Reject the deal! Call for a People's Vote!

What to do with the Government’s deal? Reject it. There is no good Brexit. Call for a Peoples’ Vote – a referendum on the terms of Brexit with the option to Remain. Here is a model letter to your MP to get you started written by Michael Romberg – a member of the Committee of London4Europe.

The best thing to do is to see your MP. Face-to-face is much the most effective means of communication. We have published articles on how to get in to see your MP, what really lands with your MP,  where your MP stands on the People's Vote and a briefing note to help you make that meeting work well for you. You can find contact details for your MP here.

But do please write to your MP. Even if you have written recently, write again. Sure, most letters will be read only by a staffer. But the office will count individual letters and report to the MP.

If your MP is a Liberal Democrat or a known firm opponent of any deal and definite supporter of the People’s Vote your letter can be short – telling them that you support their stance.

But quite a few London Conservative and Labour MPs either support Brexit or feel that they must go along with it because of 2016 or they believe the Prime Minister when she tells them that the only alternative is the chaos of no-deal. Labour party policy is that MPs should reject a deal that does not meet Keir Starmer’s six tests. But Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle want Brexit and apply weaker tests.

At the start of the letter is a core element for all Conservative and Labour MPs. Then there are separate sections that you can add in for different sorts of MP (Labour, Conservatives). The letter is aimed at a wavering Labour MP and a Conservative who is not a wild Brexiter. If your MP is in different place then you will wish to adapt the letter.

So, the model letter is just a start. The more you can personalise it or just use it as an inspiration to write your own letter the better.

If your constituency voted Leave in 2016 you can check here whether it is now likely to be for Remain in the polls.

Find your MP’s e-mail address by entering your postcode here.

MODEL LETTER: CORE PARAGRAPHS

Dear

BREXIT: REJECT THE DEAL; CALL FOR A PEOPLE’S VOTE

I urge you to reject the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal and support the People’s Vote – a referendum on the terms of Brexit with the option to Remain in the EU. The deal now presented by the Government would leave the UK distant from our European partners, reduce our rights and lower our prosperity. It bears no resemblance to the deal that was promised in 2016. The electorate need to be asked whether they wish to proceed.

It’s a bad deal

There can be no good Brexit deal. Any deal means that we would separate ourselves from our European partners, cutting ourselves off from the European project that has helped to keep the peace and support democracy in Europe since the disasters of two world wars. The deal would mean reducing the rights of British citizens, taking away from us the freedom to work and settle across the continent. Brexit has already and if implemented would continue to lead to nationalism and division in our society.

Brexit would lead to slower growth, making us poorer than we would have been if we stayed. The EU’s size and location make it a regulatory magnet: whatever the terms of the deal we would end up following many EU regulations, but without any say in formulating them. Germany exports far more than we do to the rest of the world; it is simply false to say that we need to quit the EU in order to benefit from economic growth in the rest of the world.

There would be huge disruption from Brexit. It would take years to sort out, occupying the entire capability of the Government and Parliament. It would cost a lot. That is time, money and effort that should be spent addressing the real grievances that led many people to vote Leave in 2016.

The Need for a Referendum on the Terms of Brexit

The deal is quite unlike what was promised in 2016. Then it was all going to be easy. There would be more money. The EU would give us all the economic benefits of the single market and the customs union without expecting anything in return. The world would treat us as a major power and be anxious to offer us what we wanted.

The Prime Minister claims that the chaos of no-deal is the only alternative. But that is not the case. You could return the decision to the electorate. There was no plan in 2016. No-one takes a project from idea to implementation without a review of the plan. What is being offered is so different from the prospectus. So the electorate should be asked: “do you like the deal that is now actually realistically available or do you wish to stay in the EU?”.

Asking the same people as made the initial choice what they wish to do once the facts have been revealed to them is democratic. Insisting that a choice made in ignorance needs to be carried through is anti-democratic.

Conclusion

I ask that you reject the deal. There will then need to be discussions in Parliament on what to do. Those need to be fully debated. I ask that in those debates you support referring the question back to the electorate with the question: accept the deal or stay in the EU.

Yours sincerely

{Give your full name and street address so that the MP knows that you are a constituent. If you are a member of the MP's party it is probably worth saying so.} 

MODEL LETTER: PARAGRAPHS FOR PARTICULAR MPs

Labour

The Labour Party must apply the Six Tests

The Labour Party’s policy agreed at Conference is to reject any Brexit that does not meet Keir Starmer’s six tests. These include that the deal offers the exact same benefits as membership of the single market and the customs union. The deal fails.

Jeremy Corbyn has said he would support a deal that passes a much weaker collection of tests. That is in breach of party policy and is rejected by Labour party members. Jeremy Corbyn’s approach would mean supporting Theresa May’s government in a deal that would leave the people of the UK weaker and poorer.

We need to remember why Labour set its six tests. They were the condition to agreeing to the Government sending off the Article 50 notification as part of respecting the mandate from 2016. They were not plucked out of the air. The tests were drawn from the statements of Government Ministers who themselves were repeating the promises of Leave campaigners. A deal that passed the tests would deliver what voters were promised by the Government and Leave campaigners; a deal that failed would not. The deal that Jeremy Corbyn has indicated he would support would not deliver what Leave voters had been offered.

Labour voters are looking for the benefits of European social democracy: French healthcare, Swedish welfare, Dutch care of left-behind communities, German worker training. The electorate will not forgive a party that supports Brexit in the erroneous belief that Brexit is necessary to implement policies like rail and water nationalisation or giving more subsidies; policies that are in reality widely and lawfully practised within the EU.

Labour MPs should heed the party and reject any deal that fails the six tests set by the Party.

Conservative

The Government’s deal has succeeded in uniting the Johnson family. Brothers Boris and Jo from their very different perspectives condemn the deal. In the country too there is unity. Of course Remain-voters do not like the deal. We would not like any Brexit. But Leave voters also have no confidence in the Government’s ability to negotiate a good deal.

Theresa May is a responsible politician. She has tried to implement a Brexit that does not do the enormous damage to the UK economy and society that the Brexit of the Leave campaigners’ dreams would do. She has actually looked at the evidence, the realities and the data. She can see that Brexit was a chimera, based on illusion. There can be no good Brexit. It is time to pull the plug on the project. The electorate will not forgive a party that makes us poorer and weaker in order to paper over the cracks in party unity.

Articles on this page reflect the views of the author and not necessarily of London4Europe.