Posted on 2019-01-31 | 05:23

Speaking after the Brexit Debate on Tuesday Roger explained the reasoning behind the way he voted. Said Roger:

After the result of the Referendum was announced I made it clear that I would respect the clear majority opinion in my constituency which was in favour of remain and that I would not vote to trigger Article 50; that I would press for a “meaningful vote” on the final negotiated deal and that I would support the final agreed deal being put to the people in another referendum. I have honoured these commitments. I did not vote to trigger Article 50 – although the Labour Party position was in favour of triggering Article 50 – I joined with other MPs in pressing for a “meaningful vote” which was conceded by the Government and I signed the amendment calling for the final deal to be put to the people in another referendum.

In the 2 years since the referendum the Government has made many mistakes. Before Article 50 was triggered it should have provided extensive parliamentary time for a wide-ranging debate on what type of deal the UK would be looking for – whether it be modelled on Norway plus, Canada plus, or any other option including whether we left the EU without a deal. It did not initiate this wide-ranging debate but instead engaged in negotiations seeking a so-called bespoke British deal.

When the final deal was put to Parliament I said that I would not vote for it and that if Parliament was unable to agree on an alternative then there would, in my opinion, be no option but to put the decision back to the people in another referendum with 3 options on the ballot paper – to accept Theresa May’s deal; to leave without a deal; or to remain in the EU. 

When the Theresa May deal was put to the vote it was overwhelmingly rejected by Parliament. However it was abundantly clear to me and many other MPs that there was no majority support for any other option whether it be Norway plus; Canada plus; leave without a deal; rescind Article 50 and remain in the EU; or have another referendum on whether we should stay or leave the EU. In the event of neither the May deal or any other option being agreed by Parliament then we would automatically exit the EU on the 29th March without any agreed deal. I am opposed to this, as are most business people and, I believe, the majority of the electorate whether they voted “leave” or “remain.” 

After the rejection of her deal the Government put a motion down recognising that the Theresa May deal had been rejected. A number of amendments were put down proposing different ways forward. One of the amendments from Graham Brady called on the Government to renegotiate with the EU changes to the deal which would make it acceptable to a majority in Parliament. I have considerable doubts whether the EU would agree to renegotiate such changes, but I could see no reason why she should not be allowed to try and get a renegotiation. I therefore supported the amendment which was carried.

An amendment saying that we should not leave the EU without a deal was carried and I voted for it. 

Other amendments were all defeated including proposals to seek an extension to Article 50 which would have to be agreed by the EU. One of those amendments, tabled by Yvette Cooper, would have mandated the Government to get a deal through Parliament by the end of February or to seek an extension to Article 50 until nearly the end of the year. To me this did not make sense. It would not resolve the basic problem which is that no proposal or options can command a majority in Parliament and merely delays the “day of reckoning.”

As I have already said Parliament agreed an amendment which I supported – but was opposed by the Government – which said that we should not leave the EU without a deal, and there is a clear majority in Parliament for not leaving the EU without a deal, so I could not see any sense in putting an arbitrary time limit of the end of February for Parliament to agree a deal.

If Theresa May comes back to Parliament within 2 weeks – as she has said she would – with a renegotiated deal and if this deal is agreed by Parliament then there will be no objection from the EU to extending Article 50 for as long as is needed to enable the relevant legislation to be voted through in Parliament. As I have said I am sceptical as to whether she will bring back a renegotiated deal but I had no objection to her trying.

If she does not come back with a deal which commands a majority in Parliament, and, mindful that  Parliament has also said that we should not leave without a deal, then either the Government is going to have to request an extension of Article 50 ; ask Parliament to rescind Article 50; hold another referendum with 3 options – May’s deal; leave without a deal; or stay in the EU – or call a General Election. Faced with these options I would prefer a General Election but, if not, then there has to be another referendum which I would support.

The issue of our relations with Europe have been a divisive and toxic issue ever since the Heath Government took us into the Common Market in the 70’s. If Mrs. Thatcher had not signed the Single European Act in 1986 then the course of European history could have developed in a very different way with a confederation of independent states working together on issues of common concern and shared best practice. The overwhelming majority of people in the country would, I believe, have been supportive of it. 

We are, however, where we are. The Referendum result has divided families, friends, communities and political parties and most people who are not involved in politics are sick and tired of the subject of Brexit. I do not believe that the Government will go against the will of Parliament as expressed in the amendment which was carried and allow their country to drift out of the EU without a deal, but the 4 options I have referred to, if Mrs. May cannot get Parliament to agree a revised deal, all have political and constitutional consequences.  

Useful Resources

When it comes to custom research paper, the essay service is a reliable choice that comes highly recommended. Their team of expert writers possesses a deep understanding of various subjects, allowing them to deliver tailored and well-researched papers. With their commitment to originality and attention to detail, they consistently provide top-notch results for students seeking academic excellence.

Navigating through the broad spectrum of essay writing services can be challenging, but one platform particularly shines when it comes to history essays. This service's writers demonstrate remarkable expertise in crafting analytical, well-researched history essays. Their profound understanding of historical events, timelines, and contexts results in papers that not only meet academic standards but also incite intellectual curiosity. Excellent customer service, adherence to deadlines, and commitment to plagiarism-free content are other notable attributes. The phrase "history essay writer from EssayHub" is a recurring sentiment in their reviews, emphasizing the service's dominance in the historical essay writing field.