Brexit lampooned

A rare example of a positive consequence from the UK’s choice to divorce itself from its closest neighbours and trading partners in the European Union has been its boon for the art of satire.  

It's opportune to pay tribute to the creative thinking and the inspired artistry of cartoonists. 
Their lampooning has provided succinct and poignant commentary on Parliament’s inability to agree on anything.

Let's remind ourselves of important dates from the recent past.  
The referendum took place on 23 June 2016.  Following the result to leave (against the Government's stated position) and the resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minister, his successor Theresa May called a General Election to increase the Conservative majority in Parliament.  
The election, dubbed a car crash, took place 8 June 2017 resulting in a "hung Parliament," thereby depriving the Conservatives of a majority (against the PM's stated objective).  Her mantra of "strong and stable Government" was replaced by terms like weak and wobbly.
 
Prior to the election,  the new PM had acted to deliver on the wishes of 17.4 million people by invoking Article 50 of the EU treaty in March 2017.  
Following strenuous negotiations (at a cost to the Government of three Secretaries of State for "exiting the EU"), a Withdrawal Agreement was reached on 14 November 2018 with the European Commission.

To the horror of Brexiteers, two “Brexit Days” have passed by (29 March and 12 April 2019) as the "Mother of Parliaments" has failed to agree on an exit strategy.  The Withdrawal Agreement has been rejected in record defeats for any British Government.

And so, the UK remains in the EU which has approved a further extension to Hallowe'en 2019 when the banshees appear - maybe in a big red bus. 

Into the breach of acrimony and uncertainty, a sense of humour comes to the rescue. 

The PM's loss of her Parliamentary majority and subsequent striking of a "confidence and supply" deal with Northern Ireland's DUP marked the start of a pictorial deluge. 

As the "clock continues to tick," the satirists' targets have moved progressively to reflect the general debate about events and issues such as immigration and the Good Friday Agreement. 

At the outset of negotiations, the European Commission set the agenda by defining the priorities.  These were citizens rights (UK citizens living and working in the EU, and EU citizens in the UK); the size of the divorce bill; and arrangements for the UK's land border with the EU. 
It is the latter which emerged as the crunch issue which has split HM Parliament to stasis. The failure of Parliament to agree on an exit plan over the two-year A50 period approached crisis-point especially in the approach to the Brexit-day deadline.  

Satirists in the Ulster Fry had mimicked the UK Government's publications (August 2018) about Brexit preparations by publishing a 12-stage guide which included this borderline advice:-
 

The day after Ireland won a rare 6 Nations Rugby Grand Slam by defeating England at Twickenham on St Patricks Day 2018, this mock-up appeared:-

The border theme inspired other artwork. Examples include:-

 and striking the right note, a musical parody of the Stealers Wheel song from the film "Reservoir Dogs":-

and these cute pictorial images:-

 











One objective which Brexiteers have emphasised aggressively has been that of protecting "the precious union" - meaning the United Kingdom and not the European Union.  
Parliamentary acceptance of the Withdrawal Deal has floundered on this very issue, based primarily on a lack of confidence and supply from the Government's DUP allies and their cohorts in the Conservative Party's "European Research Group." 
As events have developed, however, uncompromising adherence to that dogma risks yielding the opposite result, with unintended prospects which could endanger that union. 

Ireland provides one example.  The DUP/ERG demand to ditch the insurance cover, a protocol to protect the Good Friday Agreement, is seen by the EU as threatening to the peace process, the fragility of which has been fatally demonstrated recently. 
Otherwise, the Brexit campaign pledge that helped Leave to win obviates the need for the protocol to be activated.  That promise, assuming that it was truthful and honest, asserted confidently that the UK would succeed in obtaining international trade deals globally including with the EU.
In any event, Northern Ireland voted by a clear majority to remain in the EU, the single market and the customs union; in addition to which its business and farming organisations have articulated support for the Withdrawal Agreement.  Surely in the event of Brexit actually happening, a compromise to the will of those most affected deserves consideration.
 
The other example is the challenge from Great Britain's northern-most nation which voted emphatically to remain and whose Government wants another referendum if the UK departs from the EU.  The cartoonists move quickly:-
 

On occasion, other events have attempted to remove Brexit from the headlines for a few days.  As often as not, however, tales of sinking ships, car crashes and cliff edges resonate metaphorically with the cartoonists, as in December 2018 when this happened:-

 
Week on week, political pundits in the weekend broadsheets and on serious news programmes proferred earnest predictions about what would happen next.  Here is one relatively polite example:-

Following several rounds of "indicative votes" all of which were defeated, this alternative take captures the consequent public exasperation by adopting an expletive catch-phrase.  It, incidentally, was used by a Cabinet Minister in conversation with BBC 2 Newsnight's Nicholas Watt.  The graphic's hyperbole magnifies its satirical effect:-

In spite of public opinion seemingly turned off by the political acrimony, negative voting and repeated indecision, viewing figures for news programmes belied the turn-off theorists.  Statistics demonstrated that people were becoming addicted to Parliamentary suspense as if it were the latest fad in reality TV.

Likewise the satirists could not miss out on perfect material.  
For example:-

German cartoonists also had a bare cheek:-

 
Sometimes it was the ardent Brexiteers who incurred the cartoonists' attention.  These three, for example:-

Even the sister of one of these male celebrities grabbed headlines as the absurdity of the UK contesting elections to Europe's Parliament in May 2019 excites Britain's politicians:-

 
Pride of place, however, has to go to the dominant character for her central role in the increasingly farcical suspense.  
The PM has inspired many Brexit cartoons of which this is a small sample:-

 

Sod them, think I'll go and live in Ireland

©Michael McSorley 2019

Brexit Briefings to DUP MP Jan & Feb 2019

Having written originally to Emma Little Pengelly, the DUP MP for South Belfast on 5 December ahead of the "meaningful vote" about the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, I wrote to her on 30 January and again on 18 February raising questions about the impact of exit from the EU.  
Whereas the December message received a reply within 90 minutes, neither of these two follow-up messages has received a reply to date (5 March 2019).

This is the text of the 30 January message:-

Dear Mrs Pengelly

Arising from last night's "victory" in the House of Commons and the new mandate given to the PM after her volte-face, I have two important questions for you, if I may please.

We conversed early last month about Brexit matters.

Given today's comments by the Brexit Secretary of State Stephen Barclay that he does not have a proposal for "the alternative arrangement" to the backstop at the UK/EU land border, I would like to know what proposals the DUP has to offer in supply and/or in confidence to the PM.

You will have heard the Independent Member for North Down tell the PM that "alternative arrangement" is nebulous.

If the PM reopens the Withdrawal Deal with no alternative operable plan to posit, her visit could be without realistic purpose.

In chiding the PM previously for wasting time, your party leader and party members were noticeably trenchant both in tone and in substance with their criticism; from which it follows that the DUP would be equally critical if she were to waste time all over again.

In interviews last month, your party leader was emphatic in advising voters that the DUP has a backstop alternative which would satisfy the requirements of HM Government's policy to retain a frictionless seamless invisible land border between the EU and the United Kingdom.

How you can reconcile this objective with the Brexit pledge to take back control of the UK's land (and other borders) remains mysterious.

Secondly, in last night's Commons debate, the DUP Westminster leader presumed to speak for people from all sides in Northern Ireland when he expressed unsourced opposition to excoriating criticism from the SNP leader about the tearing up of the Good Friday Agreement. 

Given that Northern Ireland voted by a clear majority to remain in the EU based on empirical evidence, that four of our five parties campaigned to remain, can you advise me of the basis of your party leader's mandate to pontificate on everybody's behalf.

Lest you are unaware, many people are genuinely concerned about Westminster's capacity to act in the public interest, the growing chances of No Deal, the impacts on our economy (not least agriculture and agri-foods) and politics, unintended consequences and the future of "our precious union." 


In the absence of a reply, I wrote again to her on 18 February expanding on the final paragraph above.  This more recent message draws on further evidence and analyses of Brexit and its impacts published in the first half of February.  

On the date of sending her this new message, there were 39 days until Brexit Day (29 March).  To underline the importance of empirical evidence, all sources used are referenced in footnotes with links at the foot of the message.


This below is my 18 February briefing to Mrs Pengelly MP. 

Dear Mrs Pengelly

When I wrote to you on 5 December, you did me the honour of a detailed reply within two hours.  To supplement my subsequent message three weeks ago, I write again in the light of recent evidence.

At the end of January, the CBI quantified adverse impacts from a no-deal Brexit for the UK and also for Northern Ireland. This month began similarly, with the UK head of Danske Bank warning of dire consequences that a no deal will cause for Northern Ireland.[i]

These predictions from CBI experts and Northern Ireland’s biggest bank are not isolated examples. They amplify the statistical reports and analyses from HM Treasury and the Bank of England published in November.  

This month heralds more authoritative warnings.

On Feb 3 Richard Harrington, Minister for Business in the Government that receives DUP support, wrote that[ii]:-

“manufacturers are stockpiling at the fastest rate for 27 years – tying up capital that could otherwise be used for research, training or investment. Manufacturers are being forced to ship orders for delivery after Brexit day without knowing what paperwork to use or what tariffs might be payable. And our retailers are warning of food shortages and price rises. It’s little wonder that the Institute of Directors reports that a third of businesses are preparing to move some or all of their work to the EU, and that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders tells us that investment in the automotive sector has slumped by 47%, while car production is at its lowest for five years....

“..however bracing the prospect of instant liberation from the EU may feel in abstract, that sentiment won’t last long when confronted with the economic, legal and practical reality. In the chaos that followed no deal, voters would turn on the Tory party, and rightly so.  A no-deal Brexit would undermine all our efforts. It would entrench this country’s social and economic divisions, not heal them. And it would turn a crisis into a catastrophe.”

EY, the business consultancy, warns that Northern Ireland could slide into recession with the loss of 11,400 jobs in 2020 alone as a result of a no-deal Brexit[iii]. Its Economic Eye report predicts a fall in sterling leading to higher prices.  It adds that in the event of a trade deal being reached between the UK and the EU

“.. growth in the United Kingdom as a whole and in Northern Ireland will still be outpaced by the Republic.  The Republic’s growth for 2018 is tipped at 8.3%, though the rate will be more than halved to 3.9% this year, and 3.2% in 2020.  NI economic growth for 2018 is estimated at 1.5% — slightly better than UK growth of 1.4% — but will slow to 0.9% and 1.2% in 2019 and 2020 respectively.”

On the occasion of 50 days to go until the UK’s exit from the EU the Bank of England reported on the UK economy’s growth prospects.[iv] Its Governor spoke about the sharp fall in business investment in the “fog of Brexit.”  The Bank is further reducing its already low growth forecast. 

The Office of National Statistics[v] endorses the Bank’s warnings with new data demonstrating that adverse economic impacts are already happening even before Brexit happens.  In the final three months of 2018, production of cars steel products and construction fell sharply. The UK’s GDP shrank by 0.4% in December.

Brexiteers have previously dismissed the empirical evidence from the Bank and also from HM Treasury as “project fear.”  Your party’s Brexit spokesman has been criticised[vi] for leading the DUP to promote a no-deal Brexit.  The comments were made by a former chairman of South Belfast DUP.  There are also reports[vii] that 20 Conservative members of the Cabinet will resign from the party in the event of no deal. 

And yet, in a constituency where 68% of the electors voted Remain, your Westminster leader asserts that no deal is better than a bad deal.[viii] This claim is flabbergasting and ironic.  A party which has built its reputation since inception on bellicose public speaking has taken to warning opponents to “dial down” their language.  Where is his evidence to support the rhetoric; does your party have experts or special advisors who know more than HM Treasury, the CBI, the Bank of England, and the ONS combined?

It’s one thing to dismiss facts summarily.  Rebuttal with robust counter evidence is something entirely different.  I repeat my question: What facts sources and analysis does the DUP have as a basis for its antagonistic campaign against membership of the EU?

Your 5 December reply presented as a fact that the UK is the world’s 5^th largest economy based on GDP.  Reference to latest data reveals that it now lies in seventh place, being overtaken both by India and France.  The recent warnings from the Bank of England and ONS corroborate the factors causing the UK’s slide in rankings.

The former editor of the Belfast Telegraph describes the prospect of a no-deal Brexit[ix] as 

“Utter madness.... an economic and social disaster....the DUP has been its own worst enemy enthused over leaving the EU with little apparent influence over the Withdrawal Agreement nor a viable plan to ensure an open border on this island...”

Your electors did not vote for Brexit, they want you to represent their interests, and they welcome the 20 years of openness that has replaced the hard border. That old regimen incorporated, inter alia, customs checks whose existence has, rather curiously, been denied by your party leader.  

Should you share that perverse opinion, you might care to brief yourself with the evidence-based experience of a prominent British/Irish business leader.  She spells out[x] clearly the dangers of glib policy to have the insurance policy ejected.  She articulates the overwhelming advantages of insuring against the return of hard borders. 

Brexiteers in England and Wales have a mandate to take back control of borders.  Your electors, however, those of us in South Belfast and across Northern Ireland as a whole, oppose land borders between us and the EU on this island.  Not just that, we vigorously reject any attempt to establish maritime borders down the North Sea and between the UK and Continental Europe.  Does the DUP seriously think that such measures will benefit trade and our precious union? 

Does it really believe that turning the UK’s back on its nearest neighbours makes business sense or that we can replace lost European trade by making deals in remote places with repressive regimes?  Suspicions are growing about China’s influence (companies like Huawei); and arms sales promoted by the UK Government to Saudi Arabia are responsible for famine in the Yemen.

I asked you last month to explain what, if any alternative, your party is proposing to replace the backstop.  Our regional newspaper has published an account[xi] from an academic, an expert in Unionism.  He indicates that there are different opinions within the DUP about which backstop option to back. 

One reason for the spectacular failure of the UK’s Government to agree on the terms of its divorce from the EU is the fact that HM Parliament is riven with divisions over what Brexit means.  And now it seems that the DUP is divided on the crunch issue of the UK/EU backstop.  Is it any wonder that Europe’s leaders are exasperated with a Government which cannot command consent in its own Parliament?  Because it was the UK (not the EU) which initiated the divorce that your party wants your Westminster leader’s description of the EU as intransigent defies logic.

An important legal issue raised in the referendum campaign was the European Arrest Warrant.  A central Brexit campaign demand was that the UK cease all dealings with the European Court of Justice.  Since 2004 the Arrest Warrant has been effective in combating international crime such as terrorism and drug trafficking. Labour’s Keir Starmer (former DPP) articulated the argument as a reason to Remain in the EU.  Now evidence is emerging of police concerns in the UK[xii] for national security post-Brexit.

Your party’s chief criterion for an acceptable Brexit is the maintenance of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  And yet, it may be that those endeavours could produce the opposite result.  Influential people in HM Government admit to be reconsidering that precious bond.  Reports from reliable sources[xiii] reveal that three Conservative members of HM Government’s Cabinet have considered the prospect of a peoples vote on Irish unity.   

A recent appraisal of David Cameron’s legacy[xiv] says that he 

“will always be the man who wrecked the country in a clumsy attempt to save his party.  At worst a bad Brexit could break not just the economy but the union - giving Scotland new reasons to seek independence, even pushing Northern Irish voters towards unification with the south – and the political party system, if both Labour and the Tories are punished by voters for enabling it.....”

However anathematic that prospect would be for the DUP, it is undeniable that both the Conservative and Labour Parties are split to smithereens about Brexit.  There are reports that Conservatives want the ERG (erstwhile allies of the DUP) expelled from the party; and Labour MPs have quit the party.  Female Remain MPs in both parties are receiving police protection as a result of intimidation by “far right activists[xv]” with The Times speculating about the demise of the current 2-party system.

The Kingdom wherein I have lived and worked over decades is anything but united thanks to Brexit and its advocates to the detriment of social cohesion.  The political spectacle of its smallest “nation” is particularly unedifying.  In a massive change of philosophy from eras when its once powerful Unionist administrations long told us to abide by majority rule, that principle is now being betrayed by “Democratic Unionists” - ignoring the will of its own majority which is to Remain in the EU. 

And its second party abrogates responsibility with absence that, arguably, suits its bigger rival.  What to do with the two dominant parties? They pose as incompatible on the regional stage, combining to make governance appear unviable despite the best efforts of the UK, Ireland, the USA and the EU; and, worst of all, both of which disenfranchise its electors on the larger stage.

This is not the United Kingdom that people have tolerated and worked conscientiously to make it a better place. You need to know that many are frightened of what your party and its friends in Westminster are doing without empirical justification and with no regard for its consequences.

The opportunity beckons for you to support your constituents 69% of whom voted to retain our EU membership. You would have further justification to do so by referring to a wealth of evidence (see references below) which demonstrates that any Brexit and especially no deal will contradict national and international interests. 



Pending replies from her to both of the messages, it's important to keep track of events that have taken place in the interim.  These raise further concerns about her party's stance on Brexit.  
I will set them out in a separate post.

References:-

---

[i] Belfast Telegraph 1 Feb 2019 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/bank-warns-nodeal-brexit-biggest-risk-to-northern-ireland-economy-for-generation-37773679.html

[ii] Observer 3 Feb 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/brexiters-deal-uk-firms-uncertainty-britain-european-union-business-sector

[iii] Belfast telegraph 5 Feb 2019 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/northern-ireland/over-11000-northern-ireland-jobs-would-go-if-theres-a-no-deal-brexit-ey-forecasts-37782107.html

[iv] BBC News 7 Feb 2019 Bank forecasts worst year for UK since 2009  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47155537

[v] BBC News 11 Feb 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47196387

[vi] Belfast Telegraph 13 Feb 2019 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/dup-member-says-sammy-wilson-should-not-be-allowed-to-dictate-partys-brexit-stance-37812156.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=BT:DailyNews&hConversionEventId=AQEAAZQF2gAmdjQwMDAwMDE2OC1lNmMwLTUyMDctYTgzMC1jNzE2M2VkMGFiODHaACQwOTBhYTUzNC02NWEzLTQ3YzEtMDAwMC0wMjFlZjNhMGJjYzPaACRjZjg4Mjc5Ny01YjFmLTQxZWYtOGIzYi0xNDJhN2Y4NjFmYWFbZNvgSj_xN3TiGRHSHIHEjSlTIYof5LaEoMTHoitGJw

[vii] ITV News 16 February 2019

[viii] Belfast Telegraph 16 Feb 2019 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/no-brexit-deal-is-better-than-bad-deal-dup-deputy-leader-tells-conference-37822392.html

[ix] Belfast Telegraph Ed Curran 6 Feb 2019 https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/ed-curran-still-time-to-save-island-of-ireland-from-utter-madness-of-nodeal-brexit-37786726.html

[x] The Guardian 31 Jan 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/31/ireland-hard-border-brexit-backstop-good-friday-agreement?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR33JbsA4_to_3ab9kWw6dtKd0IFloCH26ZZIMUsWVeWBScQBgYKKX1pG6g

[xi] Belfast Telegraph 9 Feb 2019 Jon Tonge https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/news-analysis/jon-tonge-dup-must-be-clear-whether-it-wants-backstop-rewritten-timelimited-or-flatout-rejected-37797643.html

[xii] Irish Times  13 Feb 2019  https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/no-deal-brexit-may-make-britain-less-safe-british-police-chief-warns-1.3789678

[xiii] BBC News 8 Feb 2019 Brexit: Very Real Chance of Irish Unity Poll if No Deal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47170711

[xiv] Observer New Review 10 Feb 2019 Gaby Hinsliff “Seven Weeks Before We leave the EU Has Anybody Seen David Cameron?” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/10/david-cameron-profile-brexit-memoirs-weeks-before-we-leave-eu

[xv] The Times 16 Feb 2019 p 14 Francis Elliott Political Editor “Swastikas are painted on the office of female MP.” Also Leader “Party Poopers” p 31

Arguments for and against Brexit as Parliament debates UK/EU deal

With less than a week to go before the House of Commons completes a 5-day debate which culminates with a crunch vote on 11 December about the divorce deal between the UK and the EU, this Belfast South constituent finally submitted to his conscience to express concerns in writing on December 5 to his Member of Parliament.

Our MP Emma Little Pengelly has three significant qualities.  The first is that she is the only woman member of the ten Democratic Unionists elected to Westminster, having won the seat in last year’s snap General Election in June.  She is also the party’s second youngest MP and a qualified barrister.

As the Brexit debate has dominated public discourse for three or more years, especially since the referendum in June 2016, ordinary citizens have become increasingly involved in what is dubbed the UK’s gravest national issue in generations.  

One reason for the most recent upsurge of voter interest has been the exhortation of the Prime Minister herself.  All of this is happening in a frequent atmosphere of turmoil in and out of Parliament.  That includes resignations of Government Ministers and warnings of economic disaster from financial institutions. 

Add to the mix the oxymoron of the Brexit pledge to take back control of the UK’s borders and the objective to keep the UK’s only land border with the EU “seamless.”  And in Northern Ireland, there is the spectacle of business leaders supporting a deal which is anathema to the DUP, despite its “confidence and supply” contract with the Conservative Government.

This exchange of views gives a flavour of the arguments for and against the UK’s membership of the European Union.

Dear Mrs Pengelly

Following the Prime Minister's open letter of 24 November and HM Government’s social media post today explaining the benefits of Brexit for Northern Ireland, I wish to brief you before you vote next week on the deal it has signed with the EU.

My concern is that you aren’t representing your constituents’ express wishes.  A prima facie case suggests that your party doesn't have a mandate for its actions.

After the referendum, our then First Minister acknowledged the party's inability to command majority support in Northern Ireland saying plaintively that “We always knew this would happen as four of the five regional parties campaigned to Remain.”

South Belfast voted by a 69.5% majority to remain in the EU.

I have never discovered what empirical evidence your party based its case that Northern Ireland would fare better outside the EU.  In the lead-up to the referendum the evidence presented from institutions, business, science and education about the consequences of withdrawal was explicit. 

Subsequent accounts of the telling of lies about NHS funding and the disavowal of evidence besmirched the Leave case.  The quip that the country was sick of experts undermined the integrity of the UK mandate to leave.  And now a criminal investigation is in hand about alleged illegality regarding funding of its campaign.

Bearing in mind the OFMDFM guide for policy-making (the red book) which says that Government policy must be based on evidence, I would appreciate your direction as to the datasets, analysis and sources being used as the basis for your party policy. This has become more relevant since it signed a binding policy support agreement with the Conservative Government.

I'm sure you take pride in the party’s influential role in being a confidence and supply ally loyal to the Conservative Government and of the enormous pay-back for "all of the people of Northern Ireland" from hard-pressed UK taxpayers.  You must be proud of your party's promotion from provincial politics to being pivotal in decision-making at a national level.

That said, your party's expensive (if controversial) advertisement in "Metro" failed to persuade its target audience of Londoners to vote Leave.  And that incursion was well before the party held the reins of power.

If you support of the party's hostility to the UK/EU deal, I would be grateful if you could advise me of the precise basis for your opposition.  On what new evidence are you basing this reaction?

You are aware of the substantial support from across the Northern Ireland economy, its business and farming leaders in favour of the UK/EU deal.  They know it is a compromise, a prospect offering some certainty as opposed to the alternative of crashing out without a deal.  They hear the EU emphasising that it's the best and only deal.

Many of those business people are your constituents.

You are aware of the recent statistical evidence and analysis from HM Treasury and also from the Bank of England, both of which warn of adverse impacts from Brexit. Do you think that this evidence provides an overwhelming case for ending the Brexit project?

The key message from your party is clear, namely that you are especially terrified about the impact of the Government deal on the "precious union" of Northern Ireland and the UK.  If you “ditch the backstop” what is your alternative for the UK/EU land border?

You will be aware of comments by John Major about a second referendum on independence being undeniable to Scotland if we leave the EU.  You also know of the Scottish First Minister's recent comments articulating reasons for Scotland to remain in the EU customs union and single market.

Her case has echoes of what business leaders in Northern Ireland want now and voted for two years ago.

To some, you are eschewing regional loyalty thereby endangering your mandate together with the very union that you claim to be protecting.

Do you ally yourself with remarks that have been uttered to belittle the business and farming leaders who support the deal? 

Does name-calling of conscientious Northern Irish job providers and telling off the PM for time-wasting show respect for public discourse? 

Does the DUP have special advisors with expertise and who know more than the Treasury or the Bank of England economists?

If your party collides with the Conservative Party leadership, your electors could suggest other policy issues which might command their approval more so than does your pro-Brexit stance.

These include querying the logic of supporting a party which is implementing loathed policies that do not act in the interests of your electorate.  Examples are Universal Credit and the bedroom tax.  Where is the Northern Irish support for arms sales to Saudi Arabia and responsibility for the UK’s role in the humanitarian disaster in the Yemen?

Does it serve the people of Northern Ireland for your party to prop up a Government which promotes an uncaring agenda?

Particular problems for your party relate to trust and to credibility. 

The handling of UK taxpayers money in projects like the Social Investment Scheme and in the Renewable Heating Initiative do not inspire public confidence in your party's administration and prudence with public funding. 

Trust may be a factor motivating business sector to endorse the PM's pragmatism rather than your party's adversarial line.

You are king-makers at Westminster advocating a divorce from the EU; at the same time you share "accountability” (if not “responsibility") for the paralysis of devolution domestically, almost like another divorce due to irreconcilable differences.  Negative behaviour disenchants electors. 

Unthinkable thoughts about dire consequences re-emerging from a hard border have been voiced in the former scenario; with the prospect of an unviable political unit emerging from the latter’s continuance.  Neither will win votes, together they present massive dangers.

One positive at least is that your team takes its Parliamentary seats, even if it is not advocating the Northern Ireland mandate on Brexit.

Much is made of the inconsistency in your party's protestations on regulatory alignment with the UK. 

Apart from its denial of social legislation enjoyed by our kith and kin in the rest of these islands, there is also the example of European citizenship.  Ireland is processing many applications to welcome eligible British citizens with EU passports issued in Dublin (one of your party colleagues being a supporter of this facility). 

Although your party is determined to achieve its goal of taking Northern Ireland (and Scotland) out of the EU against our express will, you cannot and will not deny us our cherished European citizenship and rights. 

This constituency is pleased to have a woman representative in Westminster.  As the party’s only female MP, you are in a unique position of beneficial influence.  Being the biggest party in Northern Ireland you have a special responsibility to represent the best interests of your constituents.  As a party whose very name heralds its credentials, the clue being in its first titular adjective, its actions cannot be allowed to belie that function.

I worry when politicians appear to ignore their electorate, when they disregard evidence without alternative data or analysis, and when they lack care and caution in public discourse. 

Should the Democratic Unionists vote en bloc for a divorce from Europe that produces detrimental outcomes for Northern Ireland and our islands, you will not easily be forgiven.

I beg you to reflect on the express will of your electors as your personal guide about how to vote next week and in all consequent Brexit matters.

Within ninety minutes, this prompt and friendly response landed in my inbox.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email and for your detailed arguments in relation to the issue of Brexit. 

I understand the concern about the current position the UK finds itself in.  I can assure you, members from all parties across the House of Commons and across the UK are concerned about the Withdrawal Agreement and believe it to be a bad deal for the UK.

There are a number of specific issues, in particular around the proposed backstop.  I do not believe the backstop is necessary.  Indeed, I believe this issue could have been resolved by including a firm commitment from both the UK and the EU not to have a hard border.  This commitment could be in the treaty and therefore becomes a legally enforceable.  This would put the onus on both parties to find ways to ensure the border has not need to be a hard border.

As the backstop is at the moment, unlike the current position with the EU, there would be no legal way the UK could remove itself from it.  I do not see any reason why the EU would accept any other proposals to go into the substantive final agreement on trade when they have this one in their back pocket.  Why would they? 

On the broader issue of why that is important – the UK is the 5^th largest economy in the world.  NI makes up just 3% of that.  Severing NI from the UK in economic terms, fracturing the UK single market is economic lunacy.  The entire UK economy is driven from the South East of England (and although we will of course want to pull our weight and grow our economy, realistically the UK economy will always be driven from the South East of England and the City of London).  This driver supports us when times are good, and provides a buffer in the difficult times.  If we are separated from that then what is our economic future?  Do you seriously think the ROI will be on the global stage trying to ensure our economy strives and we get jobs and investment? Of course not, and understandably so as they will be seeking jobs and investment for the Republic of Ireland as is their duty. 

The arguments for Brexit were simple – the UK wanted to make its own laws, strike its own trade deals, control its own borders and did not share the “ever closer union” agenda of the leadership of the European Union.  Those things remain worthy, but of course the EU will make life as difficult as possible (they would do as they don’t want other countries to leave…).  There were some good things about the EU of course, I could see that – but the reality is that the EU had the opportunity to address British concerns when David Cameron asked them to but they over-negotiated and refused to address those concerns.  I honestly believe if they had given David Cameron something he could have sold to show the issues were being addressed then the referendum would have went a different way (the irony is, of course, that the EU is now having to reform due to Brexit and concerns about anyone else leaving).

It is also worth pointing out that all of the UK’s growth trading markets were outside of the EU.  The Eurozone is tottering on the brink of another crisis, and they know it.  All of this does not make for a healthy EU future in the short to medium term (never mind issues of the rise of the right across the EU). 

Lastly,  I believe I am representing my constituents to the best of my ability by trying to ensure a good and sensible deal as we Brexit, this Withdrawal Agreement is appalling and must be rejected.  That is a view shared by leavers and remainers across the house.  However, it is also worth pointing out that if all MPs voted the way their constituency voted then this would mean an overwhelming majority for leave in the house (70% of conservative seats voted leave, 60% of Labour seats and the majority of DUP seats).  This would not progress an agenda of “remain” very far.

All of these issues are challenging.  I appreciate the time you took to communicate your views to me.  Please do be assured I will do all I can to get the best possible deal for all in NI.

Kind Regards,

Emma Little Pengelly MP

At this point, the constituent is content to have had concerns recorded and welcomes the polite and firm acknowledgement.   

Whereas issues remain, it would be inappropriate to react to the elected Member’s reply here and now; there may be another occasion to respond.

©Michael McSorley 2018