EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

In case anyone is interested, this is what I just sent to my MP.

Dear MP

I'm contacting you to urge you to take two actions in the aftermath of the EU referendum. The first is to seek to ensure that the rights of EU immigrants currently living in the UK are protected. Not only should the rights of these people be protected because of the strength, vibrancy and diversity that they bring to our communities, but also as a matter of principle. Having come to the UK with the reasonable expectation of finding a life-long home for themselves and their families, their futures should not be used as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, but protected as a soon as possible for the sake of our communities and because it is the right thing to do.

The second action I urge you to take is to campaign and vote against triggering Article 50 and our exit from the EU for the forseeable future. Those of us who campaigned and voted against leaving the EU are not required to now endorse that decision simply because of popular opinion. Indeed, if we thought it was a bad idea before the referendum, it would be morally deficient of us to remain silent after the referendum. As the parliamentary representative for your constituents, who voted 3:1 to remain in the EU, I hope you will continue to represent their views and interests to those who are planning the future of our country.

Please note that I am not suggesting that the views of the 51.9% who voted to Leave the EU should be ignored. A close result in either direction would have given the government a strong mandate to negotiate for reform of the EU. The calls for referenda in other EU countries reveal a wider discontent with the EU that, if and when these referenda are held, would provide multilateral support for substantial EU reform.

Although this course of action may not be popular among MPs I hope you will consider it for the following reasons:

1. The majority in the referendum was relatively small. This qualifies a lot of the further reasons laid out below. If the majority had been large (>2/3, for example) then there would be a stronger argument that we should simply muddle through the following issues as best we can; however a majority of less than 4% does not constitute a strong enough mandate to proceed in the face of other factors.
   
2. The campaigns, especially the Leave campaign, were riddled with factual inaccuracies from which key Leave campaigners retreated almost instantly apparently in the knowledge that they were incorrect.
   
3. A large number of those who voted Leave apparently now regret their decision.
   
4. The Leave campaign presented two fundamentally opposing views: the first was a vision of Britain unchained with less regulation and more open to globalisation; the second is a protectionist model of Britain isolated in order to reduce immigration. The incompatibility of these stances means that there is no possible model for Brexit that satisfies all or even most of those who voted Leave i.e., there is no mandate for any specific course of action.
   
5. The impact on the British economy has already been ruinous. Additionally there are already examples of the impact on science in the UK, an area in which we truly lead the world, as cooperation and co-funding with researchers in the EU becomes less certain.
   
6. The current negotiating stance of the EU means that very little can be established before Article 50 is triggered, leading to yet further instability.
   
7. The process of renegotiation is completely uncharted and will take years and countless worker-hours that could be dedicated to more worthwhile things.
   
8. A decision to commit to our continuing membership of the EU is not binding in perpetuity. An elected government with a manifesto commitment to leave the EU or a further referendum with a larger majority would provide a clear mandate to do so.
   
   

Yours sincerely,

A. Constituent