Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Fox Ulike]

22 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Personally, I still don’t understand how the actual effect of the vote changes much in terms of procedure and the like?

 

I’ve not seen a good argument that tells me why the now passed amendment makes such a big difference? I’m aware that the act of members voting against their own government and bringing about a defeat is embrassing, but is that anymore embrassing than what’s gone before it such as a failed snap election and the DUP thing last week? 

 

It appears everyone, government ministers, the press and those still hoping Brexit might be stopped are all getting rather excited about this turn of events, suggesting there is a big point in this -but try as I may, I don’t see it that way and sense this is just more pantomime along the way to an enviable destination.

 

No you’re right the vote didn’t directly affect any of the Brexit procedure/negotiations etc.

 

It was more about ensuring that the final decision-making is done by Parliament, rather than the Government.

 

What’s confusing is that the Government would try to bypass Parliament in the first place. Parliament is merely just standing up for itself (and by extention, the British people) in the face of a Government that does not want to be accountable for its actions on Brexit.

 

Why the Government doesn’t feel accountable, I really don’t know. They say that this will undermine negotiations – but there really is no logic to that argument.

 

Parliament’s job is to monitor the Government, and represent our interests.

 

What it means in effect is that the Government will need to ensure that Parliament are happy with any final Brexit deal. So this is more democratic that the Government deciding everything without having to get the nod from Parliament.

 

There is actually nothing controversial about this. It's the British democratic process and has been for 100s of years. The populist right-wing press and politicians though just see it as an opportunity to undermine democracy.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/

[lifted*fox]

14 hours ago, Webbo said:

Fair enough it was lifted fox who called Matt a delicate flower. It was 170 odd pages back.

 

 

nah, it was. and I'd do it again in a second...

 

Matt, you delicate flower. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Fox Ulike

 

The only theory I could come up with on why the government might want to ‘bypass’ Parliament is that they were counting on using time pressure to try and bounce the EU into a better deal for the UK. The theory being that the longer this gets drawn out and closer to the Article 50 end date it gets, the EU might consider, “shit we better get a deal in place with those bloody Brits”  and end up conceding on some areas in the UK’s favour.

 

But to me, if that was a plan - it’s an awful one, because the EU shows no signs of wavering and given that I would think the government might actually be secretly pleased to have the ultimate decision on the eventual deal now resting with Parliament - it actually provides some cover for whatever transpires, it’s not just the governments decision (albeit it will be the governments neogtiation) it’s on all MP’s. Just losing a vote via your own MP’s seems an odd way to go about it?

 

So where do we go from here?

 

Well, something I picked up from a comment I saw in the closing stages on phase 1 seemed to ring very true, in that the EU is very good at creating a bit of faux outrage themselves between parties, to enable various sides to claim victory to their respective bases from a mutual agreement - hence how we suddenly all know of the Irish Tarscoech!

 

However, in trying to sell the UK side to phase one, Davis has made a huge error in suggesting the agreement was not legally binding... the line he surely should have been concentrating on was that the divorce bill was much less than the £100 billion that had been quoted in some areas. 

 

Instead, what DD has done is given the EU an extra bargaining chip over the UK as we enter phase 2. Phase 2 also appears to hold the biggest danger for the government. 

 

So far I work out they’ve promised;

• no free movement;
• no ecj
• no eu law
• no single market / customs union 
• no ongoing budget contributions

And yet also

• A new and better free trade deal

The problem with this is they certainly won’t get all of the “no’s” - if they want the free trade deal that supports UK interests. Additionally, what further weakens the UK’s hand is two particular large employment sectors that the government really should be looking to find trade agreements for - that is Automobile trade and of course the beamoth of the Services sector.

 

I think it’s quite obvious to everyone that the only way the government would get all the “no’s” is to also go “no deal” - but that could look like a failure on the UK governments part, so I don’t think even the hardest of Brexiters inside the government actually wants to go down that route. 

 

That leaves the question, which of the “no’s” are you willing to concede on in order to get a deal and which are redlines? If you believe reports, the government may not have got round to discussing this yet (and i do), but they will need to start doing that before March - and I suspect from that, we may start to get a whiff of softening of position from the government to prepare the ground for the areas they may concede.

 

My hunch at this juncture...there will be a consession on free movement (but with conditions attached) and ECJ oversite (that would allow UK MP’s to set the law in this country, but that the ECJ would be the ultimate power to confirm whether applicable laws were compatiable with the future ongoing trade agreement), plus of course budgetary contributions (I bet these remain largely the same, minus that rebate). 

 

 

 

[Fox Ulike]

42 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

@Fox Ulike

 

The only theory I could come up with on why the government might want to ‘bypass’ Parliament is that they were counting on using time pressure to try and bounce the EU into a better deal for the UK. The theory being that the longer this gets drawn out and closer to the Article 50 end date it gets, the EU might consider, “shit we better get a deal in place with those bloody Brits”  and end up conceding on some areas in the UK’s favour.

 

But to me, if that was a plan - it’s an awful one, because the EU shows no signs of wavering and given that I would think the government might actually be secretly pleased to have the ultimate decision on the eventual deal now resting with Parliament - it actually provides some cover for whatever transpires, it’s not just the governments decision (albeit it will be the governments neogtiation) it’s on all MP’s. Just losing a vote via your own MP’s seems an odd way to go about it?

 

So where do we go from here?

 

Well, something I picked up from a comment I saw in the closing stages on phase 1 seemed to ring very true, in that the EU is very good at creating a bit of faux outrage themselves between parties, to enable various sides to claim victory to their respective bases from a mutual agreement - hence how we suddenly all know of the Irish Tarscoech!

 

However, in trying to sell the UK side to phase one, Davis has made a huge error in suggesting the agreement was not legally binding... the line he surely should have been concentrating on was that the divorce bill was much less than the £100 billion that had been quoted in some areas. 

 

Instead, what DD has done is given the EU an extra bargaining chip over the UK as we enter phase 2. Phase 2 also appears to hold the biggest danger for the government. 

 

So far I work out they’ve promised;

• no free movement;
• no ecj
• no eu law
• no single market / customs union 
• no ongoing budget contributions

And yet also

• A new and better free trade deal

The problem with this is they certainly won’t get all of the “no’s” - if they want the free trade deal that supports UK interests. Additionally, what further weakens the UK’s hand is two particular large employment sectors that the government really should be looking to find trade agreements for - that is Automobile trade and of course the beamoth of the Services sector.

 

I think it’s quite obvious to everyone that the only way the government would get all the “no’s” is to also go “no deal” - but that could look like a failure on the UK governments part, so I don’t think even the hardest of Brexiters inside the government actually wants to go down that route. 

 

That leaves the question, which of the “no’s” are you willing to concede on in order to get a deal and which are redlines? If you believe reports, the government may not have got round to discussing this yet (and i do), but they will need to start doing that before March - and I suspect from that, we may start to get a whiff of softening of position from the government to prepare the ground for the areas they may concede.

 

My hunch at this juncture...there will be a consession on free movement (but with conditions attached) and ECJ oversite (that would allow UK MP’s to set the law in this country, but that the ECJ would be the ultimate power to confirm whether applicable laws were compatiable with the future ongoing trade agreement), plus of course budgetary contributions (I bet these remain largely the same, minus that rebate). 

 

 

 

 

I think that’s  a good analysis.

 

It makes me think that from the Government’s point of view, they do realise that there is no version of Brexit that will satisfy the Daily Mail and that does not cause an economic disaster.

 

They therefore wish to do Brexit with as little external scrutiny as possible.

 

They are between a rock and a hard place. Either keep the Daily Mail happy, or risk a full-scale recession that will surely sweep them from power.

 

What’s really worrying is that they still don’t seem to know which option they want to take.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

The only theory I could come up with on why the government might want to ‘bypass’ Parliament is that they were counting on using time pressure to try and bounce the EU into a better deal for the UK. The theory being that the longer this gets drawn out and closer to the Article 50 end date it gets, the EU might consider, “shit we better get a deal in place with those bloody Brits”  and end up conceding on some areas in the UK’s favour.

 

But to me, if that was a plan - it’s an awful one, because the EU shows no signs of wavering and given that I would think the government might actually be secretly pleased to have the ultimate decision on the eventual deal now resting with Parliament - it actually provides some cover for whatever transpires, it’s not just the governments decision (albeit it will be the governments neogtiation) it’s on all MP’s. Just losing a vote via your own MP’s seems an odd way to go about it?

 

Another theory for the govt's intransigence could be that it is anticipating that negotiations might go right to the wire - maybe even to 29th March 2019, maybe even without an agreement over the 2-year transition. In which case, they might have wanted to just push through a 1-line motion at the eleventh hour, ratifying whatever last-minute agreement was made, or even to have signed off that final deal without putting it before parliament. They could have "justified" that by allowing a vote earlier on and by citing the urgency of approving the deal before 11pm on 29th March. So, they might have been planning to bounce parliament, not to bounce the EU....

 

If your theory is correct, that would indeed be an awful plan. I know some Brexit supporters claim that we're in the stronger negotiating position, but the govt must surely know by now, if they didn't before, that simply isn't the case. It is surely unthinkable that the EU would sign a generous trade deal allowing the UK, as a major economic power in European terms, to diverge significantly from EU regulations/standards and sit off the European coast potentially undercutting continental businesses and attracting large amounts of EU and non-EU trade/FDI away from the continent? That is surely an existential issue for them - allowing that to happen would risk major economic/social damage to their own nations and the collapse of the EU. If the UK wants to diverge significantly from the EU, it will surely have to do it either with no deal or with a very limited deal and much tougher trading terms? As "No Deal" causes much more damage to the UK than to the EU, they would surely take the hit to protect their existence and watch the UK take a much bigger hit?

 

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

However, in trying to sell the UK side to phase one, Davis has made a huge error in suggesting the agreement was not legally binding... the line he surely should have been concentrating on was that the divorce bill was much less than the £100 billion that had been quoted in some areas. 

 

Instead, what DD has done is given the EU an extra bargaining chip over the UK as we enter phase 2.

 

Agreed re. Davis. I can understand him whispering that the agreement wasn't legally binding to discontented Hard Brexiteers to keep them on-side. But by commenting publicly he has effectively picked up a loudhailer and said "I'd like to announce to the world that the UK is not a trustworthy negotiating party"! It's hard to imagine greater incompetence. It will obviously encourage the EU to demand more cast-iron guarantees before they make any concessions on other issues.

 

It's not a great message to be sending to future trade partners outside the EU, either. Hopefully, it was just rhetoric to appease hard-line Brexiteers. If the UK reneges on Phase I commitments because it doesn't get what it wants during Phases II & III, that will surely be harmful to the negotiation of future trade deals worldwide, too? Unfortunately, I suspect they might get away with fudging or reneging on the Irish border commitment, but surely couldn't countenance reneging on promises to EU citizens in UK / UK citizens abroad or the gist of the commitment on the divorce payment?

 

12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Phase 2 also appears to hold the biggest danger for the government. 

 

So far I work out they’ve promised;

• no free movement;
• no ecj
• no eu law
• no single market / customs union 
• no ongoing budget contributions

And yet also

• A new and better free trade deal

The problem with this is they certainly won’t get all of the “no’s” - if they want the free trade deal that supports UK interests. Additionally, what further weakens the UK’s hand is two particular large employment sectors that the government really should be looking to find trade agreements for - that is Automobile trade and of course the beamoth of the Services sector.

 

I think it’s quite obvious to everyone that the only way the government would get all the “no’s” is to also go “no deal” - but that could look like a failure on the UK governments part, so I don’t think even the hardest of Brexiters inside the government actually wants to go down that route. 

 

That leaves the question, which of the “no’s” are you willing to concede on in order to get a deal and which are redlines? If you believe reports, the government may not have got round to discussing this yet (and i do), but they will need to start doing that before March - and I suspect from that, we may start to get a whiff of softening of position from the government to prepare the ground for the areas they may concede.

 

My hunch at this juncture...there will be a consession on free movement (but with conditions attached) and ECJ oversite (that would allow UK MP’s to set the law in this country, but that the ECJ would be the ultimate power to confirm whether applicable laws were compatiable with the future ongoing trade agreement), plus of course budgetary contributions (I bet these remain largely the same, minus that rebate). 

 

 

 

 

Looking at your list of promises, fudges or compromises do seem possible in many of them:

- No free movement: If we're outside single market and not committed to close alignment with it, the EU will presumably have no problem with this; if we do commit to close alignment, a fudge might be possible (and we'll need to allow significant immigration for many years anyway, unless we want labour shortages to cause major damage to certain sectors).

- No EU law: we're starting that process already through the Henry VIII powers, replicating EU law as national and then deciding which bits to repeal, aren't we? However, if we repeal important EU regulations on trading terms, employment, environment or whatever, that will surely exclude any good, close future trading relationship?

- No single market/customs union: again, that is up to us, but will have major implications for future trading terms unless we negotiate a deal to remain closely aligned to single market/customs union terms....which will surely cause a Tory civil war?

- No ongoing budget contributions: I reckon even most Hard Brexiteers accept that SOME contributions will continue to allow access to particular European schemes/programmes that we deem beneficial - no serious problem here, I reckon

 

I reckon the biggest obstacle to the promise of a great post-Brexit EU/UK trade deal is that the UK, particularly Hard Brexiteers, will absolutely want to repeal regulations important to the EU, won't accept anything more than minimal ECJ involvement and will want to negotiate external trade deals on their own terms, undercutting the EU on terms and standards. I cannot see the EU signing up to any close new relationship if that is the case - and I cannot see the Hard Brexiteers signing up to the closer alignment that the EU will demand as the precondition for a good trade deal.

 

You're right to highlight the Finance and Automotive sectors. For those sectors, in particular, it is now critical that we at least negotiate the 2-year transition period quickly. Those 2 sectors are particularly vulnerable to the clock ticking down towards 29th March 2019. If there remains any risk of a cliff-edge Brexit in 15 months time, those sectors will surely start moving significant amounts of business, investment and employment to other EU nations. Given the complex, just-in-time supply chains of the automotive sector and the complex trading systems in Finance, they surely couldn't countenance a situation where they might suddenly be unable to trade effectively. Some trading sectors might remain viable after a cliff-edge Brexit or might be able to adapt at shorter notice, but not Automotive or Finance, surely.....and they're 2 sectors of great importance to the UK. Not only that but the EU will be well aware of this so they have every incentive to adopt a tough negotiating stance. If the UK resists, the EU will be able to sit back and watch as automotive/finance business gradually moves from us to them. The post-referendum economic damage has been minor thus far, but they have us over a barrel on this one, I'm afraid, and the damage could be much greater if we don't make sufficient concessions to negotiate a transition deal quickly.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

55 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

I think that’s  a good analysis.

 

It makes me think that from the Government’s point of view, they do realise that there is no version of Brexit that will satisfy the Daily Mail and that does not cause an economic disaster.

 

They therefore wish to do Brexit with as little external scrutiny as possible.

 

They are between a rock and a hard place. Either keep the Daily Mail happy, or risk a full-scale recession that will surely sweep them from power.

 

What’s really worrying is that they still don’t seem to know which option they want to take.

 

Well that’s probably because putting the Daily Mail aside, they also have a significant portion of their MP’s that would be quite happy with a hard Brexit, mainly I would suggest on a principle footing as opposed to a balance evidence based approach on what the best course would be (might explain the lack of impact assesments).

 

This could have been why May felt it necessary to hold a snap election this year - had she increased her majority, she could have enjoyed a buffer of support within her party to go either way with Brexit - but now, she’s hemmed in on all sides and no doubt that awkward reality also hit home to potential leadership challengers at the time seem to have decided to let May keep hold of the mess of her own making*.

 

It was also quite stark from watching the debate in the commons how poorly informed some MP’s on the matter are - and that’s on all sides of the house and all view points.

 

Of course one of the issues with our Parliamentary democracy as it stands is that there are plenty of power games and machinations going on within the decision making process... a junior MP is in a difficult place to step out of line with their party on a matter of principle given that could effect their personal future aspirations... so it’s perhaps not a surprise we end up with pantomime periods like this week, where there’s a cast of hero’s and villains, parroted phrases and oh look “he’s behind you!” 

 

But i just wish it wasn’t so and that for something as crucial as Brexit MP’s could put viewpoints aside, come together and be sensible by leading for the interests of all for once, like they have shown an ability to in the past. Lobbying interests etc, wouldn’t let that happen - of course - but I can dream.

 

*not sure if I’ve predicted this before, but I’m of the growing belief that not only will Theresa May live to fight another election as leader... i’ll think she’ll end up winning too.

Edited 15 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

@Alf Bentley

 

On the UK law / ECJ law thing - the way I would see it working is that the EU and UK would agree on minimum trading standards periodically for every sector (say every 2/3 years), so that the UK government isn’t constantly ‘dictated to’ by the EU commission / Parliament and would essentially be able to write and set its own laws in these areas - that could go beyond EU standards but not below.

 

But as a fail safe for allowing this to happen, I imagine the EU would want the ECJ to be allowed to have some degree of oversite on these areas, so that they could rule whether in their view UK law meets up with the requirements on the minimum trading standards.

 

The question would be who’s Court would have the final overriding say on the matter. We do have an independent judiciary, so there maybe a willingness to allow the UK’s court to take ultimate présidence in these decisions? But certainly that would be one huge concession to make and I’m not sure exactly what we offer in return that could secure that - appart from buying all those BMW’s and Merc’s of course!

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

The other huge weakness we have in these negotiations is that we can’t formally secure any other trade deals at this point and this is possibly an area the government have lacked forward thinking on.

 

Had they seemed sense to secure a concession from the EU in phase 1 on this (and on the face of it, this would not have been a wholly unreasonable request to make), the government could have got Dr Fox into proper action to try and get a least a couple deals over the line whilst phase 2 was ongoing.

 

This would have given the UK arm some extra strength, knowing it had something signed in the bag to fall back on and showing the EU we can establish trade deals on its own terms.

 

But not being able to do this means not only are we weaker on negotiating the EU trade side because we’d be in a fairly desperate situation without - it also potentially weaknes our hand negotiating with other countries if they feel the UK got a poor deal from the EU and desperately need some to agree outside arrangements to help compensate our economy.

[Guest]

Here's an MP doing an impression of Fox.

 

Morecambe MP stirs row after doubting poverty claims by local schools

Conservative MP David Morris questions stories of rickets and hungry children, saying claims are from schools ‘with links to leftwing group Momentum’

 

David Morris, MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Nadia Khomami

Published:16:56 GMT+00:00 Fri 15 December 2017

 Follow Nadia Khomami

 

A row is brewing between a Conservative MP and some of his Lancashire constituents after he suggested that claims by teachers about extreme poverty at local schools were untrue.

A report by ITV earlier this week went viral after it showed schools where teachers said they had to wash their pupils’ uniforms because their families couldn’t afford to pay the electricity bills.

One primary school, West End primary, said it sometimes gave coats and shoes to pupils whose parents could not provide them. Meanwhile, a local GP spoke of treating children for rickets, a condition usually seen in developing countries.

AdvertisementHide

 

But David Morris, the MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, responded to the reports by posting a call for social services to investigate on Facebook. “These claims are not those being experienced by myself or the jobcentre in the area and I would urge anyone affected to book an appointment with the staff at Morecambe jobcentre to assess if they are receiving all of the benefits they are entitled to,” he wrote.

Morris added that the claims “always seem to emanate from the same primary schools and Ash Trees surgery in Carnforth”.

He later told ITV: “I’ve not got issues with the report that you’ve run, I’m just questioning the validity of it … [the schools featured] have very strong links to Momentum, and to be quite frank, all the indicators from Ofsted say that the child poverty at that school is absolutely no different to any other in the country.”

Previously, Siobhan Collingwood, a headteacher at Morecambe Bay primary school, said: “We’ve had parents pass out in the school hall just through going without meals themselves. We’ve helped them to join in with the breakfasts that are available within school. We’ve taken them as well to food banks.”

Last summer, Collingwood was accused by Morris of having a political agenda and trying to oust himfrom his seat. Both schools in the report have denied links to Momentum and say their work has never been political.

Laura Parker, Momentum’s national coordinator, said: “For 15 years I worked for children’s charities and I’ve never seen an MP show such blatant disregard for vulnerable children in their constituency.

“That David Morris has tried to cover up children going hungry and suffering from Victorian diseases such as rickets is shocking. That he’d do it by smearing Momentum and implying that local schools are lying is even worse.”

Parker claimed the issue told a wider story “about a Conservative party which simply doesn’t care about the daily struggle many working-class families face” and suggested Morris “considers his position” following the developments.

Amid claims that Morris has blocked people online who have questioned his statement, Morecambe residents are using the hashtag #blockedbydavidmorris and have started a Facebook group to air their grievances.

“I guess I’m blocked too!” Collingwood posted online. “Anyway the response from the community today, and I suspect beyond, has reduced my staff and I to tears on several occasions. Thank you everybody, the children of Morecambe Bay school and West End school are very grateful for your kindness and generosity.”

Morris said this was because “most of the postings are from Momentum trolls all across the country”, according to a local paper.

“My Facebook site is an information site,” he said. “It is not a billboard for trolls to put silliness on there. Some of those trolls – the local ones – are actually being investigated by the police for abuse.”

The Morecambe and Lunesdale Labour party said in a statement that Morris “does not see what is happening on his own watch because on the rare occasions he is here, he refuses to engage with the community and attacks teachers and doctors for being ‘politicised’.”

A spokeswoman for the party said: “In the age of the internet, MPs should use social media to establish meaningful dialogues with their constituents.

“For a long time now, Morris has blocked and banned from his Facebook page those who voice their concerns regarding things that happen in our constituency and speak out about the government’s policies, which he supports. However, Mr Morris has gone beyond blocking and banning his aggrieved constituents and now frequently accuses those who criticise him of being trolls or part of coordinated campaigns against him, often using parliamentary privilege to do so.”

The spokeswoman added that Morris was “yet to provide a shred of evidence to back up his accusations and continues to refuse to acknowledge the genuine concerns of his constituents”.

The Guardian has contacted Morris’s office and the Conservative party for comment.

According to the End Child Poverty group, 5,087 children in Morecambe – about one in four – live in poverty. Morris later announced he had had a “productive meeting” at Morecambe Bay food bank and also with the headteacher of West End school.

[Webbo]

Fair play to David Morris, it does sound like absolute bollox.

[Innovindil]

A spokeswoman for the party said: “In the age of the internet, MPs should use social media to establish meaningful dialogues with their constituents.

 

What's the point of that? How can he hear from the poor people who can't afford the electricity needed to run a washing machine. 

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

A spokeswoman for the party said: “In the age of the internet, MPs should use social media to establish meaningful dialogues with their constituents.

 

What's the point of that? How can he hear from the poor people who can't afford the electricity needed to run a washing machine. 

 

Well, according to you lot they've all got iPhones.

[Guest]

Funny world when people think an mp is less likely to be making a party political point than a teacher.

[Guest]

Poor Lily got blocked by the lovely MP just for making the point below. Since when does an mp get to block a constituent because they don't agree?

 

 

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Funny world when people think an mp is less likely to be making a party political point than a teacher.

I don't see why. Do you think by singling out that MP he might get death threats?

[Guest]

Anna Soubry receives messages calling for her to be hanged as a traitor

One of 11 Conservative MPs who defied government whips over Brexit says she is worried for her staff who see abusive messages first

 

Anna Soubry said people were being ‘whipped up into a frenzy by certain sections of the media that have frankly lost the plot’.Photograph: Ken McKay/ITV/Rex/Shutterstock

Peter Walker Political correspondent

Published:17:21 GMT+00:00 Fri 15 December 2017

 Follow Peter Walker

 

Anna Soubry, one of the 11 Conservative MPs who defied government whips this week when the government suffered its first Commons defeat over Brexit, has received multiple messages saying she should be hanged as a traitor.

Messages received by Soubry’s office – usually seen first by her parliamentary staff – also feature abuse, with one Facebook message saying: “Go hang yourself slag.”

It follows death threats to Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, who drew up the amendment to the EU withdrawal bill that passed on Wednesday by 309 votes to 305, ensuring MPs must have a final vote on any Brexit deal.

AdvertisementHide

 

The rebellion prompted a scathing response by some newspapers. The Daily Mail said 11 “self-consumed malcontents” had betrayed their leader, party and 17.4 million Brexit voters.

On Twitter, a post by Soubry defending herself against the Mail’s attack prompted a reply: “You and these traitors should be hung in public.”

Another Twitter user posted a link to a separate Daily Mail article that claimed Soubry and other rebels had celebrated their success with champagne, something the MP has vehemently denied.

A reply to this tweet compared Soubry to William Joyce, known as Lord Haw Haw, who was hanged after the second world war for his wartime radio broadcasts from Nazi Germany. It ended: “Traitor Anna Soubry deserves to stand trial for the same crime.”

Other tweets called for the Queen to seek treason charges against Soubry so she could be hanged, while another said: “Back in the day you would have walked through traitors gate and been beheaded in the tower of London, you are the true definition of a traitor.”

Emails sent to Soubry’s office, and seen by the Guardian, took similar lines.

One, from a man in Tonbridge, Kent – about 150 miles from Soubry’s Broxtow constituency – read: “You deserve to be HUNG for your attack on our democracy yesterday. WE VOTED OUT! OUT! OUT!” The writer, who gave his full address and telephone number, ended the email: “MAY YOU BURN IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.”

Soubry told the Guardian her main worry was for her staff: “As with all members of parliament they have access to my emails, they take the phone calls. So they have to read all this stuff. I think people forget it’s the parliamentary staff who feel even more intimidated than members of parliament.”

The media had “fuelled a lot of this”, Soubry argued: “The words in certain newspapers are replicated – so ‘mutineer’ is then in an email saying: ‘We all know what happens to mutineers, let’s see you hanging from a lamppost or a tree.’

“I got an email from somebody yesterday saying: ‘In the past, traitors were taken out and shot.’ It’s appalling. I’m sure some of these people, if they took a step back, would actually be appalled themselves. But they are being whipped up into a frenzy by certain sections of the media that have frankly lost the plot.”

While the abuse came from a tiny minority of people, Soubry said, it seemed indicative of deep divisions in the country that were not being addressed.

“It’s the job of government to do everything they can to bring people together, and it’s the responsibility of everybody in public life to build a more tolerant society,” she said.

The idea perpetuated in some newspapers that she and other Tory rebels were seeking to overturn Brexit was nonsense, Soubry said.

“I said I will honour the result of the referendum, so I voted to trigger article 50. So, I accept we are leaving the European Union, even though the result was close. My argument now is how do we get the best deal, and I want parliament, finally, to be involved in getting the best deal for our country. Why does that make me a traitor?”

[Sharpe's Fox]

Great banter when the PM is asking MP’s to amend her own amendment before the original amendment gets voted down just to avoid another humiliation. I suppose it’s what we should expect from the worst PM in modern times if not ever.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Great banter when the PM is asking MP’s to amend her own amendment before the original amendment gets voted down just to avoid another humiliation. I suppose it’s what we should expect from the worst PM in modern times if not ever.

Worst government full stop.

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Worst government full stop.

Sorry can’t agree. Michael Fallon has ****ed off now so it has improved just slightly from a few months ago so it’s the second worse.

Edited 15 December 2017 by Sharpe's Fox

[ealingfox]

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

A spokeswoman for the party said: “In the age of the internet, MPs should use social media to establish meaningful dialogues with their constituents.

 

What's the point of that? How can he hear from the poor people who can't afford the electricity needed to run a washing machine. 

 

Your point is barely discernible, but just for info on what I assume you're trying to get at, you can access the internet for free in your local public library. If it hasnt been closed down that is.

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Your point is barely discernible, but just for info on what I assume you're trying to get at, you can access the internet for free in your local public library. If it hasnt been closed down that is.

I believe he was being facetious.

 

In any case, as mentioned before an MP has far more reason to be party political than a teacher purely because of the job that they do. Ditto doctors and pretty much everyone in the STEM community, for that matter.

[Guest MattP]

 

[Webbo]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I believe he was being facetious.

 

In any case, as mentioned before an MP has far more reason to be party political than a teacher purely because of the job that they do. Ditto doctors and pretty much everyone in the STEM community, for that matter.

Have you ever seen the news coverage of the NUT conference, or ever seen their spokesmen on the news? Have you actually been to school in this country.

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I believe he was being facetious.

 

In any case, as mentioned before an MP has far more reason to be party political than a teacher purely because of the job that they do. Ditto doctors and pretty much everyone in the STEM community, for that matter.

Just because they have more reason to be, does not mean that it doesn’t or isn’t happening.

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

190