Dulwich & W Norwood MP's response to referendum result

[worldwiser]

People may be interested in Helen Hayes' thoughts:

Thank you for contacting me in relation to the EU referendum. I have always been passionately pro-European, and I campaigned very hard for the Remain campaign both in my constituency and elsewhere in the months leading up to the referendum. Whilst I don?t believe that the EU is perfect, I am absolutely certain that we are better off remaining within it and working from within to make it fit for purpose for the 21st century. I am proud that this support is shared by so many local residents in Dulwich and West Norwood and that Lambeth and Southwark voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU last Thursday. I share the devastation that many residents feel about the referendum result.

I have received many hundreds of emails from local residents who have signed the petition for a second EU referendum, or who have contacted me regarding David Lammy?s suggestion that Parliament should vote not to act on the result of the referendum.

The referendum result was extremely narrow and within a day of the result being called it has become clear that the key promises made by the Leave campaign were, quite frankly, completely dishonest. This is a pattern of behaviour we have come to expect from Boris Johnson in his former role as Mayor of London where he presided over the decimation of London?s police service, and repeatedly failed to tackle London?s housing crisis.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has admitted that it was ?a mistake? to promise ?350million extra funding per week for the NHS as a consequence of Brexit, and former Tory leader Ian Duncan-Smith now claims that he never supported this pledge despite being photographed almost daily in front of the Leave campaign bus emblazoned with this slogan.

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, key architect of the Leave campaign has said that he has no intention of limiting the numbers of EU migrants coming to the UK because the UK will have to accept the free movement of workers in order to remain within the European Single Market, in complete contrast to the claims made during the Referendum campaign that leaving the EU was the only way to reduce migration.

Large numbers of people voted Leave on the basis of these claims and it has become very clear that they have been deliberately misled.

I strongly believe that 16 and 17 year olds should be able to vote in UK elections and should have had their say on proposals that will impact on them more than any other generation.

The blatant dishonesty of the Leave campaign, combined with the closeness of the result and the exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from the ballot, to my mind create a very strong case for a second referendum. This second vote should give electors aged 16 and above the final say in accepting or rejecting a detailed proposal on the terms under which the UK would leave the European Union, a decision the consequences of which would reverberate for decades. I will do everything possible to ensure that Parliament explores this possibility to its fullest extent and would of course once again strongly campaign against these proposals to leave the European Union.

I am afraid, however, that despite my very strong support for the Remain campaign, I cannot back the proposal for Parliament to reject the referendum result. Support for the Remain campaign was highest in London and Scotland, while devastatingly low in many other parts of the country and I don?t believe that a plan to override the expressed wishes of voters in large parts of the rest of the UK would be credible.

I also believe that the strong support for Leave in parts of the UK was as much a vote against the political establishment as it was a vote against the EU, and for a part of the political establishment then simply to disregard the result would be highly divisive and potentially dangerous. We need to work instead on a vision for the country which addresses the concerns people have been seeking to express by supporting Leave, which unites our communities and which offers hope for the future.

I will campaign for a second referendum based on honesty about the consequences of leaving the EU, but the decision about whether to Leave or Remain must continue to rest with the British people.

Best wishes,

Helen

Helen Hayes MP

Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood

[Alexthecamel]

You promoted me to check my inbox too!

I would have preferred a rejection of the referendum- it looked that's where she was going, but it's a satisfying response.

[aerie]

A parliamentary rejection of the referendum would surely mean those who ordered it, at a time when jingoistic fervour was running high in the sports world, Glastonbury (the all important young vote), and the vagaries of the British weather, would be forced to accept the consequences of their poor judgement, or even recklessness.

He has broken his contract with us. And the prospect of bumbling Boris in the top job, should be enough reason for Dave to stay and weather the storm, et tu Brutus and all that. Where is his backbone?? Where is his valour? And where is his honourable intent?

The Queen could refuse Dave's resignation?

Thank you Helen Hayes for this forthright statement.

[Sue]

I think it's a good response too.

[James Barber]

I'd be amazed if we don't have a general election this Autumn - new Tory and quite possibly new Labour leaderships.

My lot will stand on a platform of not leaving the EU and if we have left of re entering.

As our MP I'd imagine Helen is meant to represent her constituency. Dulwich and West Norwood voters of all political persuasions and none overwhelmingly voted to Remain. I find it strange our MP doesn't want to represent that view.

[flyer22]

Helen

As a lawyer, I think there's a credible case for a second referendum on the basis of intentionally misleading assertions that were part of the Leave campaign that could not be made under the CAP Code by advertisers about their products or services. In matters as important as elections/referendums as a bare minimum the same standards of legal, truth, decent and honest should apply to campaign statements.

It may not change the overall result but at least we could be confident that decisions were taken on the basis of honesty as you say. I think we need to start with the Electoral Commission being called before a Select Committee.

Thanks for posting your points.

Flyer

[Zebedee Tring]

Interesting post, flyer. As far as I can remember, there is nothing in the legislation relating to elections that deals with misleading statements during the campaign; misleading representations/statements were more the province of the Trade Descriptions Act and the like. However, I may be wrong about this ... and indeed I hope that I am wrong.

Someone should get a counsel's opinion on this - indeed someone may be doing this already.

[worldwiser]

I personally think that there's no way anyone will ever push the A50 button. The kind of economic turmoil that has already crashed the country in the past 48 hours is nothing compared to the 5-10 years it'll take to extricate ourselves from the myriad pieces of EU/EU-related legislation. There will have to be so many individual votes that this matter will occupy 100% of Parliament's time and nothing else of any consequence will ever get done. The cost of doing all this will be in the tens of billions. By the time we finally emerge from the hell of all of that, the UK will have ceased to exist as Scotland and N Ireland grab their own lifeboats and it'll be amazing to me if even England itself appears on a map.

[flyer22]

Zebedee Tring - sad thing is I don't think there is any such prohibitory legislation (I couldn't immediately find it either) but I would be surprised if common law/admin law principles (natural justice / wednesbury unreasonableness) could allow such a result to be maintained in the circumstances. Definitely worth getting Counsel's opinion - Geoffrey Robertson would do nicely.

I just wish that the petition set up on the gov website had been on this basis not the basis of the appropriate threshold because that's clearly a non-starter especially when it was set up by a Leaver!

[nxjen]

James Barber Wrote:

> As our MP I'd imagine Helen is meant to represent

> her constituency. Dulwich and West Norwood voters

> of all political persuasions and none

> overwhelmingly voted to Remain. I find it strange

> our MP doesn't want to represent that view.

I find her reasoning convincing. What would you have done if you were in her situation?

[James Barber]

Hi nxjen,

I would represent the constituents of Dulwich and West Norwood who overwhelmingly voted, whatever their political background and none, to remain. Fullstop.

Other areas of the country that voted to leave have their own MPs to vote that way. To oil the parliamentary wheels to leave.

I would also use every political tool to remain at my disposal. As indeed would people who wanted to leave if the tables were turned. That is why people vote for you to be an MP. To fight for your area. And I would fight tooth and nail on this issue.

Even talking about leaving will be causing unemployment, less investment, a possible recession, a less stable world. We've even heard of increases in racism. Fighting these via fighting the prospect of leaving is what I would do. This is to important to be nice cosy parliamentarians about.

[aerie]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting post, flyer. As far as I can remember,

> there is nothing in the legislation relating to

> elections that deals with misleading statements

> during the campaign; misleading

> representations/statements were more the province

> of the Trade Descriptions Act and the like.

> However, I may be wrong about this ... and indeed

> I hope that I am wrong.

However none of our politicians 'came to the table with clean hands' did they? the only honourable man acting as a brake was Clegg.

>

> Someone should get a counsel's opinion on this -

> indeed someone may be doing this already.

[HannahSE23]

See below. MPs could use this loophole

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html

[uncleglen]

And I suppose this wasn't misleading?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/sadiq-khan-london-fares-promise-public-transport-mayor-election

For goodness sake- ALL politicians will spin, lie, deceive to get what they want- they react to the will of the perceived majority in their quest for votes. And while they are spinning and squirming, they employ people to dig dirt on others.

As far as doing what is best for humanity, the LAST people who should have any control over that are the power hungry, vote-seeking politicians.

An example of the lunacy surrounding politics is the fact that we are STILL paying 'faith' schools from the public purse when they actively encourage homophobia and intolerance and ignorance.....NO politician in the UK has stood up against this farcical situation

[Renata Hamvas]

The fact that 16 and 17 year olds were excluded from the referendum is highly significant and I feel unjust. Unlike an election where the outcome is immediate, Brexit will take a minimum of 2 years from the article 50 being implemented. Everyone who is 16 now, will be at least 18 by the time it could happen, therefore, like in the Scottish referendum, they should have been allowed to vote. There are 2 million young people in this age group, so it could have impacted on the result.

Renata

[James Barber]

Hi Renata,

16 & 17 years olds were excluded and have been since Lib Dems made our first promise to enfranchise them what must be 20 years ago is because Tories know they're more likely to vote other than Tory. If they were allowed to vote in this referendum it would increase the likelyhood of a future general expectation that they have the vote. Tories didn't care in Scotland referendum because they'd given up on winning there.

Hi uncleglen,

I don't think that's true. A number of politicians are publicly members of the British Humanist Society who campaign against religious schools and we have seen some recent successes on school admissions.

[d.b]

I do find the petition for a second referendum slightly disturbing. As a strong Remain supporter I nevertheless admit we lost, that huge numbers of people outside of London voted to leave and it was at least in part a reflection of a feeling of resentment and disenfranchisement from the London economy and the Westminster political bubble. To ignore or seek to overrule that result is not only undemocratic, it risks huge anger and quite possibly civil unrest.

For remainers, the only way forward has to be to fight for the best deal, vote for the government that will negotiate in the interests of the country, and don't just let the right wing of the Tory party take over because everyone else is so busy infighting or sulking about the result.

The best opportunity to reconsider before the insanity is set in stone would be in a second vote once we know what the Leave option really means. A similar Yes/No to confirm whether we leave based on the actual negotiated deal, or whether we decide it offers no advantages and we wish to stay in the EU. That way there is a credible position - the question is different, the facts are on the table, and people have a chance to go forward with their eyes open or stop the process before it becomes irreversible.

I hope the Remain parties can get their act together to push at least for this sensible and defensible opportunity to reconsider before it is too late.

[Jenny1]

So it seems Jeremy Hunt is now saying something similar (though perhaps not identical) to Helen Hayes on this.

[apbremer]

Can she not tell us which Labour party she now represents~~the Corbyn one, the left of centre one or the 1pm today one? You need a heart of stone not to laugh.

[rjsmall]

The idea of having a second vote is far too reminiscent of what happened with the EU Constitution after France and the Netherlands rejected it in referendums. If the franchise is changed to allow people who weren't eligible to vote the first time to vote the second then it does just look like an attempt to stack the deck.

Perhaps if the EU had taken note of the concerns of the European people back when the EU Constitution was rejected and revised how the EU worked then the UK wouldn't be at this juncture.

[dc]

d.b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do find the petition for a second referendum slightly disturbing.

Not sure it's disturbing - just a reflection of many people's disappointment at the result. It's only a petition after all.

The irony is that it was started by a leave campaigner when it looked like they would lose narrowly. And Farage, of course, said on the night: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

Remain supporting political representatives seem to be taking a rather more honourable approach than that in accepting the result. I agree though, that the most important thing now is the sort of deal that emerges.

[ianr]

Renata Hamvas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are 2 million young people in this age group, so it could have impacted on the result.

Renata, whereabouts does your figure come from? The ONS mid-year estimate for 2015 (section 5 of http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2015) has 1.5M 15 and 16 year olds, not all of whom would have been eligible anyway. Whichever figure, I think it's extremely improbable that their additional nett votes would have bridged the 1.27M gap. OTOH, the inclusion of the group might have been a nudge to the considerations of some other voters.

[NewWave]

>

> I am afraid, however, that despite my very strong

> support for the Remain campaign, I cannot back the

> proposal for Parliament to reject the referendum

> result. Support for the Remain campaign was

> highest in London and Scotland, while

> devastatingly low in many other parts of the

> country and I don?t believe that a plan to

> override the expressed wishes of voters in large

> parts of the rest of the UK would be credible.

>

> Helen Hayes MP

> Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood

Would it be a surprise if the good people of Dulwich and West Norwood didn't back you at the next election (because people across the country voted for other parties......)? You have a chance to show you listen to the people who got off their keyboards and voted for you, to listen to those who did the same last week to vote remain. You represent us. You are in the position to make these difficult decisions and to have a voice because we don't. There were quite a lot of Labour voters oop north who voted out and it is turning the party inside out. Your own constituents agree with you and we still get no support from you. what will that do to the party down here?

Do I have to explain the word "opposition" to you? If at first you don't succeed, give up? If you actually believe in staying in you need to continue the battle. And yes I am telling you what to do. I am sure this message will be ignored as the last one has been.........

[Sue]

So does anybody know how Helen Hayes voted re Corbyn today?

ETA: I am about to email her to ask the question ......

[Abe_froeman]

New Wave, when you say she represents "us" remember that more than in one three people in Southwark voted for Leave. Many of whom I imagine also vote labour. In total 1,500,000 people in London voted to leave. London MPs and councillors saying they will / would do everything they can to annul those votes seems a bit off.