140 MPs write to PM Johnson demanding he recalls Parliament now

Related Posts

Our MPs names do not appear below. Write to Bim, Oliver or Stephen today.

We are wasting precious time. We can be sure Boris Johnson and his unelected advisor, Dominic Cummings, will be working hard through the summer to subvert democracy and silence the many millions of people that do not want Brexit or its effects to continue.

140 MPs have written to the Prime Minister urging him to recall Parliament now. There are very serious concerns to be addressed and this is no time for holidays when our Government are hugely increasing spending to prepare for a completely avoidable disaster.

Please do send a copy of this letter to Bim, Oliver or Stephen depending on which constituency you are in and ask them to support the recall. You might also like to ask them how they intend to protect your medical supplies and fresh food sources should this PM without a mandate drag us into chaos.

Email addresses and Twitter accounts of our MPs

Hitchin and Harpenden



There is a copy of the letter in this article. You can also retweet Stephen Doughty’s tweet.

Many thanks for your support and action

No deal Brexit – Excellent news for international criminals!

Whilst the New Prime Minister talks about reversing the cuts to the Police numbers made by his predecessor his ‘No deal Brexit’ will actually make life easier for criminals with the UK cut off from the rapid two-way flow of vital data about criminal activity. The newly trained Police officers will take several years to be effective, meanwhile access to SISII alerts will cease on 31 October!

The National Crime Agency leads the UK’s fight to cut serious and organised crime

The following are excerpts from the Guardian – 27 July 2019:

Organised criminals exploit our borders and judicial differences and increasingly relocate from jurisdictions where law enforcement capabilities are strong to reduce the chance of detection.

An increasing percentage of crime is cross-border and cross-jurisdictional and ever more complex to investigate and detect.

Once the UK leaves the EU, police forces will not have access to European arrest warrants, European investigation orders or the Schengen Information System II, which allows officers to enter and consult alerts on persons or objects.

A no-deal Brexit at the end of October is now a possibility, which means that the priority for ICCC, the [International Crime Bureau] and police forces should be to focus on the mitigation of increased risks due to the loss of access to SIS II alerts.” SIS II is the Schengen Information System database.

The Home Office has made available £5.6m to a Brexit contingency unit because of the dangers involved in a cliff-edge loss of access to EU security and criminal databases.  [Former NCA deputy director general David Armond’s] report warns that “a key feature of crime, particularly serious organised crime, is that the perpetrators, the victims and the commodity are in different jurisdictions across the globe.

[Guardian 27 July 2019]

Please write to Bim Afolami MP if you live in the Hitchin And Harpenden constituency

Message from Richard Scott of Harpenden from Europe:

Dear friends,

With the looming election of Boris Johnson as Leader of the Conservative Party and British Prime Minister, the risk of a catastrophic No Deal Brexit is higher than ever.

We have all seen the mask slip from Johnson’s carefully managed “loveable posh clown” act, to reveal a impulsive, egoistical incompetent and serial liar. In less than a week he was caught out lying to the public again, this time lying on live television about EU restrictions on Isle of Man kippers AND having his bike stolen !

We should be very afraid.

But there is hope.

Parliament is fighting back.

MPs across all the major parties are working together to resist No Deal Brexit. This week, an amendment sponsored by Labour MP Hilary Benn and Conservative MP Alastair Burt, designed to make it more difficult for Johnson to suspend (or “prorogue”) Parliament, passed in the House of Commons by an impressive 41 votes.

Unfortunately, our local Member of Parliament, Bim Afolami, voted with the Government and voted against the Benn-Burt amendment.
What is particularly distressing about Bim’s actions is that he has repeatedly reassured his constituents of his opposition to a No Deal Brexit. Something has changed.

Bim’s Statements and Promises On No Deal Brexit 

3rd December 2018
“That just gives a sense of the scale of calamity if we end up crashing out of the European Union without a deal at the end of March next year. If any of you lose your job because of a chaotic no-deal and come to me afterwards and say, well, why did you allow this to happen? You know, that isn’t what I want on my conscience.“

11th December 2018
“The choice for both the UK and EU is this: plunge into the valley of death of a no-deal Brexit, or try to come to a sensible resolution.”

22nd January 2019
“Underlying all of this is a realisation that avoiding a no-deal exit is critical for the City of London.”https://www.ft.com/content/7161350e-1d9b-11e9-b126-46fc3ad87c65

​22nd January 2019
“My position has not changed. I could not support a no deal outcome and I have ruled out supporting no deal on several occasions.”

13th March 2019
“I will be voting against a ‘no deal’ outcome today, as I believe it would cause irreparable damage to the UK economy and would not be in the national interest or the in the interest of my constituents in Hitchin and Harpenden.”

28th March 2019
A ‘No Deal’ outcome would mean immediate restrictions on our trade, disrupt our economic growth and cause issues at our borders. The entire Government – including those who campaigned for leave and remain – has been clear that a no deal scenario is not desirable and is not the best outcome for the future of our country.
3rd April 2019
”A ‘No Deal’ outcome would be catastrophic. It would have a severe impact on our security services, police forces and legal system: cause a severe hike in food prices and the reintroduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland. Parliament must find a way through this mess somehow, and we need to consider every potential option carefully if we are to avoid a chaotic ‘No Deal’ outcome”
Letter to Hitchin and Harpenden constituent 

After reading and trusting these statements, who could blame you, as Bim’s constituent, for taking him at his word to protect the country and his constituents from a No Deal Brexit ?

And how do you feel now?

Indeed, not only is Bim voting to give Johnson a free hand to prorogue Parliament and deliver a No Deal Brexit, he is effectively saying that his role as our Member of Parliament, in so far as holding the Government to account over Brexit is concerned, is redundant !

Nobody voted for that in the 2107 General Election.
If you feel angry and upset about this, you have every right to be.

The most constructive way to express your concern is by writing to Bim directly. You can tell him that that any support for a No Deal Brexit is completely unacceptable. In particular, our view is that:

1. He must not serve in a Government that would allow a No Deal Brexit. If this means resigning from his current position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, then so be it;

2. He should vote against any legislation allowing the suspension (“proroguation”) of Parliament, and in support of any legislation preventing such suspension;

3. Now that the Withdrawal Agreement is dead, he should represent the wishes and interests of his constituents and vote in support of legislation promoting either a People’s Vote with the option to Remain, or simply Revoking Article 50. 

4. If he is unable to commit to the above, then he has by definition failed in his duties under the House of Commons Code of Conduct to serve the interests of his Country and his constituents, and should resign and allow Hitchin and Harpenden to elect a new Member of Parliament.

Bim’s email address is Bim.Afolami.MP@Parliament.UK

His postal address is PO Box 1241, Harpenden, AL1 9JF

We know that your emails and letters have a powerful influence on Bim. He may not reply to all of them, but he does read them and he and his team take note of the balance of opinion.

Remember to include your address and postcode. Bim can only reply to correspondence from his constituents. 

You can include us on cc or bcc if you like: harpenden4europe@gmail.com

Thank you again for your fantastic support. It is a huge privilege to be able to serve you and the interests of our constituents.

Richard Scott, Chair, Harpenden for Europe

Related Posts

Boris Johnson’s Brexit fantasies exposed by Rutte and Hammond

June 20, 2019 12:14 PM

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has told the BBC there is no prospect of the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement being renegotiated before 31 October (or later), whilst Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond is to give a stark warning to Boris Johnson that he is pursuing economically irresponsible ideas and will have to face up to the prospect of giving the British people the final say on Brexit in a new referendum.

Rutte told the BBC that the EU would consider reopening the non-binding political declaration but gave a blunt “no” reply when asked if there was any prospect of a future Prime Minister Johnson being able to pick apart the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement.

Listen to the BBC interview – It’s 2 hours 10 minutes into the Today programme, i.e. the key 08:10 interview.

He said, what we could do is look together, collectively again at the political agreement which is below the withdrawal agreement – the political declaration.”

Specifically on the question of the Irish backstop, Rutte warned that Boris Johnson’s approach risked breaking the Good Friday Agreement:“Let’s go through that idea – you have a time limit on the backstop. That means in four, five, six years time if there is no other solution for the border issue, and I don’t think we’ll be able to have anything in place in four, fix, six years. Purely technically, and logistically. 

“It will be a hard border in your scenario in four, five years. And do we want that? I don’t think so because this is the end of the Good Friday Agreement.”

The Chancellor will use his Mansion House speech to warn that a destructive No Deal would empty the Treasury’s coffers and will warn that Conservatives cannot allow ourselves to be forced to choose between our democracy and our prosperity” before saying that, however reluctantly, Boris Johnson will have to consider a People’s Vote: “If the new Prime Minister cannot end the deadlock in Parliament, then he will have to explore other democratic mechanisms to break the impasse.

“Because if he fails, his job will be on the line – and so, too, will the jobs and prosperity of millions of our fellow citizens.”

Commenting, Rachel Reeves MP, leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said:

“The Dutch Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are doing the one thing that Boris Johnson hates more any other: telling the truth about Brexit.

“Neither Mark Rutte nor Philip Hammond get many laughs, but they are serious and responsible figures who deserve to be listened to at this crucial time for our country.

“The Prime Minister of the Netherlands this morning exposed the vacuity of Boris Johnson’s renegotiation fantasies. And this evening, the Chancellor will blow a huge hole in the idea that forcing a destructive No Deal Brexit on the British people has even the semblance of economic or political credibility.

“In the weeks ahead, Mr Johnson will have to face up to the truth. Brexit cannot be bumbled through and nobody finds it funny to be threatened with losing their job. He has no serious or credible plan A, never mind plan B, for Brexit. His toying with a destructive No Deal is beyond irresponsible.

“As soon as he becomes Prime Minister Boris Johnson will hold the fate of hundreds of thousands of jobs in his hands. The decisions he makes will quickly determine what happens to our car and steel industries, to the availability of medicines and to the sustainability of investment in public services.

“He does not have the permission of the British people to inflict either his hard Brexit on us or a No Deal departure from the EU. Nor can the 0.25% of our population who have votes in the Conservative leadership contest ever be considered as giving a mandate.

“As sensible Conservatives like Philip Hammond are now reluctantly having to accept, the only way to settle this crisis is to give the public a final say in a People’s Vote.”

The Voters’ Verdict – No to Brexit

The Tories see their crushing defeat in the local elections as punishment for failing to deliver Brexit.  The Prime Minister claims that people are telling politicians to come together to make Brexit happen. She says “The real thing that matters now is delivering Brexit … the longer that takes, the greater the risk we will not leave at all”.  A government minister has even said “failure to deliver Brexit would be a disaster”.

This thinking borders on the delusional.  It totally ignores the massive rise in support for the pro-Remain parties in the recent elections.  People have simply had enough of Brexit.  They just want the whole idea to go away, or at the very least, to have a Peoples’ Vote to decide if this is still what people really want.

Labour has also now come out as a pro-Brexit party, despite the views of their members and supporters.  Its leaders concede that for Mrs May’s deal, or a no-deal, they might consider the option of a People’s Vote.  But their preference is for Brexit, without the need for a Peoples’ Vote.  Not surprisingly, they too have suffered large losses in the local elections, just when they should be riding high, facing an incompetent and unpopular government.

It is clear that the electoral success of Remain supporting parties, and the abject failure of the pro-Brexit parties, shows that people have had enough of Brexit.  They know giving up our hard-won place in Europe is a huge mistake.

The next key event is the European Parliament election on 23 May.  New political parties will join the fray for the first time. It is vital that all, including EU27 nationals, have registered to vote in the UK.  Now the priority must be to take this opportunity to vote.  Voting for pro-Remain parties will send the clearest possible message to all conspiring to take us out of the EU, and to damage the UK for years to come.

If you would like to receive the North Hertfordshire for Europe local newsletter please complete the form below:

Revoke Article 50 petition still soaring

Within the first hour of the Revoke Article 50 petition going live it had reached the required 100,000 mark to be eligible for debate in The House of Commons. At the time of writing it is well on its way to 3 Million signatures!!

Surprisingly, although the Government rejected the petition, it is still available to sign. So if you haven’t already signed it please do so now. And, if you have, please tell your friends that it’s still open.

Now over 6 million!!

We know not everyone subscribes to social media, so we are sharing the link here for those people to have the opportunity to register their signature and share too.

Please sign the Parliamentary Petition


Letter to Mr Bim Afolami MP

for Europe
North Herts
for Europe

29th March 2019

Dear Bim,

Thank you for your open letter of 27th March, in which you explained your position on Brexit and your reasons for voting as you did on the indicative votes of the same evening.

The People’s Vote Campaign in Hitchin and Harpenden

North Herts for Europe (which includes Hitchin) and Harpenden for Europe were formed in late 2017 and early 2018 respectively, as branches of the European Movement, and are now also affiliated to the People’s Vote campaign.

Each group was founded by local constituents from all political backgrounds who were deeply concerned at the results of the 2016 Referendum. The majority in our two groups have never been politically active before. However, every one of us has serious doubts regarding the Government’s interpretation of the result, and its approach to negotiations with the European Union. We share a common belief that our country has made a very grave error in voting to Leave the European Union, and that our nation is being deeply and permanently damaged as a result.

Together our two groups now comprise over 1,000 local supporters and activists from across the constituency. We do not claim to speak for the 64% [1] of constituents who wish to Remain in the European Union, nor the 16,000 who have signed the Revoke Article 50 petition [2], nor even the 1,000 who travelled from across our constituency to join the People’s Vote March in London on the 23rd March. However, we do exist to serve those in our constituency who share our deeply and sincerely-held concerns regarding Brexit, and to provide them with support and information to help them make their voices heard.

Your open letter on Brexit

You make many points in your letter of 27th March, and we appreciate the time and care you have taken to compose these messages. Many of your points are fair and reasonable. For example, we agree that, when faced with difficult challenges and differing viewpoints, respectful dialogue, listening and compromise are essential. We also agree that, across your constituency there are many different, reasonable and sincerely-held views on Brexit.

However there are many serious flaws and omissions in your letter, and we respectfully and resolutely take this opportunity to convey our response, and invite you to change course and put the interests of your country and your constituents first.

The 2016 Referendum

We believe that it is important to recall why the 2016 Referendum was called in the first place.

In 2015, our relationship with the European Union was not even considered a priority by the British People, when compared with immigration, the NHS or the economy [3]. The fact is, that the 2016 Referendum was called primarily because David Cameron, then Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party, was concerned at the loss of electoral support to UKIP. The inclusion of a commitment to an EU Referendum in the 2015 Conservative General Election manifesto was not made in the national interest, but rather solely for the purposes of maintaining internal cohesion within the Conservative Party; the now infamous “Conservative psychodrama”.

The Referendum campaign itself was plagued by poor information, lacklustre campaigning from the major parties and outright lies, primarily by the Leave campaign. It is fair to say that George Osborne went too far in his “Project Fear” statements, but his (not unfounded) concerns regarding the impact of Brexit on the economy were dwarfed by the blatant lies of the Leave campaign, most notably that we would be able to spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS, that Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU and that we would be able to remain in the Single Market [4].

Furthermore, the Vote Leave campaign has been found guilty of breaking electoral law and fined by the Electoral Commision, with the findings referred to the Metropolitan Police for criminal investigation. Vote Leave were found guilty of breaking electoral law through false declarations of campaign spending, exceeding spending limits and funnelling funds through separate Leave campaign groups [5].

Reversing Brexit and the “threat to democracy”

You begin your argument by claiming that “if Parliament were to try to frustrate or overturn the result it would trigger an even more serious political crisis, and public anger”. These points do not hold up to examination.

We are already in the midst of an unprecedented peacetime crisis. Our country, our Government and our Parliament, once admired throughout the world for its stability, wisdom and pragmatism, is now widely acknowledged as a global laughing stock. The cause of this humiliation and anger is evident: the “low grade political gamesmanship” has emanated primarily from the Government, the first in British political history to be found in contempt of Parliament.

Investment, jobs and business confidence are draining out of our economy. Our most successful and important industries are being hollowed out as automotive, life sciences and financial services companies move operations elsewhere. Moreover, to continue with a policy that, on the basis of the Government’s own analysis, will permanently damage our economy [6], because of the implied threat of “public anger” is a shameful and completely unacceptable democratic surrender to mob rule.  

You go on to state that “we all promised to abide by the result”. Again, you are mistaken. No we didn’t. The 2015 European Union Referendum Act is very explicit in stating that the Referendum was advisory, and not binding on Parliament. The fact that the David Cameron then decided to make his “we will do what you say” commitment was his error, made for short-term political advantage. Just as no Parliament has the right to bind its successor, no British Prime Minister has the right to bind his successors or indeed the British people.

The first of the Prime Minister’s three Brexit Secretaries, David Davis, made this point far better than we ever could when he said:

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy” [7]

The Withdrawal Agreement

The Withdrawal Agreement is not a “good deal”, as you claim. It is, in fact, a terrible deal. It is riddled with many serious flaws, in particular the Backstop, which is as you know, an inevitable consequence of the Government’s self-imposed red lines in the Brexit negotiations. Contrary to what your former colleagues in the ERG claim, the Backstop is not a punishment inflicted on the UK by the EU, but rather an inevitable consequence of Theresa May’s own ‘Red Lines’ in her negotiating approach. There remains no solution, despite decades of campaigning and “Research” by the European Research Group, for exiting the Customs Union without imposing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

In particular, there is one flaw, at the heart of the Deal itself, that you fail to mention. The transition period within the Withdrawal Agreement explicitly provides for a minimum 21 month period where the United Kingdom will remain subject to European Union laws and regulations, both existing and new, and also the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. However, we will be stripped of our democratic representation in the European Parliament (73 MEPs), our appointed judges in the ECJ and our voting rights in the European Council.

We will be a colony of a foreign power for the first time in our country’s history.

Your failure to mention this critical fact in your letter is a breathtaking omission. How can it possibly be acceptable, even for a single day, for this country, and your own constituents, to be subject to unaccountable foreign rule? This in itself should be reason for all British citizens, regardless of whether they voted Leave or Remain in 2016, to immediately reject the Withdrawal Agreement. Nobody voted in 2016 for less democracy for the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the “end to free movement” that you imply as a benefit of the Withdrawal Agreement, is in reality a cruel removal of valuable rights enjoyed by your constituents and their families. Currently, as citizens of the European Union, we are able to live, study, work and retire in 27 neighbouring countries. The European Union even enables reciprocal cross-border healthcare across all 28 nations. The ability of younger people in particular to pursue their studies and develop their careers will be severely curtailed if we leave the European Union. How is this in any way a benefit to your constituents, in particular children and young peopl with their lives ahead of them ?

Your hyperbole regarding the “vast budget payments” to the EU is also wholly misleading. In 2017 the UK made net payments (after accounting for receipts and rebates) to the EU of £8.9bn [8]. This is approximately 1% of UK government expenditure, £135 per person. These costs are dwarfed by the benefits of our EU membership, which are estimated at between £62bn – £78bn per annum [9].  Why do you propose we give up so much for so little ?

You also place great confidence in the Political Declaration, describing it as “a unique deal”. You are confusing the present with the future or imagined future; because this deal does not exist. It has not been agreed. You claim it will promote trade in goods, but fail to mention that it will provide no benefit for trade in services, which make up the majority of our economy, our exports and many of our leading industries. You are asking your constituents to take a leap of faith with a “Blind Brexit”, that is to leave a proven, successful economic relationship with our closest friends and neighbours and the world’s largest free trade zone, for what is no more than a wish list.

You make the case that the UK will be able to negotiate its own international trade deals from the start of the implementation period. Unfortunately, the person currently leading these negotiations for the UK is Dr Liam Fox. Upon leaving the EU we will of course lose access to the 70 EU trade deals currently in place with 40 countries, including the most recently agreed EU deal with Japan.

You may recall that Dr Fox once claimed that the trade deal with the EU “should be the easiest in human history” [10]. You may also recall his commitment that, upon the point of our departure from the EU, he would immediately roll over the existing EU trade deals [11]. As of this week he currently has 8 signed trade deals, including major economies such as the Palestinian Authority and the Faroe Islands [12]. In addition, under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, whilst new trade deals can be negotiated after our exit from the EU, none can actually start until the end of the transition period.

Even if Dr Fox was replaced with a credible international trade negotiator, this would not change the fact that, outside of the EU, the UK would be negotiating alone with larger, more powerful and highly protectionist trading partners such as the United States, China, India and Japan. Not to mention the EU itself. The notion that, with our bargaining power and expertise no longer allied with that of Germany, France, the Netherlands and 24 other EU countries, we could negotiate equivalent terms as those we enjoy as a full member state of the EU is simply absurd.

The Indicative Votes

You have taken the time to explain your reasons for casting your Indicative Votes on the 27th March, and we would like to provide our response. It is worth remembering that the entire intent of these votes were to identify not what Parliament wanted to happen, but rather what would Parliament consider acceptable.

No Deal

You rightly state that a No Deal outcome “is not desirable”. On this point we agree. However you understate the case by claiming it “is not the best outcome”. Well, quite.

Common Market 2.0 and EEA / EFTA

You described your support for the Common Market 2.0 and EFTA / EEA amendments. Both are highly flawed in that, as with the Withdrawal Agreement, they leave us subject to EU law without democratic representation. Why would we relegate ourselves from rule maker to rule taker? These options do not satisfy Leaver demands regardimg free movement either. Additionally, EFTA / EEA offers no solution to the Northern Ireland Backstop dilemma.

Both arrangements are inferior in every way to our current full EU membership. They are not a compromise; they are a downgrade.

Revoking Article 50

You voted against the Cherry amendment, providing the Government with the instruction to revoke our Article 50 notice to the European Union, should the Government be unable to pass the Withdrawal Agreement one day before the leaving date AND Parliament had voted against No Deal.

Is this really an unacceptable option to you? What you also do not make clear is whether you would support revocation if the only alternative were No Deal. This is an entirely plausible and by no means hypothetical scenario. We would ask that you make your position clear on this point.

The People’s Vote

You have consistently opposed putting the Withdrawal Agreement to the British people and your constituents for ratification.

You have failed to acknowledge the serious differences between expectation and reality that exist between the promises made in the 2016 Referendum, and the Withdrawal Agreement now on offer. No one voted to be poorer, nor to become the colony of a foreign power.

You have failed to acknowledge the contradiction between your support for three Meaningful Votes for Parliament on the Withdrawal Agreement, and denying even one for your constituents.

Worse, you fail to recognise that the first Meaningful Vote was lost by the largest margin in British politics history. This was not the 52:48 margin in the 2016 Referendum, it was 32:68, by any assessment an overwhelming defeat. After today’s defeat, Withdrawal Agreement has now been rejected three times by Parliament.

In this context, how can you possibly deny your country and your constituents the opportunity to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement, with the option to Remain?

Constituency and Country first

We trust that we have clearly expressed our point of view regarding your position on Brexit, and the deep concerns that we hold regarding your representation of the interests of our constituency.

We continue to believe, based on all the information made available to us since June 2016, that the best interests of this constituency and this country are served by the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union.

The coming weeks will see further opportunities for you to demonstrate that you are fulfilling your special duty to the constituents you have been elected to represent as our Member of Parliament.

We therefore call on you to support further amendments in favour of either a People’s Vote or Revoking Article 50, and preventing all forms of No Deal Brexit.

We thank you for your service to our community.

On behalf of Harpenden for Europe and North Herts for Europe,

Richard Scott
Chair, Harpenden for Europe
Lisa Bouchat
Chair, North Herts for Europe

[1] Right to Vote, March 2019

[2] https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

[3] https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/economistipsos-mori-june-2015-issues-index

[4] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-referendum-lies-boris-johnson-leave-campaign-remain-a8466751.html

[5] https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-is-britain-turning-blind-eye-to-leave-side-s-lawbreaking-1.3568256

[6] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/brexit-and-the-economy-government-analysis-of-the-long-term-impact/

[7] http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-delivers-speech-on-the-opportunities-for-a-referendum-on-europe/

[8] https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

[9] http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/20/liam-fox-uk-eu-trade-deal-after-brexit-easiest-human-history

[11] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped

[12] Brexit: What trade deals has the UK done so far? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47213842

Parliament now has control of the Brexit process

MPs voted on the Letwin amendment which called for a series of “indicative votes” to be brought to Parliament in order that a way forward on the question of Brexit be found.

The house found 302 against and 329 for, with three members of Mrs May’s cabinet resigning their posts in order to vote against the whip and for the amendment. This shows the gravity of the cabinet chaos, which is further underlined by the resignation letter of Richard Harrington MP for Watford. His letter offers us some insight into the motivations behind some Conservative members that are very worrying indeed. https://minbane.wordpress.com/2019/03/26/https-wp-me-p1xtjg-9m9/

It is now down to us to urge our MPs to vote according to our wishes. Votes will be held on a Second Referendum, Customs Union, Withdrawal Agreement, No Deal and Revoking Article 50.

It is important that our representatives do not abstain, that they have the courage to stand up for the Country at this time of great need and do not allow their judgment to be compromised. Our future depends on their courage and conviction now. Our encouragement will support them in their duties.

It is imperative that Sir Oliver Heald and Bim Afolami hold up the interests of their constituents above their Party. We must urge them to vote in favour of a second referendum and revoking Article 50. 

Email your MP today, not for a response, but that our opposition to Brexit is registered and that they know we are “with” them every step of the way.

Bim  Afolami: bim.afolami.mp@arliament.co.uk
Sir Oliver Heald: oliver.heald.mp@parliament.co.uk

Put It To The People March

The ‘Put It To The People March’ took place in London.

North Herts for Europe on the march to demand an informed referendum

The Government wants to kick the can down the road, and then force MPs to back their Brexit deal at the last minute. This was the day we – the people – said ‘No’.

The event began on Park Lane, when people marched to Parliament Square for a mass rally and speeches. Young and old walked side by side, through the centre of London – families with buggies, grandparents, teenagers, students, office workers, NHS staff, scientists, business owners, celebrities and MP’s from many parties.

Proudly showing the presence of North Herts for Europe

Put It To The People

This march could go down in history as the turning point. The day our demand for a People’s Vote became impossible to ignore.

Related Posts