaving the EU before Article 50 is triggered. Jolyon Maugham QC explains.

SY2E – Remain in the EU supports this.

Posted in brexit, post-Brexit, videos | Tagged , ,

“Wombgate”: Why Trump like politics are destroying the UK

A month ago, if you’d asked the man in the street, “Who is Andrea Leadsom?” my guess is that you’d have got little more than a blank look in reply. Even two weeks ago, post Brexit, I think you’d have got more or less the same reaction. Now, however, far more people know of her, and not just because she’s a contender for the Tory Party leadership, and hence PM.

It’s all to do with her interview in the Times, in which she said that being a mother made her a more suitable candidate than her childless opponent, Theresa May, something she strenuously denied, but which has turned out to be completely true.

This prompted me to ask, was she stupid, badly advised or both?

I’ve now revised my opinion and feel sure that the entire “Wombgate” issue is a calculated ploy that sees the continuing use of Trump type tactics in British politics, ushered in by the Leave campaign during the EU Referendum.

It’s mainly down to Arron Banks, who was one of the founders and the main financier of the Leave.EU campaign and who said, after the Referendum:

“It was taking an American-style media approach. What they [Political strategists Goddard Gunster] said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”

Now Banks is involved with the Leadsom leadership campaign, and I see the “I’m a mummy and she isn’t” interview as a cynical ploy by him and his pals to gain publicity and bring Leadsom and her reactionary ideas to the forefront of the campaign. After all, the leadership issue will be resolved through a vote that only involves 150 000 Tory Party members and many of these are reactionary too, and may not only admire Leadsom’s maternal guff, but also the rest of her retrograde ideas and opinions.

I’m not so sure that this is just about Brexit any longer. It’s now become a scenario for a power grab by right wing forces – certain elements in the Tory Party, UKIP (Banks is a fan) and anyone else who sees the population of the UK ready for the taking, in respect of its potential for political and financial exploitation. These forces are further to the right than any that have prevailed so far in the last century, and will make the 5 year Lib/Con Coalition and first year of the present Tory majority government seem like a stroll in the park.

Quite honestly, I’ve abandoned irony for now and see the mantra “we must take back control” as an obscene device that will result in even less control for those people who cheerfully spouted it during the Brexit campaign. Fair enough, if it was just the 52% who voted to Leave who were affected, I might be happy to write it off to a moment of madness, but it isn’t. We’re all going to suffer the consequences of Trump type political tactics and then the real madness will begin if Leadsom becomes PM.

By Steve Cobham, SY2E Editorial Staff

Posted in brexit, EU, grassroots, post-Brexit, Ready | Tagged , , , , ,

Remainers are entitled to go on making the argument against a Brexit

Posted in brexit | Tagged

Government response to 2nd EU Referendum: why it doesn’t satisfy Democracy or UK Sovereignty

Those of you who signed the petition for a second referendum will have received an e-mail response detailing why the government says there will not be a second referendum. Do not despair, this e-mail does remarkably little other than illustrate the government’s lack of understanding of the UK’s workings and the moral obligation of holders of public office to do what is best for ALL of the UK, it’s nations and peoples.

What do I mean by “the government’s lack of understanding of this country’s workings”?

I mean they do not understand that Parliament is the Sovereign authority in the UK, not some angry mob, not the PM, not the Cabinet, not even Her Majesty. The only institution that can challenge Parliament is the Courts, and even then they can only beat Parliament up with its own rules, because Parliament writes the rules, all of them.

As for the fact that the rules for the referendum were already set out, Parliament has the power to undo ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that it has done in the past. Also regarding these rules, it was made clear by said rules that this was an advisory referendum, it does not in any way absolve Parliament from it’s responsibility as final decision-maker.

What moral obligation do holders of public office have?

They have the same obligations as the members of the professions in our society who have the responsibility to protect, inform and guide us.

They have the responsibility, like policemen, to protect us from ourselves if necessary. They have the responsibility, like teachers, to correct us when we are mistaken. They have the obligation to tell the truth and to do what is best, regardless of the cost.

The path of least resistance is not an option for people who wield this amount of power, otherwise we could just nuke the country, that would “solve” everybody’s problems.

Finally, to anybody entertaining the notion that we should follow through on the referendum result just because: that is the epitome of folly. It’s no more sensible than the thought that because you’ve said your going to cut your hand off, you may as well do it.

We have the opportunity to change our minds, only a fool would pass up that opportunity.

By Robert Pigney, SY2E Editorial Staff

Posted in 2nd Referendum, brexit, Ready | Tagged ,

Why we fight: The EU debate is not over!

Why we fight

Image | Posted on by | Tagged ,