Whilst I would be the first to concede that everyone (including MPs) has the right to voice their personal opinion, those Members of Parliament who were elected to represent their constituents, must do so regardless of their own opinions when it comes to major issues of national importance such as Brexit.
In other words, where an MP represents a constituency in which the majority of voters voted to leave the EU, that MP should respect this democratic outcome, and support leave. By leave, I mean leave – not quibble about the terms or timing of leaving – just leave. Equally so, MPs in 'remain' constituencies should support 'remain.'
Instead, we have been treated to the tawdry spectacle of MPs from both parties resigning their party whip, and posturing in front of the Press as people of conscience, forced into taking this action by a government that appears to be taking us down the road to a 'no deal' Brexit. Possibly so, but I was not aware of any 'small print' on the ballot paper, which allowed MPs to argue over the manner in which we left.
These MPs - Chuka Umunna, Gavin Shuker, Mike Gapes, Heidi Allan, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry, Luciana Berger, Chris Leslie, Angela Smith, and Anne Coffey - claim they made a 'principled' decision to leave their Parties, yet not one has been 'principled' enough to resign and call a by-election! Could it be that they represent seats in which the majority voted 'leave' and are afraid that in a by-election, they could be replaced by a Brexiteer? Only time will tell if this motley crew has the guts to face their electorate.
Furthermore, all have championed the cause of a second referendum at various times since 2016 – thus displaying a blatant contempt for democracy. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, just because one does not like the result of a democratic vote, does not allow one to ignore the outcome and insist on yet another vote. Would the 'best of three' then be a better way to manage big decisions in future? Or a 'best of five', or even seven? We would be the laughing stock of every little tin-pot dictatorship throughout the world.
The problem with this 'we-know-better-than-you-do-so-we-will-give-you-another-chance-to get-it-right' nonsense is that it does a great disservice to the UK electoral system, to our relations with our EU partners and to the British public.
Also, the constant undermining of the government's position through the activities of the Brussels Fifth Column (like Blair), is actually of great psychological benefit to the EU, as it emboldens them to continue to try to push for a deal that is disadvantageous to the UK. It gives them time to throw spanners into the debate – like 'Northern Ireland' and 'Gibraltar.'
People who consort with the enemy are traitors.They have betrayed the majority.
In addition to the debilitating calls for a second referendum, there is one other weapon in the armoury of the embittered 'remainers': the official abandonment of a 'no deal' Brexit – leaving without an agreement - when the threats of no deal and of the withholding of £39 billion are the best weapons we have to force the EU to negotiate properly. If the threat of 'no deal' is removed, Juncker and his acolytes will heave sighs of relief, as the UK weapon they fear would have been effectively decommissioned!
This is what amazes me with regard to the activities of those MPs who voted to reject a 'no deal' option. Do they not understand that to remove such a threat would take away the one advantage left to us? Just as Jeremy Corbyn has threatened that if elected, he would continue with our programme of nuclear submarines but not equip them with Trident missiles! Can one think of a more stupid statement regarding the defence of the nation?
There can only be two possible explanations for this apparent aiding of the enemy: either the position of the 'remainers' is based on ignorance of the way negotiations are handled, orbecause they never wanted Brexit in the first place, they intend to do all they can to prevent us leaving. Perhaps the former is the more preferable. In which case, it would be useful if they learn about business negotiation, or at least talk to someone who can explain the concept of bluff. Showing all ones' cards to an opponent is the best way to lose a card game! memory.
Finally, everyone appears to be anticipating that the end of March 2019 will see our withdrawal from the EU, and we can then begin to re-build the UK as an independent nation. This is only partially true, as following March, if the Withdrawal Agreement is passed, there will be a further two-year period of 'negotiations' over the future shape of EU-UK trading relations. If Brussels (aided by their UK Fifth Column) manage to emasculate our economy, maintain us as a non-voting satellite of the EU, and bind us to them for the foreseeable future, then we will be in an incredibly weak position from which to 'negotiate' over trade. Just as Brussels has deliberately dragged out the farcical two-year negotiation period so far, it will do the same over the next two years. We must have our trade deals with the rest of the world concluded as soon as possible, yet no country will entertain the idea of a bi-lateral trade deal with the UK whilst we remain linked to the EU Common Tariff area, and Single Market. It is, therefore, very much in the interests of Brussels to keep us locked into the current system so that German industry and French agriculture in particular can benefit from sales to the UK. Parallel to this, it is also in the EU's interests that we do not strike bi-lateral trading agreements with non-EU countries. Surely reason enough for Brussels to drag out trade negotiations for the full two-year period, or even longer?
The Brexit that people voted for is very simple – so simple that even Juncker should be able to understand it: we want nothing to do with the EU, other than to restrict our relationship to one of free trade – only free trade – much as the relationship that many of us thought we had with the EEC when we first joined in 1973.
Based on the lies, insults, slurs and prevarication from Brussels thus far, it would appear that the only way we are going to get a desirable outcome to this farce is to leave – leave now, and without any agreement, and taking our £39 billion with us, along with what remains of our national pride. 'No deal' might be the 'nuclear option', but we are left with no alternative other than that of servitude to the bureaucrats and incorporation into the United States of Europe. MPs should examine their consciences and realise what the alternative to no deal is. After all, as Mrs May has pointed out on numerous occasions: "No deal is better than a bad deal".