The response I received yesterday on behalf on my MP disappointed me greatly. After mulling it over I’ve decided that I need to further make my thoughts known and seek clarification on some of the sound bites we are being fed on a daily basis by our elected officials.
Here is my response to the response! Let’s see what I get back! I think we all deserve honesty and I will continue until I find it.
“Thanks for your reply Kris and the link to Ian’s website.
I must say that I am very disappointed Ian has chosen not to back a People’s Vote. A second referendum may be divisive but I fully believe that the current course of Brexit will not just be more decisive, but will decimate our country and will disproportionately damage our region and the livelihoods of Gateshead residents. Due to this and a more informed public I feel that this makes the requirement for a People’s Vote all the more vital.
The text of the first referendum highlighted that the vote was advisory and I am sorry if this message offends the sensibilities of members of the public who would seek to damage our society for reasons of their own choosing at any cost.
I am also disappointed that Ian has failed to address the illegal nature of some campaign activities of the Leave Vote which in any advanced society, which we proudly claim to be, which should have resulted in a nullification of the vote. At a time when people’s faith in politicians is at an all time low this will only further distance the public from their representatives. I would like to know specifically what Ian’s thoughts are on this matter in particular as it is making a mockery of our democracy and leaving accountability out in the cold.
Then we have a legal challenge against Article 50 spearheaded by the SNP. If Article 50 was triggered in a potentially illegal manner I would have expected all MPs to demand a judicial answer to this challenge rather than seek to obfuscate the issue or take an apathetic back seat. Would you be able to let me know Ian’s opinion on this matter as he seems to be silent on the subject.
It may very well be that the gap in Remain:Leave votes in our constituency was wider than the overall figure but I would like to seek clarification about Ian’s thoughts on how illegal practices, misinformation and a lack of actual knowledge about Brexit’s impacts might have effected the vote in 2016 but also on how a ‘clean’ and legally run campaign could effect the vote if it was run again today.
I appreciate that Ian is ‘keeping all options on the table’ but by using well worn slogans with no real substance and ignoring the membership (from the Party Conference) I am saddened to say my faith in our Party is diminishing rapidly. It feels like the current stance taken by Ian and other MPs are designed to placate the vocal minority of angry citizens who voted Leave in the original referendum. The 48% who voted Remain have been sidelined, neglected and ridiculed for too long both actively and by those who seek to keep the peace incorrectly assuming that the 48% will be less likely to complain.
It is time for tough decisions and these are what MPs are elected to make. I fear that being reluctant to be open with voters and using slogans such as ‘all options on the table’ is only succeeding in diminishing support for our Party.
My faith in democracy is being tested by all of the above and as Ian is my representative I appreciate his (and your) time but I do feel that we are owed actual answers to serious questions when the stakes are so high.
Please be assured that I am not someone who thinks endless referendums until I get my choice of outcome is the way forward but I do demand that we hold our representatives, media and campaign officials to account when they breech what is acceptable within a so-called leading democracy on the global stage. This has not happened and this is something that needs to be addressed now not in years to come when the damage is done and some future Minister launches a public enquiry.
I look forward to your response.