In early 2013, the Prime Minister committed to an In/Out referendum. The people would decide whether the UK should remain a member of the EU, or leave. The referendum was to take place before 2017. Last month, the Prime Minister announced that he had secured a deal which reformed the UK/EU relationship sufficiently for him to recommend that the UK remain a member, and announced that the referendum would be held on June 23rd.
Unusually, the Government is committed to 'Remain' while Conservative MPs, including Ministers and Cabinet members are free to campaign to 'Leave'. It is inevitably going to be a feisty debate. Feelings are running high, especially but not exclusively in my party. Most MPs very quickly announced which way they were going to vote. I didn't. I decided I should discuss the issue with party members and constituents before declaring. I've held a private meeting with party members, and already have 2 public meetings with constituents arranged. My aim is to 'declare' at least 6 weeks before the vote.
At my meetings, I will make two admissions at the start. Firstly, that I have been a Eurosceptic since 1975, when I campaigned to leave the EEC - the last time we had a vote. I will also say that I am a great supporter of the Prime Minister, and am reluctant to do anything which undermines his position. You can immediately see why I am conflicted. So far I have only once defied a 3 line whip, and that was to abstain. Admittedly if was an important vote, and I was summoned to meet the Cheif Whip!! Whenever I've told the whips that I could not support the Gov't, the whip has been dropped to a 1 line whip, which is, in effect a free vote. This is the position in respect of the Referendum.
It has surprised me that some constituents have criticised me for not declaring my position as soon as the referendum date was set. It seems more sensible to me to carefully consider the issue, listen to the arguments and discuss the issue with those whose support made me an MP. It just depends how you look at it. My view is that it's a referendum of the people, and my vote is of no greater value than anyone else.
So that's the position. I will remain 'undeclared' until after the Assembly Election. By then, I would not expect anyone to be much interested!
9 comments:
So you never voted against anything..just abstained ONCE? Even though it was an Important vote? Fail to see reasoning behind that..so will be amazed if you vote OUT..you support Cameron regardless of fool hardy the policy you personally think it appears..IT IS A FREE vote..called democracy..You have been a long standing Eurosceptic...You voted for the benefit cuts. look what happened there..Would like to see dates of meetings with constituents on your f/b.seem to have missed it....Jo Weller (not anonymous..only have f/b account)
I am interested in will your vote be swayed towards in due to the Subsidies that Farmers get from the EU as you are from Farming Stock and your family - are you likely to to gamble with subsidies or is there a plan to have these subsidies paid to farmers - especially those in Wales who rely on these subsidies for their existence.
The fact that EU money has been described as a myth and that money belongs to UK taxpayers. Will the £13bn+ a year paid to the EU be used to give back to those who have subsidies taken from them? or as David Cameron has said it’s unlikely the UK Government would make up Wales’ shortfall in EU support.
Being in the EU is also about having access to the European market would we loose that if we vote out?
Your quote reported by the BBC on Monday, 12 February, 2001, regarding
'Farm incomes' 'disastrous' plummet' when you stated as an AM said the figures were "deeply depressing".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1166634.stm
Jo - my abstention was quite a big issue. I refused to vote in favour of a timetable motion to restrict debate on reform of the House of Lords. It was so serious that I was summoned to see the Chief Whip, a rare occurance. There have been several instances where I have contacted the whips to tell them I could not support Govt proposals. In each case, enough of us have done the same thing and Govt has changed to a one line whip. I will make public which way I'm going to vote in mid June - a full six weeks before the referendum
Red mags - I have never allowed my personal interests to influence the way I vote. Since 1975, when the last EU referendum was held, farmers have been thought to be very pro EU. I have been very surprised that the farming vote today is split, even though the farming unions are keen to stay in. And yes, a UK that leaves the EU will want to trade with the single market, and will have to comply with regulations.
I would be very surprised if you hadn't already decided which way you're going to vote. Anyone who is a professional politician is, or should be, well aware of the pros and cons of both sides of the argument; especially when a promise to hold a referendum was in the manifesto; it's given plenty of time to become au fait with the issues and arguments even if for some reason you weren't before. If I'm honest, I actually don't think it matters which way you vote - I think what would be more useful to your constituents is a description of factual pros and cons for each argument in order that they can read unbiased information and make up their own minds.
Thanks for your prompt response Glyn..Jp Weller mot anonymous
Anon - trying to help my constituents decide is exactly what I am trying to do. I do describe myself as undeclared rather than undecided. First meeting I held I think it went ok and helped some. If I were declared the only people who would attend my meetings would be those who agreed with me! Everything I would say would be seen as supporting my voting intentions. I very much agree that my vote is no more or less important than anyone else. A referendum is a vote of the people. I cannot help but think any politician pressing their views on others with dubious assertions rather damages their own cause.
The example of Amber Rudd saying electricity bills will rise if we leave the EU demonstrates just how 'facts' can be spun and special interests abound. She is quoting National Grid - who by the way stand to make big money out of their EU plans for interconnectors and extending their transmission assets to remote onshore and offshore renewable generators in and around the UK. They will then charge for transmitting power from the far west to the far east of Europe, and also charge for their 'balancing services' to even out the intermittency problems. Furthermore she talks about Putin pulling Russian gas, when in fact this is mainland Europe's problem not ours. We have our own gas and if necessary will continue to buy gas from Norway and cheap LNG from the USA. Actually we have more security of gas supply than most. What is pushing up our energy costs is the 2030 date in the Climate Change Act and the fact that the last Labour government sat on its hands when it should have been building new power stations and investing in tidal power and research into cheap storage technology.
Unspun facts are very thin on the ground. However I see every reason to believe that intelligent energy policy, developed specifically for our own best interests, will deliver cheaper power in the UK and it will be cheaper still if we leave behind the artificial constraints and slow and cumbersome EU bureaucracy that have thus far beset our energy industry. The same applies to the farming and fishing industries.
The latest news report on Amber Rudd’s Brexit statement is that:-
Russia has accused UK Energy Secretary Amber Rudd of misrepresenting the situation when she claimed the country is more at risk of Vladimir Putin “hijacking” outside the EU.
She referred to the Russian President of using gas supplies “as a tool of foreign policy” while warning energy bills would soar by £500 million a year if the UK left the EU.
However the Russian Embassy in London described the comments as “surprising and disappointing”.
“It misrepresents the situation and defies the logic of this business as it applies to Britain,” it stated.
The embassy added the UK gas market is one of the most diversified in the world and Russian gas supplies “which are relatively small within the UK’s energy balance will hardly have a significant impact on the country’s energy security”.
It went on: “Secondly, Russian gas comes to the UK through continental Europe, therefore Brexit could have quite an opposite effect, with potential increase in UK’s dependence on the LNG supply from Qatar. And finally, Russia does not use gas supplies as a tool of foreign policy.
“We consider the above comments of Ms Rudd to be made for ‘domestic consumption’ in the context of the EU referendum campaign. Why drag Russia into this domestic quarrel, which must be fought on the merits of the issue in question?”
The story rumbles on:-
http://news.sky.com/story/1669116/decc-urged-energy-firms-to-echo-brexit-alarm
Post a Comment