Forum menu
Turnerguy - Austerity must take [i]far[/i] more of the blame for the pressure on public services, not immigration.
Don't like democracy?
I hear North Korea is nice...
el_boufador - Member
Not sure if this will make any difference if there is a vote, but got to be worth 5 minutes of your time if you are passionate about the issue?Write to your MP to request them to prevent the issue of article 50/ Brexit.
MPs contact details:
linky
Here's a handy cut & past email wot I wrote. Put your name and address at the bottom.
“
Hi Fabian,
I'm fairly confident you will have a lot of emails like this so I will keep it fairly brief.
As I understand it, in order for the UK's exit from the EU to be triggered under Article 50, this must be done within our own constitutional requirements.
Citations:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/…/nick-barber-tom-hickman-…/
https://www.theguardian.com/…/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendu…
Form these articles, it is clear that this is a case for constitutional law i.e. parliament must authorise the Prime Minister to issue an article 50 declaration by repealing the European Communities Act..
From the first citation, here are just a couple of valid reasons why parliament may decide not to authorise the issue of Article 50:
"As some of the core claims made by the leave campaign unravel, Parliament might decide that the case for Brexit has not been made – or was gained under a false prospectus."
"Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke Article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer."
I believe that there are now many very obvious reasons emerging which suggest that the Brexit vote was obtained under false prospectus, and why it would clearly not be in the national interest to trigger Brexit now or at any time in the near to medium term.
Therefore if parliament does consider this to be a matter for the constitution, and votes on the issue I urge you to vote to keep the European Communities Act 1927 (i.e. not to repeal it). Ie. so that Article 50 may not be served and Brexit may not be triggered.
Would it be possible for you to assure me that you have taken these points on board and to confirm that you will not vote to trigger Brexit if you do not feel it is in the national interest, as is your duty as a Member of Parliament?
Thank you for your time.
<NAME HERE>
<ADDRESS HERE>
(SO THEY KNOW YOU ARE IN THEIR WARD)
“
No indent or line between paragraphs? Did you vote leave?
The lady is wrong, it's not immigration that has caused the issues, it's governmental planning failures.
Immigration has been between 0.2 & 0.8 % for 20 years. It's currently 0.6 % - it's not like they didn't see it coming...
From the same article, you've got people saying they voted to give Westminster a bloody nose, which is sad that it's come to that.
if there is increased pressure on local services because of more people and degradation in someones living standards because of it then they are going to be p1ssed off.
If! Only if, then they may be. There is no direct causality. Areas of high immigrant populations voted remain. Areas which have barely seen Johnny foreigner voted exit. How does this relate to your Hypothesis?
- Arron Banks, Brexit's biggest financial backer. Yes, we're deep in post-truth politics now. Facts don't work. Experts are not needed.
I have to say I completely agree with this, sadly.
I think it's why it's also been difficult to persuade people about man made climate change. It's all emotion and anecdotes.
@corroded Remain had no facts, they had a bunch of political organisations with massive vested interests and biased rosy estimates of the future. They had punishment budgets. They had threats of armed conflict. Those are not facts. Remain had no enthusiasm as no one is enthusiastic about the EU, the best they could say is its the least worst option.
jambalaya, do you want 2 or 3?
Neither, 2 is closest but if freedom of movement is a pre-requisit and we cannot restrict benefits/in-work payments then I'll gonwoth WTO rules. In any case my focus would be on deals with the rest of the world, Europe and our trade with them is in decline. Thats the past not the future.
Definiteoy not 3 - this is about expansion of our trade and our horizons including with regard to immigration
what if he's an idiot and his perception is completely false or he was just whipped into this by a RW media?Even if its only a perception, his is a vote.
I've seen many other stories where people in towns with no/negligible immigrant populations cite immigration as a major concern. It's stupid.Areas of high immigrant populations voted remain. Areas which have barely seen Johnny foreigner voted exit.
People having valid concerns about immigration is fair enough, people with no personal experience [i]and[/i] ignorant of any facts just saying "foreigners are bad" is just dumb
Neither, 2 is closest but if freedom of movement is a pre-requisit and we cannot restrict benefits/in-work payments then I'll gonwoth WTO rules. In any case my focus would be on deals with the rest of the world, Europe and our trade with them is in decline. Thats the past not the future
Well you can add yourself to the list of people who aren't going to get what they want, then.