Rushanara Ali MP

Dear Rushanara Ali MP,
As an EU citizens living in Bethnal Green I would like to express my deep gratitude for your work in support of EU citizens rights, the People’s vote campaign and mounting a serious opposition to Brexit as a whole. Particularly for voting against the Prime Minister’s flawed and unacceptable deal, as well as voting yesterday against the EU Withdrawal Bill which will strip me and millions of other EU citizens in the UK of our existing rights without providing legal guarantees for the future. You have done this by also staying focused on many other important and relevant issues for the constituency and the country, a demonstration that Brexit does not need to consume all other important work.
Please keep representing us proudly!
With my respect,
Yva Alexandrova

Revoking Article 50 Is not a Betrayal of the People and is in the National Interest

The still point of calm at the heart of the ‘perfect storm’ of confusion and discord over ‘Brexit’, is the announcement by the European Court of Justice confirming that the UK can unilaterally withdraw article 50 and remain within the European Union on existing terms. Given the inadequacies of the current ‘deal’ and lack of preparation at this eleventh hour for any possible alternative; revoking article 50 by a parliamentary vote is the obvious wise choice ensuring due diligence can be given to what has so far been a fractious and divisive process.

It is shameful that an issue of such national importance continues to be hijacked by narrow party-political interests under the guise of the ‘national interest’ and ‘fulfilling the will of the people’. Such self-serving inauthentic motives distort and confuse the issue feeding a collective madness that is incapable of a common-sense response. Conflating ‘Brexit’ with party politics, or a change of Prime Minister or Government, only ignites what is already a dangerous cocktail of discontent. Parliament has spectacularly failed collectively to prepare for the enormity of the challenge facing the country. There has been a catalogue of errors on all sides that has squandered precious time and good will. It is ingenuous to expect substantive concessions from the European Union when we are unclear as to what we want. We should come home to ourselves, lick our wounds and have a meaningful debate over who and what we want to be as a country, reflecting on our place in the world and how best to foster healthy relationships that secure our future well-being.

Such a debate is a noble and necessary endeavour and needs to be given time and due process without the deadline of article 50 forcing a premature outcome. Hence the need to unilaterally revoke article 50 rather than merely extend the existing arrangement. Having the humility to acknowledge the painful truth of our ways and to cease inflicting self-harm, opens a door to a simple and unassuming way forward. It is ironic that the very institution we are seeking to be free of in the form of the European Court of Justice should be the one that is empowering us on this issue. Parliament can act by asserting its authority and revoke article 50. Every day that passes in limbo erodes the coherence of our national integrity. It is not good enough for parliament to ‘wash its hands’ of the mess it has created and expect ‘the people’ to clean it up. It is dangerous and naïve to think that holding a second referendum in this current toxic environment will reconcile the country and resolve the issue. It is an arrogance reminiscent of the first referendum that assumes a second vote will result in ‘remain’, and even if this is true, large numbers of people will still feel cheated and alienated. A second referendum will not have adequate legitimacy if it is held merely to satisfy a disgruntled ‘remain’ agenda. Also, revoking article 50 expecting we can put the genie back in the bottle and go back to the way things were will not reconcile the country either, but it will give us time to stabilise and rethink how we move forward.

The next three years of the remaining term of this parliament can be a period for national reconciliation. We must learn how to have care and respect for those who voted differently and indeed for those who chose not to vote. A growing trust in our future will be supported when there is a clear discernment of the implications of the different courses of action. We risk the breakup of the United Kingdom or an unacceptable loss of authority with the European Union by failing to pay attention. If parliament is seen to be thorough and non-partisan the eventual parliamentary vote and / or second referendum will regain credibility, irrespective of outcome. The fact of a minority government should facilitate such cross-party cooperation that could be further enhanced by releasing members from the party whip. In the meantime, we remain a full member of the European Union at a time of the emerging formation of a new Europe. Despite uncertainty, business and other stakeholders will be reassured by a more participative and measured approach. If in 3 years, the decision is still to leave the European Union then we will have more control of the process and can invoke article 50 again when we are better prepared.

Revoking article 50 now is not a betrayal of the referendum result but rather an acknowledgment that invoking article 50 without due diligence and preparation was premature. The real betrayal of the British people will be if parliamentarians succumb to the pressure of the impending March 29th deadline and act precipitously either by voting for a deal that is inadequate or allowing us to leave with no deal and the resulting chaos.

Simon Davison

Thank you Rushanara for at last bringing mortgage prisoners to the fore,I did not ask for my mortgage to changer to Landmark,surely by not offering new mortgages is a restrictive practice,my example is this I pay £1,028.20 per month if i could change my new payment would be £431.16 per month.Surely the FCA has to change their rules as set out in 2014 the so called affordability test,the answer is quiet simple for those trapped,if a new borrower can bee seen that they have been paying their existing mortgage at a higher rate for a period of time ie 6/9 months and have a fair credit history then that should prove they could afford a lower payment,so simple as they say proof of the pudding is in the eating,please keep on at the treasury again all talk no actionmany thanks once again maurice lattimer

Rushanara Ali MP may “want to hear about the issues that are important to you” but speaking from experience, don’t expect her to respond to your emails.