Opposing Brexit could cost me my seat – Labour MP Ian Lucas
-
Posts
-
What exactly are people concerned about in terms of the 2020/2021 rule set of the Lisbon Treaty?
I’ve seen a lot of scaremongering (that word again – does it ever end from either side?!) lists on social media about a number of bold claims of things that are going to happen to the UK because of The Lisbon Treaty if we remain in the EU in 2020 and beyond.
Including things like we will be forced into the Eurozone (UK has a permanent opt out) and Schengen area (again UK and Ireland will only ever have to join if they wish to do so)
There’s a very interesting read here on various claims of what the Lisbon treaty will & won’t do if we stay in the EU.
https://fullfact.org/europe/viral-list-about-lisbon-treaty-wrong/Now I understand that changes are happening, but what personally will the average person from Wrexham be directly affected by whist they are going about their daily lives?
I’m genuinely interested as it may be the case that I’m missing something as I’m no expert in EU Law.
Although I would like to question – if the Lisbon Treaty changes are so bad for the country, why are Pro-Brexit voices not screaming from the top of their lungs warning us about it?
Boris Johnson – voted against the Lisbon Treaty back in 2008 but never mentions it in terms of Brexit.
Theresa May – again voted against it back in the day but didn’t bring up Lisbon Treaty for main reason for Brexit either.
Nigel Farage – has brought it up a few times but then has been proven on multiple occasions to not understand the implications of it and has been made to look foolish about it live on air. So tends to stick to other Anti-EU Schtick that he is on former ground with. Interestingly with his want of closer ties with America and their Federal approach to anything and how they’d seek to exert control on national interests of the UK, such as NHS in the event of any trade deal, it is bizarre that he’s trying to escape the EU imposing control over similar national interests.
Dominic Cummings – funnily enough understands the Lisbon Treaty a bit more than the others and mentions it in his blog in 2015 with an interesting paper from an American Academic on how The Lisbon Treaty would try and enact federal like status on EU member states, just like US states.
One point of interest though is Cummings initial conclusions from this article was that the UK should leave the EU but remain in the free trade bloc – so the European Economic Area (EEA) – which would have pointed to a Norway style deal. So you have to wonder why he has dropped this stance and wants to go for no full deal Brexit now? If the free trade element of Europe is beneficial to us.
Then you look at the papers – Sun barely ever mentions threat of Lisbon Treaty.
Daily Mail – was dead against the Lisbon Treaty when it was signed in 2009 (loads of old articles) but not much since.
Express mentions dangers of the Lisbon Treaty this year – but it references Cummings and the same American Academic as he did. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1126227/eu-news-brexit-theresa-may-conservative-party-european-elections-lisbon-treaty-spt
If anyone else has any other valid information about it I’d be interested to read more. It has been a bit of a research project this evening.
I’m still waiting for someone – anyone – on this forum to provide the evidence that Wrexham voted leave in the referendum. I’ve previously provided links to show that the results for Wrexham are not known. It seems to me that Brexiteers are eager to perpetuate the claim that Wrexham voted leave – possibly simply because that piece of propaganda suits their argument. I’m not suggesting Wrexham voted to remain – and I haven’t seen Remainers or anyone else make that claim either; I’m saying that we do not KNOW for certain how Wrexham voted.
Why do people claim that Wrexham voted leave? Is it because subjectively they THINK that Wrexham voted leave (I also personally believe that, but it is just my opinion), or because they’re repeating in good faith what other Brexiterrs have told them – or are they deliberately lying about knowing how Wrexham voted?
bubble you have me confused…………What have you been smoking? “Why do people claim that Wrexham voted leave?”
the results were published ………..
Leave 59% remain 41%
Andy, I note that you are citing the BBC. This is what I found out:
So I tried to find out how the referendum results were distributed across parliamentary constituencies. To my surprise, it’s not actually possible. According to the House of Commons Library, results were published by “counting area” (this seems to have been NUTS 1 level) and “local authorities weren’t ever required to publish the results by Parliamentary constituency or by ward”. Results that have been published by parlcon (e.g. on Wikipedia) are generally based on ESTIMATES produced by an academic (Dr Chris Hanretty). The BBC later wrote to all local authorities asking for specific counts by ward where available and the result is that of the 650 parlcons in the UK, we only KNOW the referendum results for 169 of these (26% of the parlcons). The largest difference between Dr Hanretty’s estimates and the known result for a parlcon is Hall Green in Birmingham – he estimated that 43.3% there voted leave, when in fact 33.6% actually did. Other discrepancies were much smaller – and he got the leave/remain result the wrong way around in 6 constituencies – but we still only know the discrepancies for those 169 parlcons the BBC obtained the actual results for.
Given that there are no actual referendum results by parlcon for 74% of parlcons (and this includes Wrexham), it would be difficult for an MP to vote according to the referendum wishes of their own constituents. To be fair to MPs, another difficulty for them in knowing how best to interpret the wishes of their constituents is that since the referendum we’ve had a general election. Despite his stance on Brexit being at odds with the result of the “counting area” of “Wales”, Ian Lucas was voted in again, with 49% of the vote. This is a marked improvement for him on the 2015 general election result where he got 37% – but perhaps this is at least in part due to the fact that UKIP, which got 16% of Wrexham’s vote in 2015, managed to make a pig’s ear of their registration in the 2017 election and so did not field a candidate.
Wikipedia gives various distributions including “major cities” – in Wales, Cardiff voted remain and Swansea voted leave. The ward level data obtained by the BBC is available to download and does not appear to include any ward level results for Wales.
I think it’s easy to pick an approach that an MP could adopt to base their decision on. Ian Lucas could use the results from the counting area of Wales, or the fact that he was elected after the referendum despite his views being contrary to the referendum result. My own opinion is that Wrexham voted leave – but it is only my opinion based on anecdotal evidence and I could well be wrong. There is a wealth of information out there; but nothing is clear cut or directly comparable and everything is open to interpretation. How Ian Lucas interprets things may be different to you and I. I do find it astounding actually that disaggregated data on referendum results was not collated as standard. But I think that whether a person is pro-leave or pro-remain, the one thing we can surely all agree on is that this process has been a shitshow from the getgo.Also one more thing YellowHammer…
Lots to digest in that including large scale disruption to the UK.
If it has been dismissed as Project Fesr – interestingly foremost by the Spectator by Graham Gudgin who is good mates with Mary Wakefield commissioning editor of the Spectator and wife of Dominic Cummings.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/09/yellowhammer-is-yet-another-part-of-project-fear/
So let me get this straight – a straight up government mouthpiece in the Spectator is debunking a bad case no deal scenario compiled by civil servants in HM Treasury.
So the Government is rubbishing its own secret No Deal Brexit planning documents that it didn’t want Joe Public to see – compiled by civil servants who are now currently charged with preparing for the financial and economic eventualities in the case of no deal in around 7 weeks time.
So are they saying don’t trust the people we are paying to ensure minimal economic damage to the UK or are they lying? If it’s the former case then they should sack them all immediately and then start planning again – which further points me to the fact that we are definitely not ready to leave on 31st October.
Remainers aren’t frightened of change – being a successful part of the European Union and building a better future for the member states and their peoples will involve plenty of change. What Remainers oppose are Brexiteers who mistake opinions and assertions for facts and policies and they oppose a government that rather than governing for the whole country, only concerns itself with those who were on the winning side in the 2016 referendum.
No one in the Government has explained how trashing a deal voluntarily made with 27 countries is a great way to ensure we can secure deals with other countries in the future. Even walking away with a deal after signing so many treaties announces to the world that UK plc is an untrustworthy business partner. Government policy is “We may let you down when it no longer suits us so caveat emptor.”
There was no reason to aggregate votes at a constituency level – we were not electing representatives. The decision was for the whole UK, which is why some parts of the UK which voted to stay have had to live with the fact that as a whole the country voted to leave.
[quote quote=173977]
To those who say the decision was made at the referendum, would you say I would like to buy that house.. Don’t worry I will sign up even though I don’t know what the inside looks like.?
That might be a good point…….except the people who voted have been inside that house for the last 40 years + and know precisely what it looks like. Additionally, they are mainly aware that next year some new rules are being introduced courtesy of the Lisbon treaty that will make their lives even more constrained[/quote]
In fact, nobody has ever been in the house, they’ve been in another house that some have decided they were no longer keen on and wanted to move.
Only now is the reality of the construction, and content, of the new house becoming clear and, rather than the grass being greener, the new property has no grass, almost certainly problems with utilities, higher rates and smaller rooms. For many it’s going to be more difficult, and expensive, to get to work.An MP is a representative of his constituents, not a delegate solely for those who voted for him.
His loyalty should be to every constituent, those who can vote, those who can’t. The young, the old, and those with difficulties. He’s there to make a judgement as to what will provide the maximum benefit for the constituency as a whole.
I’m pleased he’s sticking to the courage of his convictions and have seen nothing that makes me feel he’s incorrect.I have no problem with Ian sticking to his opinion. He’s not a delegate and our Parliamentary system has never clarified the precise relationship between an MP and his Constituents. The Politics buffs will argue that an MP is part delegate, part representative (of his party as well as all of his Constituents) and part deliberative……and Ian must be the one who decides which of these he is.
The post, however, is based upon the idea that he might lose his seat by being any of these. The decision he adopts at each stage is difficult…..and I don’t envy him. The party that he serves will almost invariably split on this issue and whilst the Conservatives are currently under acute pressure, Labour are next.
Ultimately, let’s hope that some statesmen/women rise out of this car crash and act in the national interest (whatever that is). The main thing is that these matters are resolved with as much civility as possible
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
