MPs Need to Follow their Code of Conduct

It is commonly acknowledged that the Brexit referendum took place with the majority of British electors at best poorly understanding the issues and consequences. The conduct of the referendum, its outcome, the botched responses and the subsequent divisive nature of the ongoing arguments all illustrate how referenda represent a dangerous form of political decision making, and why we have a representative democracy.

In principle, we should be led by those who have greater time and expertise than Joe Public to debate the issues of the day and to make decisions on behalf of society and for its better interests. It is sad to observe that all too often MPs vote to support their own prejudices, or those of their electorate, and do not consider the wider interests of the country.

This approach, coupled with the influence of the news media and the vast resources available to vested interests has resulted in a body politic which is anything but democratic.

The following is taken from the House of Commons Code of Conduct:

6. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents.

How can we persuade our MPs to actually do this?

Brexit and My MP - Part 17

29 September 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

I am appending, post script, the text of an email I received today from the UK Government Petitions Team, although the contents were actually authored by DExEU.

I read this email with mounting sensations of anger and dismay, in equal proportions.

Firstly, the hectoring tone of the response may, at best, be described as unpleasant. In fact, I find it dictatorial and quite unseemly.

Secondly it states that the British people voted to leave the EU. At the risk of being repetitive 37% of the electorate advised the Government that they believed the UK should leave the EU. Sixty three percent did not.

Thirdly it claims that the vote provided a mandate for Brexit. Please would you explain how an advisory referendum produces a mandate?

Fourthly the response argues that the recent general election essentially provided that mandate because the two major parties supported Brexit in their manifestos and those parties were supported by a majority of voters. Whilst technically that is true it is also manifestly evident that the election was about more than Brexit, and that many voters cast their votes with motives other than supporting the UK’s departure.

Fifthly, it is commonly acknowledged that the referendum vote was taken with the majority of voters ignorant of the consequences of Brexit. When an agreement is reached with the 27 other EU members it would appear utterly illogical to then deny the British people the opportunity to accept, or otherwise, that agreement.

Finally, to limit the decision to a choice between accepting the agreement or leaving with no agreement flies in the face of common sense. Ours is a representative democracy and it is perfectly possible for our representatives to take the view that (a) the proposed agreement is unacceptable and that (b) remaining in the EU would be less damaging to the future of the UK that leaving with no agreement. It is totally undemocratic to deny our representatives (i.e. you) the opportunity to express that view and to seek to have it enacted.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

(The who sorry saga of Brexit and my MP is spread across recent months of this blog)

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”.

Government responded:

On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum.

The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.

There must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.

Parliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.

Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Stinking Missive from DExEU

I am too angry to formulate a coherent response at the moment. This just STINKS:



Dear Richard Bawden,

The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”.

Government responded:

On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The UK Government is clear that it is now its duty to implement the will of the people and so there will be no second referendum.

The decision to hold the referendum was supported by a clear majority in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. On 23 June 2016 the British people voted to leave the European Union. The referendum was the largest democratic mandate in UK political history. In the 2017 General Election more than 85% of people voted for parties committed to respecting that result.

 There must be no attempts to remain inside the European Union, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum. The country voted to leave the European Union, and it is the duty of the Government to make sure we do just that. Rather than second guess the British people’s decision to leave the European Union, the challenge now is to make a success of it - not just for those who voted leave but for every citizen of the United Kingdom, bringing together everyone in a balanced approach which respects the decision to leave the political structure of the EU but builds a strong relationship between Britain and the EU as neighbours, allies and partners.

Parliament passed an Act of Parliament with a clear majority giving the Prime Minister the power to trigger Article 50, which she did on 29 March in a letter to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. As a matter of firm policy, our notification will not be withdrawn - for the simple reason that people voted to leave, and the Government is determined to see through that instruction.
Both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to vote on the final agreement reached with the EU before it is concluded. This will be a meaningful vote which will give MPs the choice to either accept the final agreement or leave the EU with no agreement.

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe. We want a deep and special partnership with the EU. We aim to get the right deal abroad and the right deal for people here at home. We will deliver a country that is stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Coffee Cups, Brexit, and My MP

It's a weird world.

Why do my posts on the ongoing coffee cup recycling saga attract vastly more views that those detailing the pathetic response of my MP to what is arguably the greatest short term existential threat to the UK - i.e. Brexit?

Offshore CfDs

A recent article posted on Mondaq discussing recent CfD auction results could be argued to be somewhat hysterical. However, there's a paragraph in the middle posing a number of questions which, if you unwind them a little, pose one or two interesting crumbs of food for thought:-



Clearly, the cost of offshore wind power presents a challenge for other technologies in Pot 2 (and gas). They have no prospect of competing with offshore wind. The results present Government with many questions. Should offshore wind become a Pot 1 technology, to compete against onshore wind and solar? This could potentially enable consumers to earn a return (ie a reduction on the cost of electricity) for offering price stability to developers by awarding CfDs at below the market price. Should the focus be on offshore wind to the exclusion of all else? Where does it leave nuclear? Where does it leave gas? Does it represent an opportunity to use budget to support potentially complementary technologies, such as island wind (wind in Shetland for instance is relatively uncorrelated to wind off East Anglia) or tidal technologies. And finally, if the price of offshore wind is £57.50, could onshore wind be used, not just to cut subsidy, but to cut the cost of electricity to consumers?

Immigration is not a Zero Sum Game

Listen to the opponents of immigration and you find that their arguments are couched in terms of it being a zero sum game. "Immigrants are taking our jobs". "Immigrants are a drain on our society". Refugees and asylum seekers receive the worst of it being labelled "bogus" or associated with terrorism and disease. At worst these people are treated in dehumanising, unfair and inhumane ways.

The truth is that very rarely is it a zero sum game. However, this belief that there are finite resources and finite opportunities appears to be deeply ingrained and may be blamed for the rise of the likes of UKIP and for the outcome of the Brexit referendum.

How do we change these attitudes? It is certainly not easy - just telling people that immigrants are not taking vital resources appears simply to backfire in many cases, reinforcing deeply embedded antipathy. (After all, the people have "had enough of experts", haven't they?).

Immigration and asylum-seeking are not going away so we need to find some means of lessening these tensions. Countries that integrate immigrants successfully are less likely to be subject to inter-group tension (stating the bleedin' obvious, that) and much more likely to reap the benefits. Slamming shut the door ain't going to work.

Neonatal Gene Sequencing - Brave New World?

Both my daughters-in-law are currently pregnant and going through the routine scans etc. that are in the gift of the NHS. There's nothing unusual in that. However, across the Atlantic something unusual is happening.

In Boston the BabySeq Project is under way in which 240 healthy babies and 240 babies born in intensive care will have their whole genomes sequenced. The team undertaking the research will be looking for a series of protein-coding genes that are strongly associated with diseases that begin in childhood and also for mutations linked to diseases that occur in later life.

It is possible that some physical interventions, or enhanced check-ups, could follow this analysis. And all the subjects will be monitored for at least five years.

Perhaps all of the above is not particularly controversial and the approach being taken by the investigating team certainly appears to be well thought through and careful. But it does start to open up a whole gamut of ethical questions.

The babies have not given their consent to sequencing. To what extent should parents then be able to agree to medical interventions based on this new knowledge? When the child reaches adulthood who will own the data? Will the subject be able to ask for it to be destroyed?

And looking further ahead - it will become easier for pre-natal testing to be done. What decisions may that prompt? What are the ethics of gene therapy at this stage?

We face a brave new world here. The Boston trial is a good first step but we must be vigilant that future moves are equally well founded.

Antisocial Parking

What is it with these people?

More on Scrappage and EVs

It's London bus time - announcements rolling in one after another.

We have a long-range Nissan EV announced.

Jaguar Land Rover are going fully EV or hybrid by 2020.

And Uber are aiming to transition all drivers to EVs by 2022.

Things are really hotting up. Perhaps it's time to cash in those oil and gas company shares you own before there's a nasty crash. And ask your pension fund to do the same!

More car makers pile onto diesel scrappage bandwagon

This from Edie details schemes from VW, Nissan and Toyota. It would appear that diesel scrappage schemes have some legs in the market and that no-one wants to miss out on the associated new sales. As with previously announced schemes it is essentially Euro 1 to 4 vehicles that are being targetted (Looks as though I'll be running my Euro 5 car for some time yet!).

As a number of the replacement options are all electric or hybrids this places more pressure on the greening of the electricity supply sector - an area where successive governments have what can at best be described as a patchy record.

Brexit and my MP - Part 16

Another pathetic response:

Dear Richard

 

Many thanks for getting in touch with me about the European Union Withdrawal Bill.

I appreciate your concerns about the programme motion for the Withdrawal Bill and it is an issue that is not uncommonly raised when we examine legislation.

However, I am satisfied that there will be sufficient time. Parliament has already debated many of the issues around Brexit and I have no doubt that this will continue.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do let me know if you feel there is ever anything I can do to help.

 

My best wishes,
Anne

 

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, Minister for Women

 

Tel: 020 7219 8392/0017

   

Brexit and My MP - Part 15

8 September 2017

Dear Mrs Milton,

 

 

I am writing to you as a constituent to ask you to vote against the Programme Motion for the Withdrawal Bill on Monday evening.

It appears to me that the proposed timetable for this Bill is one of unseemly haste. This is one of the most important bills in British parliamentary history and I am concerned that eight days does not provide you and your fellow elected representatives sufficient time to debate, scrutinise and amend such a significant piece of legislation. I note that previous debates on European treaties have been allocated far more time in Parliament.

A big part of the Leave campaign was based on parliamentary sovereignty but the timetable makes it look very much as though the Government is trying to avoid democratic scrutiny and railroad this bill through the House of Commons.

As my elected representative, I am urging you to vote against the Programme Motion to ensure that you get the opportunity to properly examine the EU Withdrawal Bill.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Richard Bawden