Category Archives: independence

Escaping the  European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.

Robert  Henderson  

The EU may  have  overreached themselves.  On  9th October the president of  the European parliament David Sassoli  suggested  that a n extension  under Article 50 should only be granted if  either a General Election  or  a second referendum  is  held during the extension period, viz:

 Mr Sassoli told the European Parliament: “I had a fruitful discussion with Speaker Bercow in which I set out my view that any request for an extension should allow the British people to give its views in a referendum or an election.”

‘France’s Europe Minister Amélie de Montchalin backed the plan and said: “If there are new elections or a new referendum, if there is a political shift leading us to believe we could have a different dialogue from the one we have today, then an extension can be discussed.”  ‘

If the EU  stick by the conditions  Sassoli wants to  see attached to an extension it raises the question of  what  exactly the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 can  force upon a Prime Minister .

The Act requires Mr Johnson to send  to the EU  this letter if there is no agreement between the UK and the EU:

“Dear Mr President,

The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek an extension of the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020.

I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11.00pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the Government proposes that the period should be terminated early.

Yours sincerely,

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”

Thus Mr  Johnson is certainly obligated to seek a simple  extension without conditions.  But there is nothing in the Act which obligates him to accept an offer of an extension with conditions for the question of conditions is not mentioned in the Act.

The   failure to mention conditions either generally or specifically  might well be sufficient to negate the need for Johnson to accept the offer of an extension which had conditions attached  such as those the EU had stipulated.    However, there  are  also the tests of irrationality and unreasonableness   in English law.

 Lord Greene MR said this in the Wednesbury case: “If a  decision on a competent matter  is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere, and this kind of case would require something overwhelming. “

Lord Diplock in a case involving GCHQ :  said  this: “By ‘irrationality’ I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’. This applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question  to be decided could have arrived at”

The idea that Johnson (or any Prime Minister) have to accept whatever conditions the EU place on an extension is clearly unreasonable because the EU could ask for anything no matter how absurd,  for example, the EU  might  demand £100  billion as a condition for agreeing to  an extension or   stipulated that the extension period be for   years?   Both irrationality and unreasonableness would surely  apply in such  instances.

If the EU back  the   stipulation that an extension will  only be granted if there was a general election or a second  referendum  is objectively damaging to our democracy because it  is a gross interference with UK politics and is specifically designed to further the EU’s interests and not those of the UK .

 To obey the Act    Mr  Johnson is required to do no more than seek an extension.

Brexit: an object lesson in elite betrayal

Robert Henderson

On 15  January Theresa May suffered the  greatest defeat of any British Prime Minister  when she put the draft deal she has  struck with the EU to a vote in the House of Commons. The deal was  rejected by 432  votes  against to 202 votes for, a colossal majority against accepting the deal of 230.

The bald figures  are  terrible enough but they are even worse than they appear for the government’s “payroll vote” of MPs  holding  government office is around 140. These  would be expected to vote with the Government. Hence, May will have  only attracted around 60 backbenchers (who within reason can vote as they like) to support  her  draft deal.

This gives May and her government a tremendous problem because ever since she came back to Parliament with the draft deal she has been saying it is her way or the highway as she has stubbornly insisted that  no other deal is available and that a failure to accept it could mean no Brexit. As the draft deal she has agreed offers  Brexit in name only  (Brino)  and resembles the type of treaty a defeated enemy who had sued for peace might agree to   such is the subordination of the UK interests which according to many commentators would leave the UK as a vassal state. The Commons showed what they thought of the  goods on offer and chose   to reject them in the most spectacular fashion.

The problem is that May is still Prime Minister . The day after suffering the defeat over her deal a vote of No Confidence in the Government  was defeated by 325 votes to 306 .  This means that she stays as Prime Minister and the threat of an early General Election has receded.  Nor can she face another Tory  leadership challenge  for the better part of a year because she won a vote of No Confidence  in her leadership just before Christmas.

The defeat of May’s deal is  encouraging for Brexiteers inasmuch as  the overwhelming  result should have greatly lessened any  thoughts May had of coming back with a few insignificant cosmetic changes made to the deal  nearer the 29th March leaving date.  However, that is still a possibility  and there  are many other threats to thwart a true Brexit . If there is a serious breakdown of party discipline  there is nothing to stop remainer MPs  doing anything they  want because the house of Commons consists of a substantial majority of remainers.

There  is one bright light amongst this gloom for Brexiteers, namely the fact that the date for the UK’s leaving is fixed in an Acct of Parliament .

Section 20 of  the European Union (Withdrawal ) Act  2018  states ‘“exit day” means 29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.’

To  change the date of the UK leaving the  EU requires either an amendment to or repeal of the Act.

While the Brexit leaving date remains unchanged it does not matter what else happens because it places a legal obligation on the UK to leave. Consequently, a  second referendum cannot be held, an extension of Article 50 cannot be sought by the UK or granted by the EU and  Article 50 cannot be revoked. In addition remainers, however aided and abetted by a remainer Speaker of the Commons,  cannot  ultimately stop the UK leaving the EU on 29 March.

However, the House of Commons is remainer dominated (around 6o%)   and  could vote to amend or repeal the leaving date, but  there are serious obstacles to that happening.

To begin with it would  nakedly expose their anti-democratic partisanship.  Ever since the referendum most remainers have constantly bleated the refrain that  they honour the result whilst making it perfectly clear that they want to sabotage Brexit.  If they alter the leaving date that pretence would be unsupportable because once the date was altered or removed completely from  the Act the remainers would be forced to commit themselves to going down one of these paths:

  1. Extend the two year Article 50 negotiating period, perhaps indefinitely.
  2. Revoke Article 50
  3. Announce that the UK is remaining in the EU.

4, Legislate for another referendum on Brexit.

There is also be  the possibility  of a snap General Election if no one could command a majority in the Commons.

Having their true feelings and intentions towards Brexit exposed will be more than embarrassing for many MPs  because  there are many constituencies – and especially ones filled by Labour  MPs – which voted heavily to leave the EU  while their MP voted to remain and has consistently opposed Brexit by fair means or foul.  Consequently, leave voters might well punish remainer  MPs in leave constituencies.

Brexit  did not have to be  thought hideously complicated.

Much has been made of the complexity of the Brexit.  This claimed complexity  is largely down to having  remainer  PM and a remainer dominated cabinet which looked for  terrors where there were none. At best their heart isn’t in Brexit and at worst they are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit.

If  the process pf leaving the EU had  been conducted by a leaver PM and a leaver dominated Cabinet most of the complexity would have dissolved. There would still have been a potential problem with  remainer dominated Commons (and Lords) but with a government firmly committed to Brexit it is doubtful that remainers in Parliament would have been so blatant in their attempts to overthrow Brexit.

With a resolute  leaver as PM backed by a  leaver dominated cabinet the mere fact of their existence would have changed the language and progress of the negotiations between the UK and the EU.

Trading on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules

Leaving without a deal to trade under WTO rules is a real possibility because of both the fast approaching leave date and the inability of the House of Commons to come up with any plan which can command a majority.   Moreover, significant numbers of leave MPs have embraced the idea as being the best route out of the EU  for  of the  UK .

There are two reasons  for embracing  the idea of leaving to trade on WTO terms. The first is that it simplifies matters  because it is ready made system and allows business to plan . The second  is that it prevents, at least in the short to medium term,   remainder politicians trying to sabotage  Brexit after the UK has formally left the EU.     Nor of course does  WTO membership  mean that future bilateral trade deals cannot be struck.

The Deep State

The Deep State is often portrayed as a conspiracy. In fact it is better thought of as a blind  sociological  event.  There is no group of conscious conspirators, simply people being groomed to have the same opinions  or at least saying they  do.

What has happened in the  UK (and the rest for the West to varying degrees) is the success of the long march through the institutions.  That is what ultimately has given the UK an elite (politicians, mediafolk, teachers etc) who are  overwhelmingly politically correct internationalists  and its those people who are at the forefront of the attempts to sabotage Brexit.

How did it it come about? A German student leader of the 1960s  Rudi Dutschke put forward the idea whereby societies were subverted from within by those of an internationalist bent who would patiently work to gain positions of power and influence. Eventually there would be sufficient of such people to change the  policies of Western societies from national to internationalist ones.  That point was reached in the UK at least 50 years ago and the politically correct stranglehold on our society is now in full  flower.

The capture of Western societies by internationalists has allowed them to permit  and even overtly encourage mass immigration of people from different cultures , denigrate their own societies,  traduce  the West and its native populations generally and introduce gradually the pernicious  totalitarian creed of political correctness which has “anti-racism”  (in reality anti-white racism)  at its heart.  The last brick  in the politically correct building is the increasingly draconian treatment of anyone who  refused to toe the politically correct line , treatment which is increasingly including the use of the criminal law and imprisonment.

That is why Western politics until recently has been so ideologically monotone. Brexit was a revolt against that mentality.

The bad faith of the remainers

The vast majority of MPs have overtly or tacitly supported the idea of the referendum and its result  by promising  in election manifestos, in Parliament and through their passage by large majorities of  the legislation needed to both set up the referendum and make provision for the

By doing so MPs forfeited their  right to do anything other honour the result of the referendum. That applies just as much to remainer MPs as  leave MPs because the leaver MPs were bound by both the democratic choice made by the Commons and the democratic choice made by the electorate.

Sadly, the behaviour of the most committed remainers with power and influence (including many MPs and peers in the house of Lords) has shattered  utterly the idea that the UK is a fully functioning democracy. Rather, it is an elective oligarchy whereby the electorate are offered an opportunity every few years to choose between competing parts of the elite, an elite in the UK whose general political ideas are largely shared by the various competing parts of that elite, ideas  which go against the interests and wishes of most of  the electorate.

Noe of this should be a surprise. The sad truth is that the central political question in any society is this, how far will the masses be able to control the naturally abusive tendencies of the elite.

The Bruges Group meeting 28 March 2018 – Too many loose ends remain untied

 Robert Henderson 
 
There was a healthy attendance for the first meeting of 2018
The speakers were John  Redwood and the economist and journalist   Liam Halligan.  They were both good value judged purely as speakers but I ‘m afraid Redwood did what I  have seen him do so often, namely, play the role of the big bad Brexiteer then collapse when it comes to the difficult questions. 
 
During his speech Redwood went on about how the UK would gain control of this and control of that  in the abstract, but there was little solid detail. In particular he appeared to have a blind faith in technology  (and God knows, we  have had enough public sector IT disasters to cure such blind faith)   to handle the border problems,   including that of the Northen Ireland /Republic of Ireland  border in Ireland.   This led him to advocate what was essentially an open borders immigration policy. 
 
Redwood  started from a position that the UK should restrict low wage, low skilled labour while encouraging the high skilled. He then tried to fit this into a regulatory system enforced by work permits. Anyone, Redwood  said, could physically come into  country but if they did not have a work permit they would not be able to work. This is living in cloud cuckoo  land because (1) many of the low skilled already work off-the-books and  cash in hand and (2) many more would be willing to do so under such a regime.  It is also improbable that EU members state citizens coming after Brexit would be denied all benefits, either because they have dependents or more probably simply because a liberal internationalist dominated  political class and media would prevent them deporting EU citizens in large numbers. 
 
But the really telling point was not in  Redwood’s  speech but during questions. 
 
I wanted to put two questions:
 
1. What if  Theresa May agreed to a treaty which either thwarted  Brexit  by surreptitiously stitching the UK back into the EU , eg, through membership  of EFTA,  or simply gave the EU too much and the UK too little, for example, agreeing to a long and potentially endless “transition” arrangement. Suppose  May  threatened to get or got the treaty  through Parliament with the help of remainers from all parties, what would you [Redwood] do then?   
 
2. What would be the legal position  if the treaty May agreed was rejected by Parliament?  Would that mean the UK left without a deal or would it mean that the UK remained in the EU? 
 
I was unable to ask either question but someone else asked Redwood  question 1. Redwood replied that he thought it best not address that question at this time. This brought murmurings of dissent from the audience which  prompted  Redwood to make the incredible claim that Brexit was  in safe hands with Theresa May and she could be trusted with the rest of the negotiations. Outright derision resulted as the audience variously reminded Redwood that May had a capitulated on every single policy to date – the money to be paid to the EU, the right of EU citizens to come to the UK and acquire a permanent right to stay during the transition period, fishing rights during the transmission period etc. Redwood just repeated what he had said. 
 
I  think it reasonable to conclude that if shove comes to push  over a betrayal of Brexit   Redwood cannot be relied on to end up on the Brexit side of the  ledger.
 
Question 2 – “What would be the legal position  if the treaty May agreed was rejected by Parliament?  Would that mean the UK left without a deal or would it mean that the UK remained in the EU?  ” remained unasked.  
 
Many leavers are assuming that if the treaty May negotiates is not accepted by Parliament then the UK will leave without a deal and trade  under WTO rules. But this may not be so. It could be argued, as remainers doubtless will argue, that Parliament has been given a vote on the treaty and that their rejection of the draft treaty automatically means the UK remains in the EU. The EU might well support the contention because it would suit their purposes. 
 
Liam Halligan was forthright in rebutting all the nonsense found in the mouths of remainers and painted a positive economic future for the UK outside of  the EU. However, he seemed much too sanguine when it came to his belief that the UK would leave without a deal. Much more more probable than that is May agreeing to a bad deal either out of panic  as the dealine for leaving approaches or because it secretly suits her remainer beliefs. 
 
The other questions asked by the audience concentrated heavily on the plans for  UK fisheries, the EU bias of UK civil servants  and the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) organisation  which is a nascent EU defence force. 

The logic of Brexit

Robert Henderson

Remainer  determination to subvert Brexit  is shamelessly alive and kicking. Since the referendum on 23rd June 2016 those who voted to remain in the EU have given a ceaseless display of antidemocratic and profoundly dishonest  behaviour in their attempt to overturn  overtly or covertly the result of the referendum.

The favourite tune of the Remainers is  “I respect the result of the referendum  but …”, the’ but’ being  variously that the “British did not vote to be poor”, the electors were suffering from  false consciousness , and the most absurd of all, that electors  made their decision to vote leave solely on  the leave side’s promise that £350 million a  week would be available to spend on the NHS. (This was a clumsy piece of leave information because the £350 million was what the UK as a whole paid as a net figure (after the rebate) to the EU each year and included money such as the subsidies to UK farmers under the Common Agricultural Policy.  Nonetheless, it was factually true in the sense that once  the money was not paid to the EU the British Government would be free to use it, with Parliament’s approval, in any way they saw fit.  What was a an outright and unambiguous lie  was the Remainer claim that the UK receives money from the EU each year.)

To give  substance to the Remainers wishes to stay in the EU  there has been calls for  a second  referendum once a deal with the EU is made (this is official LibDem policy); suggestions that if no deal is made after two years  the UK should remain in the EU (a surefire way to ensure that the EU will come to no agreement with the UK);   proposals to keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union (which would effectively mean no Brexit) either by direct treaty with the EU (SNP Leader’s policy) or through  the UK joining EFTA, and calls for Brexit to be simply  overturned, most notably by Tony Blair. Perhaps most dangerously  all the major UK parties now  have as their official policy a transitional period, including The Tories after Theresa May’s Florence speech.   This has real dangers  for Brexit because apart from committing the UK to at least another two years of paying into the EU, accepting free movement, being  bound by  new  EU  laws and being subject to the European Court of Justice,  thetransitional period could  turn into a permanent condition or at least be extended   so far into the future that a Remainer government might use to effectively  bind the UK  permanently into the EU.

To the domestic attempts to sabotage Brexit can be added the internationalist institutions which have  continued to fuel project fear with dire economic warnings, the most recent case being the  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development  (OECD)  which urges a reversal of Brexit with a second referendum to improve the UK economy. .

More formally, there has been the legal case brought  by Gina Miller which  forced the Government to consult Parliament on the triggering of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. There  has also been the  failed attempt  by  Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland  requesting the High  Court  to  in effect direct the Government to hold a Parliamentary debate and vote on leaving  European Economic Area on the grounds that that the issue  not  on the referendum ballot paper.  A third court case which sought to reverse the triggering of Article 50 was  started in the Republic of Ireland  with a view to getting a favourable judgement which would then provide a  basis for further action in European courts was started but stopped.  Doubtless there will be further legal attempts to interfere with what is a quintessentially political matter before Brexit is completed.

The   most serious current attempt  by Remainers to  delay and  sabotage Brexit  is to  try to amend the  EU Withdrawal Bill so that Parliament have the final say on whatever is the final outcome of the Brexit process.   There is also probably  something of the McCawberish principle of waiting for something to “turn up” in this attempt.

The remainers  attempt to  justify this behaviour on the spurious ground that the referendum  result was about returning sovereignty to Parliament. This is to ignore the logic of the referendum for the form of the referendum placed the will of the people over the will of Parliament and, indeed , of government.

Why Brexit is not like a business negotiation

A main plank of  Remainer cant is that the Brexit negotiation is just like any old  business  negotiation where the two sides come to the table hiding what their bottom lines are before agreeing to a compromise. But the  Brexit negotiation is very different because  the British people were offered a chance to vote to take us out of the EU by voting in a referendum.

That referendum was simple and   unequivocal : there were no caveats required   to make it valid such as requiring  a minimum percentage of the electorate voting about Brexit or a minimum percentage of those voting to vote to leave. It was a straightforward one-vote-is enough yes or no ballot.  The  question on the ballot  paper was  beautifully  straightforward : “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Consequently,  the  leave result was an unambiguous instruction to  the Government and  Parliament to take  the UK out of the EU, no ifs,  no buts. The  vote  did not mean  deciding during the course of  the post-Brexit negotiation with the EU how many  of the EU  shackles which  currently   emasculate the UK as a nation state  should be removed and how many retained .  In short it   was simply  a question of leave meaning  leave,  just  as leave means leave when someone cancels their membership  of a club.

That being so the Government  is bound to have red lines and  cannot  go into the negotiations with a free hand  to barter away things as they might do in a business negotiation. The Government has no authority to pursue anything other than a true Brexit,   which means  out of the customs union, out of the single market,  away from the jurisdiction of the court of the European Court of Justice, control of our borders ,  free to make our own trade deals   and  paying no money to the EU.  Anything less than this would be a  betrayal of the referendum result .

The referendum was binding on the Government and Parliament

Remainers have also  tried to pretend that the referendum was merely advisory. Amongst the  many  falsehoods and deceits attempted by Remainers this is arguably  the most shameless because the position is clear cut.

The fact that the referendum was intended to be binding on both Government and Parliament  rather than merely advisory  was repeatedly  made unambiguously clear from well  before the referendum .   The Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015  Page 72 said this about the referendum: “We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”

In opening the second reading debate on the European  Union Referendum Bill on 9 June 2015, the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said “This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.”

and

“Few subjects ignite as much passion in the House or indeed in the country as our membership of the European Union. The debate in the run-up to the referendum will be hard fought on both sides of the argument. But whether we favour Britain being in or out, we surely should all be able to agree on the simple principle that the decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber. The decision must be for the common sense of the British people. That is what we pledged, and that is what we have a mandate to deliver. For too long, the people of Britain have been denied their say. For too long, powers have been handed to Brussels over their heads. For too long, their voice on Europe has not been heard. This Bill puts that right. It delivers the simple in/out referendum that we promised, and I commend it to the House.”

In the light of this  MPs cannot have believed  that the referendum would  not be binding from the very beginning . Moreover, at the third reading of the  European Union Referendum Bill  the Commons voted 316 for and   53 against with 52 of those against being SNP Members.  Only one Labour MP voted against.  It was an overwhelming  acceptance, direct  or tacit,   by MPs of all parties barring the SNP  that the referendum was binding.

Finally, in the course of the referendum campaign the government spent £9.5million of taxpayers’ money on printing a leaflet and distributing it to all households in the United Kingdom.  It included these words:

“The referendum on Thursday 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in the European Union.” (Page 2)

And  it went on to be even clearer and more emphatic:

“This is your decision.  The Government will implement what you decide.” (Page 14)..

The problem with Brexit  is Remainer politicians  still holding  the levers of power

We have a Remainer PM, a Remainer dominated Cabinet, a Remainer dominated Government,  a Remainer dominated House of Commons (with remainers dominant in the Tory, Labour, LibDEms and the SNP parties) and a Remainer dominated House of Lords.

A recent  report by the Daily Telegraph  found that the Cabinet is overwhelmingly Remainer. They asked all Cabinet members  whether they would vote leave  if another referendum was held. The result was :

– 16 Cabinet members either  refused to say whether they would vote leave  now or failed to respond to the question.

– Two Cabinet ministers who backed Remain,   Elizabeth Truss, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury  and Jeremy Hunt, the Health secretary,  said they would now vote Leave.

– Five other Cabinet ministers who voted Leave – Priti Patel, David Davis, Andrea Leadsom, Liam Fox and Michael Gove –  said they would still vote to leave the EU.

– The PM Theresa May  has  repeatedly refused to say whether she would be a leave voter if a referendum was held.

The overwhelming Remainer sentiment of those occupying the leading roles in the Government  automatically undermines the Brexit negotiations because the politicians of the  other EU member states and  the politicised  EU bureaucracy will think that at  best the UK Government will be happy to concede a great  deal  of  ground to the EU  and at worst will not push for a true  Brexit because their hearts are simply not in it.

The only way to change matters is to have a committed leaver as PM and a  Cabinet comprised only  of committed leavers. Anything less and  serious Cabinet disunity will continue.

Such a Government should lay down  the redlines listed above and commence immediately and with all speed the  preparation  to trade if necessary under WTO rules . That  provides a ready made template for our trade with the EU  . More boldly we could walk away from the EU now by invoking the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which includes the provision to  throw aside a treaty where the other parties o the treaty are acting in bad faith. The fact that Article 50 exists means that the other EU members have to act in good faith over a member state’s withdrawal. Patently they are not honouring that obligation.  Bad faith is  shown amply by both Eurocrats and EU political leaders since the referendum decision.

Remainers need to think  about what  is likely to happen if a true Brexit is denied by the multifarious machinations which Remainers have attempted.  That would be saying to the British electorate it does not matter how you vote the only thing you will ever get is what the ruling elite wants. At best  British politics would be poisoned for a very long time  and at worst political violence  could result.

After more than half a century of internationalist politicians and their supporters in  the media, universities and the civil service  the concept of treason is out of fashion in  the UK.  But treason is a crime like theft or murder,  which always exists whether or not there is  a law on the Statute Book for it  is the ultimate betrayal. If Brexit is thwarted  the cry of  treason may  be on people’s lips again in earnest.

Brexit and surviving Mrs Maybe

Robert Henderson

The shamelessly   anti-democratic remainers are queuing up to cheat the British electorate of Brexit. Those in the media and the likes of Gina Miller  shriek that a hard Brexit is dead and it is already  reported that remainer MPs from both the Tory and Labour parties are plotting to overturn  Brexit and Theresa May knows about it but does nothing.  May’s Chancellor Philip Hammond openly defies her on Brexit by saying that no deal with the EU would be a “very bad outcome”.

In Scotland the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon beats the same drum and the leader of the Tories in Scotland Ruth Davidson talks of legally detaching the Scottish Conservatives  from  the UK  Party whilst  insisting that a hard Brexit should be watered down and stating baldly that  the  13 MPs from Scotland who are now sitting in the Commons should vote according to their consciences not to the dictates of Tory Party whip.

There is also another possible legal challenge brewing with a  claim that the Act passed to allow the letter to be sent to the EU triggering Article 50 did not such thing because it did not  address the question of the legality of the UK leaving the EU.

More immediately worrying  is the proposed supply and confidence arrangement   with the Democratic Unionists (DUP)  of Northern Ireland  and the  concessions the  DUP will insist on and the knock-on effects with Scotland and Wales which will undoubtedly want  for themselves  whatever  the DUP gets or something of similar political value.    The terms of the arrangement have yet to be agreed,  but we can be sure that the DUP will insist on not having a hard border between the  Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland . Anything other than a hard border would utterly undermine one of the primary objects of Brexit, namely, control of the UK’s borders.  Nor is it certain that any deal will be made.

All in all a very pretty political mess with no risk free way of escaping.  Calling another election soon  would probably   result in  a Labour win or at least a Labour led coalition government.  At best it is unlikely that it would leave  the Tories in a better position than they are in.  Moreover, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is still in place. To call an election before the end of the five year Parliament stipulated in the Act  requires a two-thirds majority of   the  full complement of MPs  (currently 650) whether  or not a constituency has an MP at the time of voting or whether an MP abstains.   In short at least 417 MPs  must vote for an election.   There is a good chance that neither  the Parties with seats  in the Commons nor many individual MPs with smallish majorities would want another election soon: the Parties because of the cost (if an election was held this year it would mean  funding three elections in two years) and   individual MPs for  the fear of losing their seats.

There is one way the Tories might be able to cut this Gordian knot because  they are so close to a majority in the Commons the Government is in a much stronger position than might be thought  from the media and general political  response following the failure of May to gain a majority .  May  or a successor could  try governing  without a majority.

The  number of MPs  needed for a Commons majority is pedantically 326. But this is misleading because the  seven Sinn Fein MPs will not  take their seats as a matter of principle (they refuse to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown)and the Speaker only votes in the event of a tie (when by convention he votes for the status quo). Hence, the figure in practice for a Commons majority is  322. This means the Tories are a  mere 4 MPs short of a majority.

The Tories  could probably govern as a minority government without any support most of the time, because any defeat of  government legislation would require almost every non-Tory MP  to vote against the government. That is not easy to organise day in day out, week in week out.  Moreover, it is most unlikely that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would want to hold up many of the  money Bills because that would mean their countries  would not get their  part of the money .  In addition, it is likely that the DUP would support the Tories on most occasions simply because they agreed with Tory policies and for the fear of something worse, that is, a Corbyn government. .

The main danger for the Tories  would be a  vote for a motion of No Confidence.   But it would not be easy to marshal the disparate MPs who make up the opposition.  It is possible that some Tories might abstain or even vote against on individual Tory policies , but improbable  that they would vote for a motion of No Confidence.

It is conceivable that a few  Tory remainers might cross the floor of the House of Commons and join a Corbyn  government. This idea  is unlikely  but  not absurd because Brexit is one of those rare defining issues which could cause remainer  Tory MPs to defect.  More probable would  be Tory remainers being willing to vote on  Bills put forward  by a Corbyn government which relate to Brexit.

But let us assume that a motion of No Confidence was passed, what then?  Could Corbyn form a government with a majority? He might well struggle because he  would have to take all the Ulster  Unionist MPs with him. Given Corbyn’s  record of  enthusiastically consorting with Irish Republicans of dubious provenance  it is unlikely he would be able to bring them on board even on the basis of confidence and supply. But even if he could cobble together a government of all MPs other than Tory ones,  it would be hopelessly  unstable because of the vast  spread of political opinions it would have to encompass and the fact that the Labour Party is nowhere near to being able to form a government on its own.   The proposed hook-up between the Tories and the DUP has a much better chance of surviving.

It is possible that no government could be formed which could command  the confidence of the Commons. That would create an interesting constitutional problem because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act  would mean that Parliament could not be dissolved unless two thirds of the Commons voted for it. That would mean that any new election could not be painted as the responsibility of the Tory Party as many MPs other than Tory ones would have to vote for it. That would remove part of the toxicity  of an early election for the Tories.

If May (or a Tory successor) could get through another 18  months in power that might be enough for the public to turn against Corbyn and/or simply get bored with his antics and those of the likes of McDonnell. It would also allow enough to time get the negotiations  for Brexit so well entrenched that it would be difficult to overturn them even if a different government took office. The fly in the ointment is of course the likely attempts at betrayal by the present Government or any successor government  headed by a Tory other than Theresa May.

If the Tory government does survive it must operate  for the foreseeable political future on the basis that Brexit comes before everything else apart from maintaining  the functions of the state and civil order. Any legislation in policy areas other than Brexit which is contentious should be shelved until Brexit is completed.

There must also be red lines drawn. One of the primary problems with May was her refusal or inability to spell out what she would and would not accept when negotiating with the EU.  The government whether led by May or someone else must make clear the following:

That there is no hard and soft Brexit there is simply Brexit

That the UK will leave the single  market.

That the UK will leave the customs union .

That the UK will have full control over her borders for people, goods and services.

That the UK will have full control of her territorial waters including those relating to the 200 mile limit.

That after leaving the UK will not be subject to the European Court of Justice or any other judicial body  linked to the EU or the EEA.

That the UK will not pay any leaving fee.

That the UK will be paid a proportionate share of the EU’s assets.

That would both reassure the majority who voted of Brexit and make any backsliding by the government very difficult.

What would be the effects  of a radical reduction in immigration to the UK?

Robert Henderson

Ukip has embraced a nil  net  immigration policy based on a one in one out to leave the population unchanged by immigration. In the year ending Sept 2016   596,000 people came to the UK  and 323,000 left giving a  net migration figure of  273,000 more coming than going.  That is the number of  people  who were not  British citizens  would have been  refused residence under   the scheme proposed by Ukip.

The  internationalists   tell   us  that   the woes  of  the  world will   come upon  us  should we radically  curtail immigration,  although,  like  Lear threatening retribution, (“I will do such things–What they are, yet I know not: but they shall be the terrors of the earth.”)   they are unable  to  say  exactly what the woes  will be.  In fact, I cannot recall ever having seen an article in the British media which goes beyond lazy generalisation about “competing in a global market” or  “driving private enterprise abroad”.    The reality is rather different.

The effects on the British labour market of a radical reduction of immigrants

There would be greatly improved employment  opportunities for the British.  The  labour market would tighten and wages would rise. That would place extra costs on employers but they could be offset by a reduction in taxation due to millions of people being employed who are currently unemployed or underemployed and receiving in work benefits. Nor would  wages rise uniformly. Labour   would  move    into  those   occupations  which  are essential   and  which   cannot  be provided  at    a   distance,   for  example     healthcare     and  education.  We  would   discover    how  occupations   rank in terms of  utility.  Wages  would  rise  in  those occupations which had most utility to  attract  staff from elsewhere. This could have surprising results. We might find that vital jobs considered menial now would pay much more once cheap labour could no longer be brought in.   This would be justice for the many who have seen their jobs undervalued  because of the ability of employers to use cheap immigrant labour.

Employers  would  respond  to labour  tightening   by   using    labour  more  efficiently.   Automation  would increase  and  employers   would  change their attitude  to  the employment of the long-term unemployed,  older  people  and  the disabled. Both  employers and government would  take vocational   training   more seriously.   Government  would  provide  incentives   to  employers  to train  their staff and  increase  the  training  of    public   service   professionals such as doctors and  dentists.

Employers  who could not find the labour to run their business in  this country would have to accept they could not do so.   No one has a right to engage in an enterprise regardless of the effects on the welfare  of the community as a whole which is effectively the present position. Capital which cannot be used in this country can be invested  abroad and the profits from that brought to the UK.  The UK balance of payments would be improved by  a reduction in the  money being remitted abroad by immigrants.

The increase in employment of Britons would  be an immense social good beyond  reducing  the cost to the Exchequer  of  the  unemployed,  for people are generally happier and more  responsible  when employed .

The  pressure  on  public services,  transport   and housing would be lessened making  access  to them  easier  for Britons. An ending of mass immigration would also curtail  the substantial cost of providing  the benefits of the welfare state to immigrants as soon as they gain the right to legal long term residence in Britain.

Fewer legal  immigrants would allow much greater supervision of visitors to Britain – a significant minority of whom are health tourists  or who are here for criminal purposes – and a proper control and investigation of illegal immigrants. No more sending suspected illegals to the Croydon reception office under their own speed or leaving ports and airfields with an inadequate or completely absent Borders Agency  presence.  We could then not only refuse new immigrants but  start removing the  illegal immigrants who are already here.

Would there be an unmanageable  labour shortage?

The  idea  that  Britain  is  short of  labour  for  most  purposes  is   absurd.   The official figure  for those of working  age  ((16-64) who are economically inactive in the UK is  just under 9 million, or nearly a quarter of the age group.  Clearly not all of those would be able or willing to work,  but equally clearly  a large proportion would be able and willing to work  if  the conditions  were  right, for example,   wages  rose,   employers  became  more accommodating  and the benefits system was tightened as the  number  of opportunities for work rose.

The   claim  that  the   indigenous   population   will  not   do   the jobs  immigrants take  is  demonstrably false for in areas of the country with  few  immigrants  native  Britons  do  them  willingly.   In addition, vast swathes of work have been effectively denied to the native population  by collusion between employers and those who supply labour.  This happens both within the indigenous ethnic minorities who only employ from their own ethnic group and within immigrant labour which commonly works through gangmasters who are immigrants themselves. This does not just occur in areas such as fruit picking  and factory assembly work but in areas such as the NHS where we have the absurdity of doctors and nurses trained in Britain having to go abroad to find jobs because immigrants are employed here.

It is also important to understand  that the menial  jobs immigrants  take are worth far more to them than a native Briton because wages are so much higher in the UK than they are in the country from which the immigrant hails.  Take the example of an immigrant who earnings are taxed properly and   who earns the minimum UK wage.  Even if  they earn the UK minimum wage  of £7.20 ph for those over 24 years of age  that is an annual wage for a 40 hour week of £14,976.  The minimum wage in for example Poland is worth around £400 pm (£5,000 pa) , despite the fact that Poland is one of the larger and  better developed economies of the Eastern European countries which supply so many of the immigrants to the UK.  Immigrants coming from less developed countries will find  the differential between wages here and their country of origin much larger, for example,

Many  immigrants live  in  accommodation   either   supplied and subsidised   by  an  employer  or   in  crowded accommodation which works out at  very little per head  rent.   Substantial numbers   work in the black market and pay no income  tax or national insurance.  Quite a few  draw in work benefits such as Child Benefit even if their children are not in this country.  In these circumstances migrants  from the poorer  member states should be able  to save  a few thousand pounds a year from their wages .  If the money is remitted back to the immigrant’s home country or the immigrant returns home  a few thousand sterling will be worth in purchasing power in the home country  multiples of what it is worth in the UK.

As for skilled workers,  most jobs are as they have always been unskilled or low skilled. For those occupations which  are skilled but non-essential , the work can be done by people working abroad, for example, most IT work falls into that category. The skilled occupations with indispensable skills  which  could not be sourced from our own people if training was provided, for example, doctors and nurses.  There are presently  far more applicants for medical training places than are currently filled.

Do Britons want an end to mass immigration?

Concern about immigration has been at the top of issues concerning the British for years; this despite the fact that every mainstream British political party has with the willing collusion of the British media, doing   everything they can to suppress unfettered  public debate about the issue.

In 2014 The think-tank British Future  published  their  report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov.  One finding  is truly startling. Faced with the question  “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally”  the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report).  In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive  immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of  falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is  stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report).  The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

Anyone who believes that the British people welcomed the post-war immigration and want more of it is self-deluding to the point of imbecility.

Funny Business at No 10

Posted on April 13, 2017 by Robert Henderson  

The No 10 petitions unit  rejects  a petition to get the UK out of the EU using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
On 2nd  April 2017 I submitted a petition to the No 10 website  which hosts petitions created by  any British citizen. My petition, including the further explanatory details which are allowed on the No 10 site,  was this:
The EU can spend two years giving the UK the run around whilst pocketing two years of further UK contributions and obliging the UK to honour all EU laws and regulations including freedom of movement. At the end of the two years the UK is unlikely to have an agreement which will effect Brexit .
More details:
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties gives the UK ample grounds for repudiating all EU Treaty obligations on the grounds of bad faith by the other treaty members and the failure to apply the rules of the EU, for example, the repeated failure to produce accounts which satisfy the auditors, the multiple breaches of Eurozone rules and the failure to enforce government aid rules against the likes of Germany, France and Italy – see https://englandcalling. wordpress.com/
When I submitted the petition the No 10 website software brought up a message stating there was no similar petition already on the site.
The second  hurdle a petition has to clear is to get five sponsors for the petition. This I rapidly achieved, with a total of 19 sponsors.
When I sent the petition I received an acknowledgement  saying that a decision to allow or disallow a petition “ usually takes a week or less.”
It  took  11 days to reject mine.
The  rejection
My petition was eventually rejected on the single ground that a similar petition was already on the No 10  website.
This is the Petition:
End negotiations with the EU forthwith.
The PM has no mandate to negotiate with the EU. We voted for a hard Brexit and demand it. Time to tell the EU “no deal, end of negotiations, goodbye.”
The reason given for the rejection is literally absurd, for the two petitions do different things.  My petition gives a legal way to leave rapidly, the other petition  offers no legal route out of the EU. In fact it urges the Government to act illegally by breaching a treaty.
The difference between my petition and the  other one is so striking that it is not unreasonable to suspect that the refusal of my petition is for political reasons rather than the reason the No 10 Petitions Unit has given.
What might that reason be? Well, the Vienna  Convention on the Law of Treaties  allows the UK  to  get  out of  the  EU a good deal faster and  with a much cleaner exit. The delay in rejecting the petition is also suspicious as it suggests there was an extended  debate about it taking place.
The other suspicious thing is the fact that the petition which is supposedly similar to mine has only just be posted to the No 10 site. Each accepted petition expires after six months on the site. The expiry date  for this one is 11 October 2017. Hence, it must have been put up after I sent in my petition on 2nd April. The odds are that this petition is one concocted by those opposed to Brexit  after my  petition was submitted to provide an  excuse for rejecting mine.  It is worth  remembering that public servants are generally remainers. 
Whatever the reason is for refusing my petition, it indubitably qualifies to go  up on the N 10 website.  
Let us hope the civil servants responsible for the  petitions  see sense and change their mind. 
——————————————————————————————————————————

   I am waiting for a reply from the No 10 unit to this email

13 April 2017

  Dear Sirs, 

 
The reason for your rejection is literally  absurd. My petition gives a legal way to leave rapidly  the petition you cite offers no legal route out of the EU. In fact it  urges the Government to act illegally by breaching a treaty.  I would also point out that when I registered the petition with you your own software created a message saying  there was no  similar petition already in existence on the site. 
 
In the light of these facts I ask you to reconsider your rejection of  my  petition. 
 
I also ask  you to give me the name of the person heading  your unit  and a phone number on which I can contact him or her. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
 
Robert Henderson       

Petition on Number 10 website : The UK to use the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to leave the EU now

Message body

The Vienna Convention on  the Law of Treaties gives  the UIK the right to leave the EU immediately

Robert Henderson

If the UK is trapped for two years within the EU ( or even longer if all parties agree to extend the negotiating period)  a great deal of damage can be inflicted upon the UK  by hostile EU member states egged on by  the British remainers who have not accepted the referendum result and will do anything to produce a  “Brexit” which is no Brexit in anything but name.  Consequently our best course of action is for the UK to leave now and trade under WTO rules, a course of  action embraced by  the  likes of Lord Lawson and  James Dyson .

Leaving the EU now and trading on WTO rules would have considerable benefits. These are:

  1. The payments the UK makes to the EU would cease immediately . The UK makes a payment each year to the EU. When the British rebate (won by  Thatcher)  is deducted,   the money left is divided into two parts. The first  is the money which is spent as the  EU  dictates.  The second is the money which  the EU simply takes and distributes to other EU members.  Exactly how much is taken away  is debatable because of complications such as the UK  Aid money the UK  gives to the EU. But even taking the lowest estimates of how much money the EU keeps for itself  this is in the region of £6-7 billion and another  £6 billion for money is  returned to fund  public and private bodies and programmes in the UK   but with EU instructions on how it is to be spent .

If   we continue with the two years after the activation of Article 50 that will mean  the UK will have paid 33 months worth of contributions  to the EU since the referendum.

  1. The UK immediately gains control of  our  borders. As things stand free movement is likely to continue until March 2019. The UK government wants to introduce a cut off date from which  the free movement and the state supplied benefits  which arise from it  will cease. Their  favoured date is the 29 March this year, the day Article 50 is triggered.  The EU insists  that free movement must remain until the UK has left the EU.  If this happen several s million could flood in before the UK leaves the EU.
  2. The UK can immediately start negotiating trade and other deals with any country outside the European Economic Area. If the UK goes through the two year period of negotiation no  such deals can be made or at least finalised.
  3. The UK can immediately start to regain control of its fisheries.
  4. The UK will immediately be free to remove or adapt any EU laws and regulations which already exist and will not be subject to any future law. If we spend two years or  more negotiating the UK cannot amend or repeal and existing EU laws and regulations and , most importantly, the UK will have to implement any new EU laws and regulations passed during the negotiating period. This would allow the rest of the EU to engage in a great deal of mischief with the intention of damaging the UK.
  5. Leaving now will remove the opportunity for the remainers with power and influence to sabotage Brexit . That is probably the greatest benefit of all because there are  cabinet ministers, shadow cabinet members, backbench MPs, peers , public servants or the wealthy who  are willing  to fund court cases who would be only too willing to overturn Brexit, either  overtly or covertly.

The Vienna Convention on the  Law of Treaties provides the legal basis for the UK walking away from the EU right now. The relevant passages are these: .

PART III. OBSERVANCE, APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

SECTION 1. OBSERVANCE OF TREATIES

Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda” Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

SECTION 3. INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

Article 31 General rule of interpretation 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

Article 32 Supplementary means of interpretation Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31: (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

SECTION 2. INVALIDITY OF TREATIES Article 46 Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties

  1. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith.

  Article 60 Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

  1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
  2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles: (a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either: 20 (i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State; or (ii) as between all the parties; (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;

 Article 62 Fundamental change of circumstances

  1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless: (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and 21 (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty

These provisions mean the UK could summarily leave by arguing (1) the EU are not acting  in good faith because of the many threats  to punish the UK for leaving the EU made by EU functionaries and politicians; (2)  that  the Treaty  leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable or (3)  that the circumstances which now exist are radically different from what existed when the last EU treaty was signed by the UK (The Lisbon Treaty).

Statements by EU politicians and functionaries that Brexit will be deliberately punitive  for the UK to dissuade other members from leaving clearly go against the provisions of Article 50 – see examples at the bottom of this post.  Having a provision for leaving  in a treaty implies that states leaving  according to the provisions of the  treaty have a right to leave. Deliberately making leaving very  damaging for the leaving member of a treaty nullifies the right to leave. Ergo, that is  clear and emphatic  bad faith.  In this context it is important to understand  that the Vienna Convention does not require all parties to a treaty to act in bad faith to nullify a treaty – see section 2 of the Convention quoted above

But it is not only  direct threats of penal treatment of the UK which matter when it comes to bad faith.   Suppose   the EU  passed legislation during the negotiating period which  placed the UK  at a grave disadvantage  the UK would still have to implement the legislation regardless of its effects on the  UK during the period of negotiation. A good example, would be legislation   which would have severe  ill effects on the City of  London such as  a  transaction tax.

As for circumstances  being radically different take  the massive deterioration in economic performance by some Eurozone countries resulting from  the actions of the European Central Bank which are arguably directly at odds with the  rules of the ECB  for managing the Euro.  This mismanagement has created severe problems within the EU both in terms of economic instability and the increased tendency of migrants from the suffering countries to move to the richer EU countries  including the  UK.  The failure of the Eurozone to manage its affairs honestly must  count for a radical change of  circumstances.   (The vote by the  UK to leave does not  count as  a radical change of  circumstances because it is something engineered by  the UK and the Vienna Convention disqualifies such deliberate changes  as a cause to repudiate a treaty.)

Even though Article 50 has now been triggered that does not mean the UK could not leave under one or more of the Vienna Convention permitted reasons because any of those reasons and especially  that of bad faith could be invoked at any  point in the negotiation process.

Examples of EU functionaries and politicians threatening the UK with a damaging Brexit

Here  is just a minute sample of the many threats made to the UK about Brexit:

French President  Francois Hollande  “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price, otherwise we will be in negotiations that will not end well and, inevitably, will have economic and human consequences,” the French president said.

Robert Fico, Slovakia’s prime minister, on Monday said that member states intend to make it “very difficult for the UK” and said Britain is “bluffing” when it says it can get a good Brexit deal.

The British people will be treated as “deserters” following a vote to leave the European Union, Jean-Claude Juncker has warned.

Spain will ‘take control of Gibraltar as soon as Britain leaves EU’ says Spanish Foreign Minister

Wolfgang Schäuble , the German finance minister also said the UK would be forced to pay EU budget bills for more than ten years, echoing proposals for the UK to pay an exit bill of up to £43billion.

Guy Verhofstadt has now said he expects Britain to cough up over £500bn to the European Union as it extricates itself from Brussels.

Former Belgian Prime Minister  Guy Verhofstadt claimed Britain will have to foot a €600billion bill before leaving the EU.

MPs who voted against triggering Article 50

MP                                                Party                       June 23 referendum result

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh                 SNP                            60.7% Remain

Heidi Alexander                              Labour                       64.6% Remain

Rushanara Ali                                  Labour                        69.1% Remain

Graham Allen                                 Labour                         63.8% Leave

Rosena Allin-Khan                          Labour                       74.7% Remain

Richard Arkless                               SNP                            54.6% Remain

Hannah Bardell                               SNP                            56.2% Remain

Luciana Berger                                Labour                       64.2% Remain

Mhairi Black                                     SNP                           65.8% Remain

Ian Blackford                                   SNP                            56.6% Remain

Kirsty Blackman                              SNP                            56.9% Remain

Philip Boswell                                  SNP                            61.3% Remain

Ben Bradshaw                                 Labour                        55.3% Remain

Tom Brake                                        Lib Dem                     56.3% Leave

Kevin Brennan                                 Labour                       55.2% Remain

Deidre Brock                                    SNP                             78.2% Remain

Alan Brown                                       SNP                            60.4% Remain

Lyn Brown                                        Labour                        52.6% Remain

Chris Bryant                                     Labour                        61.2% Leave

Karen Buck                                       Labour                        67.0% Remain

Dawn Butler                                     Labour                         57.1% Remain

Ruth Cadbury                                   Labour                         60.5% Remain

Lisa Cameron                                    SNP                              62.0% Remain

Alistair Carmichael                          Lib Dem                       59.7% Remain

Douglas Chapman                            SNP                               60.0% Remain

Joanna Cherry                                   SNP                               72.1% Remain

Ken Clarke                                         Conservative                 58.7% Remain

Nick Clegg                                          Lib Dem                          64.1% Remain

Ann Clwyd                                          Labour                             57.0% Leave

Ann Coffey                                          Labour                            51.8% Remain

Ronnie Cowan                                    SNP                                  63.8% Remain

Neil Coyle                                              Labour                           73.0% Remain

Angela Crawley                                    SNP                                 64.5% Remain

Mary Creagh                                         Labour                            62.0% Leave

Stella Creasy                                         Labour                            63.6% Remain

Martyn Day                                            SNP                                58.4% Remain

Thangam Debbonaire                          Labour                           79.3% Remain

Martin Docherty-Hughes                     SNP                               62.0% Remain

Stuart Donaldson                                  SNP                                61.4% Remain

Stephen Doughty                                  Labour                           55.1% Remain

Jim Dowd                                               Labour                           65.5% Remain

Mark Durkan                                          SDLP

Maria Eagle                                            Labour                          52.1% Remain

Louise Ellman                                          Labour                         73.1% Remain

Paul Farrelly                                            Labour                          61.7% Leave

Tim Farron                                               Lib Dem                       52.5% Remain

Margaret Ferrier                                      SNP                              62.7% Remain

Vicky Foxcroft                                          Labour                          75.3% Remain

Mike Gapes                                              Labour                           56.1% Remain

Stephen Gethins                                      SNP                                61.9% Remain

Patricia Gibson                                         SNP                                57.7% Remain

Patrick Grady                                           SNP                                 78.4% Remain

Peter Grant                                              SNP                                  53.5% Remain

Neil Gray                                                   SNP                                  59.9% Remain

Lilian Greenwood                                  SDLP

elen Hayes                                              Labour                               77.9% Remain

Drew Hendry                                           SNP                                   58.6% Remain

Sylvia Hermon                                         SDLP

Meg Hillier                                                Labour                              77.8% Remain

Stewart Hosie                                           SNP                                    61.7% Remain

Rupa Huq                                                  Labour                               71.8% Remain

George Kerevan                                       SNP                                      64.6% Remain

Calum Kerr                                               SNP                                       56.8% Remain

Peter Kyle                                                Labour                                    66.1% Remain

David Lammy                                           Labour                                  66.6% Remain

Chris Law                                                  SNP                                        58.8% Remain

Caroline Lucas                                          Green                                    74.3% Remain

Angus MacNeil                                          SNP                                       55.2% Remain

Rachael Maskell                                       Labour                                   61.5% Remain

John McNally                                            SNP                                        58.0% Remain

Kerry McCarthy                                         Labour                                   53.2% Remain

Stewart McDonald                                   SNP                                          71.8% Remain

Stuart McDonald                                      SNP                                           62.1% Remain

Alasdair McDonnell                                 SDLP

Natalie McGarry                                       Independent                           56.2% Remain

Catherine McKinnell                                Labour                                    57.1% Leave

Anne McLaughlin                                      SNP                                        59.3% Remain

Carol Monaghan                                       SNP                                         68.5% Remain

Paul Monaghan                                        SNP                                          50.6% Remain

Madeleine Moon                                     Labour                                      50.3% Remain

Roger Mullin                                             SNP                                          58.3% Remain

Ian Murray                                                Labour                                     77.8% Remain

Gavin Newlands                                       SNP                                          63.9% Remain

John Nicolson                                           SNP                                          73.3% Remain

Brendan O’Hara                                       SNP                                          60.6% Remain

Sarah Olney                                            Lib Dem                                      72.3% Remain

Kirsten Oswald                                       SNP                                             74.3% Remain

Steven Paterson                                     SNP                                             67.7% Remain

Stephen Pound                                       Labour                                       51.2% Remain

John Pugh                                               Lib Dem                                     54.5% Remain

Margaret Ritchie                                     SDLP

Angus Robertson                                     SNP                                           50.1% Remain

Alex Salmond                                            SNP                                          55.4% Remain

Liz Saville Roberts                                    Plaid Cymru                           51.6% Remain

Virendra Sharma                                     Labour                                      55.7% Remain

Tommy Sheppard                                    SNP                                           72.4% Remain

Tulip Siddiq                                              Labour                                      76.5% Remain

Andy Slaughter                                        Labour                                      69.0% Remain

Jeff Smith                                                  Labour                                      73.7% Remain

Owen Smith                                              Labour                                      54.2% Remain

Chris Stephens                                         SNP                                           59.1% Remain

Jo Stevens                                                 Labour                                     69.6% Remain

Alison Thewliss                                         SNP                                          71.2% Remain

Michelle Thomson                                    Independent                          71.2% Remain

Stephen Timms                                         Labour                                     53.1% Remain

Mike Weir                                                    SNP                                         51.9% Remain

Catherine West                                          Labour                                     81.5% Remain

Eilidh Whiteford                                         SNP                                         54% Leave

Alan Whitehead                                         Labour                                     50.7% Leave

Philippa Whitford                                      SNP                                          57.3% Remain

Hywel Williams                                         Plaid Cymru                            65.1% Remain

Mark Williams                                           Lib Dem                                   54.6% Remain

Pete Wishart                                                 SNP                                         59.8% Remain

Daniel Zeichner                                            Labour                                   73.5% Remain