The important vote that took place last Wednesday in the House of Commons involved all 16 Sussex MPs. Four of them voted to ensure that there would be an Act of Parliament before Brexit proceeds and twelve opposed this. Thankfully the national vote reversed the Sussex result. The fact that Vote Leave which claimed its purpose was to return sovereignty to the British Parliament opposed this amendment is very strange but it is even more disturbing that 75% of our MPs have followed this anti-democratic line. All Sussex residents have a right to know why a mere quarter of their MPs voted to give sovereignty to Parliament and the rest opposed this, despite being well paid Members. There is a powerful case for attempting to unite the nation following the divisive referendum of June 2016, amendment seven was surely a good place to start. I oppose our departure, but believe if we are to leave, that all MPs must have a say and a vote, my friends at work who wanted us to leave also believe that any departure needs to done in accountable manner because in part, that is why they oppose our membership of the EU. What is now needed is a clear explanation from the Twelve MPs who voted against amendment seven as to why they chose to reject Parliamentary Sovereignty and deny their constituents representation in such a process. It is perhaps understandable that a Government wants the freedom to do things quickly and on the hoof, avoiding scrutiny, but it is Parliaments role to demand a more accountable and considered approach than the Government wishes for. Throughout the six hour debate on the amendment only two Sussex MPs chose to speak or were able to do so. Caroline Lucas explained how damaging the actions of David Davis had been on the lives of ordinary people as he kept on changing his public statements and approaches. Nicholas Soames, grandson of Winston Churchill responded to a Labour MP with the simple sarcastic statement “Oh yeah right!”

Over many months since the referendum Theresa May and David Davis intimated and even promised in public that they would give Parliament a vote on our departure. When amendment seven demanding a proper Parliamentary Act was tabled Theresa May spent time with her MPs reinforcing the promise to give them a vote. The problem with such promises is that if they were honoured, they could nevertheless end up with a rushed vote literally minutes after the agreement was made to which very little scrutiny would apply. A formal Act of Parliament will give MPs time if they can be bothered to do so to listen to their constituents, which is another level of the promised return of sovereignty in the Vote Leave bag of goodies.

In any event promises on Brexit have so far proven to be very slippery. As the Government prepared for negotiations and prepared to issue Article 50, they promised to listen to the public. Indeed they told their colleagues this was taking place. Lord Brooks stated in October 2016 in the House of Lords “earlier today we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that he is running around the country attending meetings. I understand that many departments, Ministers and officials are holding meetings on Brexit around the country. The noble Baroness could state to the House that the Government are prepared to publish a running report on what meetings are taking place on Brexit, who is involved and what are their subjects” Sadly no such meetings took place in Sussex as far as I or any of my friends are aware. This makes an even stronger case for our Sussex MPs to support amendment seven. David Davis made a series of statements regarding the 58 assessments of our departure that had been made by the Government prior to the negotiations. Then he admitted that no such assessments had been made. However he claimed that an 850 page impact analysis document was created to assist the Brexit team. Then he conceded he and Theresa May had not read any of it, but it was made available to MPs to read in a secure room. Up until the 12^th December a total of 40 MPs and Peers had bothered to look at the document, one of them, claimed it was no more comprehensive than Wikipedia and another that it was probably not made public because it was so lightweight. It is not yet known if any of these 40 MPs and Peers include any of the 16 Sussex MPs, perhaps now we can call on the rest of them to speak up and say a bit more than “Oh yeah right!”