Open Letter to Jo Churchill MP

Dear Jo,

I am writing to you as a very worried and concerned constituent about Brexit. Let me be clear from the start, I am not asking you to stop Brexit.

I am asking you to support the People’s Vote campaign - something which is not at odds with respecting the 2016 referendum, but merely seeks to reinstate some democracy in to the process that it triggered.

I won’t fill this letter with all the reasons why Brexit is of such concern to me as I am sure many people have already done so and I suspect you have been keeping up with things (unlike some of your colleagues in the House of Commons). I would like to highlight one aspect that is close to me.

I work as an architect and you may not be aware of the Royal Institute of British Architects ‘Global by Design’ report on Brexit, in which they warn of cancelled projects and a talent exodus. The report highlights:

74% of architects state that frictionless access to the European single market is a priority for expanding international work.

Over two thirds (68%) of architects have reported projects put on hold, and more than two in five (43%) architects have seen projects cancelled since the EU referendum

Architecture is often seen as a bellwether for the economy, being at the forefront of the construction industry which is the first to see a downturn.

60% of EU architects have considered leaving the UK since the EU referendum (a significant increase compared to 40% in 2017).

This is truly horrifying. In all the practices I have worked in I have been privileged to work with a large number of fellow EU27 nationals. They play a vital role at many levels. The Architects Registration Board reports that applications from EU27 countries are down by over 40%. Our sector will sorely feel these losses..

Just last month 37 of some of the UKs highest profile architects wrote to the PM to highlight their grave concerns about the impact of Brexit and the government’s proposed new immigration rules.

Architecture is one of those professions at the heart of Britain’s thriving services sector and I would urge you to read these documents.

I would also point out that British architecture’s success is actually built on its international success and reputation more than its domestic output. A look at the top architects practices across Europe shows that British born architects have been very happy to make use of the reciprocal rights Freedom of Movement has given them. The loss of this right will only make our industry poorer in every respect - and that diminishes our country as a whole.

If Brexit cannot be delivered democratically, then it has no right being delivered at all.

As well as the impact on my profession, I am also deeply concerned about the democratic deficit in the way Brexit is being carried out.

I moved here earlier this year and did not have the opportunity to choose who is now my MP in 2017. But as you know you still represent me and my interests. This is a crucial aspect of our democracy - that no matter how we vote, or don’t, in elections, our voices are still continuously represented in the process and decisions of our parliament, by our curent MP. We vote for who represents us, not who is represented.

Brexit has been pursued solely in the interests and with consideration for those who voted to leave only. The government has very deliberately shut down anyone who dares suggest that other points of view should direct the process too. 37% of the electorate (or 24% of the country) has been rounded up to 100%.

The referendum has broken our representation in parliament.

When it comes to Brexit the judgement of all MP’s is being constrained by a choice made by 37% of the electorate. If any MP feels the Brexit being pursued isn’t in our interests they no longer have the right to stop it, as they would in any other circumstances, on any other issue. 

Our representation in Brexit has been reduced to a single point in time. Over two years ago. They say just a week is a long time in politics...

Where too is the accountability?

There are now multiple legal investigations in to the leave campaign, and fines levelled on both sides. The amount of misinformation thrown around was overwhelming, and deliberate. No one in their right mind would describe the referendum as a shining example of British democracy.

We cannot fully know the impact that any of this may or may not have had (does the breaking of electoral law really only matter if it can be shown to have had an impact?) but are we honestly saying it couldn't possibly have had any effect whatsoever?

We also know that promises made have been broken and that the final deal will look nothing like the better future that was sold to the public back in 2016.

How will Brexit be held to account? By the next general election it will be done, too late to be undone. The promises made and the campaigns were not run by political parties. They have vanished like smoke. We have only the Brexit deal itself left to hold to account - and accountability is only possible if you can affect a meaningful change.

I appreciate you and your fellow MPs are in a very difficult position. None of the above provides anything concrete to act on and the referendum is a concrete thing, hanging over parliament like a Damocles sword.

This one thing has been used by your government and the Brexit hard liners to silence any challenge or scrutiny to not just Brexit as a whole, but any of the priorities chosen by them. In short, it has been used to abuse democratic process, not contribute to it.

None of us can, or should ignore the 2016 referendum, & neither can we simply revisit that earlier decision. Time has passed and it is not possible to rewind the clock - the country has moved on. Like I said, I am not asking you to try and stop Brexit.

But, how can we ignore the shadows cast over the referendum by the wrongdoing that has come to light? How can we dismiss the broken promises? How do we hold to account the result of this process?

The Brexit that is being shaped by negotiations and will in turn shape our country lacks the people’s voice and lacks accountability.

Parliament started this by delegating their judgement to the people. The arguments & promises were put directly to us. The priorities and expectations of Brexit are in our hearts and our minds. We have not been consulted on what our priorities are, our MPs have not been allowed to debate and shape them on our behalf. With respect, I don’t think MPs can now judge for themselves whether our expectations have been met or not.

It would be wrong for Brexit to be concluded without finding this out. It would be wrong to end the process with no ability to hold it to account.

Please support a People’s Vote which would reinstate representation and accountability.

We need to reassert our democracy. We need a referendum on the deal once we know what Brexit will actually look like. We need the final decision to be put to the people for their judgement. And, we need to have the option to remain, because we cannot hold Brexit to account when the only options we are given are Brexit, or Brexit.

Our democracy must not be weakened on the most crucial issue facing our country in generations - if anything the democratic mandate of such a decision must be put beyond question, and there are currently many questions indeed.


You can read my reply to her rather inadequate response here

Framing Brexit

The Remain narrative failure..

I can hardly believe this is one of only a handful of my blog posts about brexit. Maybe it's always felt too big a subject with so much that needs saying. Possibly it's because so many fantastic people are already saying much of what I would, and saying it better. Maybe it's that I spend too much time on Twitter (@Untidy_mind) arguing about it. But, there is one aspect I don't see much comment on that really needs saying.

It's this: the Remain campaign is widely criticised for having let the other side control the narrative (amongst other failures). So why are campaigners still doing this?

The fight to try and change direction from that set in June 2016 continues to make the same mistake.

Remain campaigners continue to boost the Leave narratives.

This post looks at one example of this - the financial settlement. The point applies more widely.

When the government announced it had reached an agreement on the financial issue, there was a lot of noise from Remain campaigners. Did they point out that common sense had prevailed? Some did, but not many. Did they point out how this should have been settled ages ago and only wasn't because of delusions of the Brexit cheerleaders? Again, some did but it wasn't the over-riding message.

No, the most common refrains we heard were "we were told Brexit would make us richer, but it is now costing us billions" and "the UK has caved in to EU demands. So much for they need us more than we need them!".

Why was this wrong?

"Brexit is now costing us money." The leavers have always claimed that the EU cost us a lot and wasn't worth it. This was always a load of crap. Why then would we feed the narrative of the EU being an unecessary cost - even when we try to leave?

"We caved in to their demands." The other Leave narrative was a warped portrayal of sovereignty, of being bullied and told what to do by the EU (rather than participating in it's decisions as an influential member). I really don't think I need to point out how the 'caving in to demands' response feeds in to this narrative.

The worst thing about all this is that is that the response just doesn't match reality. So how should we have responded? 

What narratives do we want to create?

This agreement is a massive "well, about time." The delusion and lack of understanding of the hardline Brexiter's (who have led team Brexit) were the only reason why we hadn't.

Leave's leaders need to be discredited - and it shouldn't be that hard to do! On this issue it starts by challenging the flawed narrative of an exit 'bill'. There is no 'bill' to leave, and this is what the brexit headbangers never understood - they were stuck in a victim mentality of their own creation. 

A cost to leave was never being discussed, that our media has continued to call it this and failed to explain what was, is a huge failure of journalism. The discussion was about what happens with the existing funding agreements that the UK had already signed up to.

This is about money that was always committed to EU projects, whether we leave or not. It is not due because we are leaving. The reason this agreement was inevitable is because the UK is not a crackpot country that refuses to follow through with its commitments, not because the UK is at the mercy of a bullying EU.  We made commitments to our partners, and breaking them would damage our reputation internationally. Brexit is damaging this enough already.

Leavers who argued for no financial agreement should be mercilessly criticised for trying to destroy our international reputation. No matter what your politics, nearly everyone sees the UK as (or wants the UK to be) a mature, responsible member of the international community.

The damage being done to our global reputation by Brexit and it's leaders is real and must be our message.

So, there is no playground bully demand from the EU for money to 'get out'. There never was. But, more importantly this is not a competition between UK and EU negotiators. They are (or should) be looking for the least worst way of the UK leaving. That is how the EU negotiators, diplomats and member state leaders constantly describe it. There may be a time, if we become a third country, where we will be competitors and not partners, but that is all down to the UK and our choices.

We must highlight how these negotiations are all about damage limitation. There is no positive outcome for anyone.

The idea that the EU 'got it's way' is wrong. We all lose from this. The agreement is the least worst option for both the UK and EU. We agreed to continue making the financial contributions we have already agreed to. We will also continue to benefit from the programs that this money funds. We make the agreed payments, we play by the already agreed rules (which are themselves a benefit to business), and continue to realise the value of our investment. The agreement is about continuing a positive decision we made: it needn't be the last time we do so.

Remainers should have used this as an opportunity to highlight the value of our EU contributions.

And, that is the point. Our EU payments were always a valuable investment. This was a chance to show that our collaboration with EU partners is beneficial. The EU and the UK agreed to continue, for a bit longer, it's mutually beneficial arrangements; we could choose not to end them at all.

Lets not collude in the fictitious narrative of the bullying EU.

We must avoid feeding the Brexit monster . 

MBTI

So looking through old emails I found a copy of this, which I sent to my then employer about their decision to ask us all to participate in a an MBTI test as part of a team-building exercise.

Having read about, and discussed this with people in the past, and come to the conclusion it is a load of old rubbish, I was naturally slightly disappointed, and disinclined to participate.

I thought my response was interesting enough to share here with people, so here it is.

Note. The company name has obviously been removed - but they were very understanding of my position - though no doubt felt I was making a big fuss about nothing and went ahead anyway - without me of course. Also, the last sentence is meant as an ironic joke... just in case you thought I was being hypocritical. 

Dubbed up

I've given my MP a hard time previously for how she has voted in parliament and her explanations after the fact. (here, and here). So it's nice to be able to applaud her.

Inhumane shield

GOVERNMENT DEFEAT OVER BREXIT BILL
screamed the news (and screaming is usually the right adjective for the news these days) after the House of Lords voted for an amendment to the government's article 50 bill. But was it really?

Lording it up

The Lords are at it again - sticking their unelected noses in to the business of the Commons. How dare they oppose the elected chamber. Well, so those who support Brexit-at-any-cost will tell us - ironically most of which are the same bunch who had no interest in, or actively opposed, changing the unelected nature of the Lords.

But this isn't going to be a Bexit post. Nope, there's so much that could be said but I'll leave that for another day. No, what's bothered me here is the number of people who have yet again come out of the woodwork to talk about the importance of the House of Lords as a 'place of expertise' who's role is to scrutinise and amend government policy, but to leave the job of challenging government policy to the elected House of Commons. Both of these assertions bother me, but for reasons which are not necessarily the ones often mooted.

Heidi shambles - a follow up

So following my last post about Rt. Hon. Heidi Allen's rather poor (IMO) response to concerned constituents, the Article 50 bill and her intentions towards it things have moved on and we now know how the Commons reacted. So where do we stand in relation to what I had said before?

An open response to my MP, Heidi Allen

My MP, the Rt. Hon. Heidi Allen, recently posted this response to herviews on the vote for Article 50 (she voted for it) and begin the process of leaving the EU. This is a standard response she has been sending out to anyone asking her about her position on Brexit and A50 - and I have to say, one I find woefully lacking and rather confused.

General Election logic - the Bad and the Good

So Theresa May has won the leadership contest with support from just a tiny tiny minority of the British public - specifically those who are Conservative MP's. Like all good believers in democracy I should by all rights be outraged that she will now become our new Prime Minister on such a flimsy election process (if you can even call surviving just a few rounds of political 'it's a knockout' an election process). Like many I should be crying that it is undemocratic, that she has 'No Mandate' to be PM!

But I won't be. For a very good reason.

Looking in the mirror

As so many people have already said the murder of Jo Cox is above all a deep tragedy for her family and friends. I can't (and selfishly, glad I can't) know how awful it must be for them, how much this will affect their lives (especially her young children who will now grow up without her), and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope above all they can find space within the media storm to come to terms with what has happened in their own way.

But I am not counted in that number (from all accounts of who she was, to my significant loss) and it would be dishonest of me to say I feel deeply her loss. I am therefore surprised by how personal her murder has felt, something I can only attribute to the fact that it feels like an attack on my own values. These are the only aspects which I feel any legitimate right to comment on. This is going to be a bit rambly and unstructured. But maybe that's fitting.