We need a vote - People's Vote

Join the People's Vote March for the Future in Central London on Saturday 20th October:

Join the March

We need a vote

New facts have come to light about the costs and complexity of Brexit that no one could have known at the time of the referendum.

We know now that there will not be an extra £350 million a week for the NHS; that we will have to pay a £40 billion ‘divorce’ bill; and since the referendum Britain has gone from the fastest growing economy in the world to the slowest. The Government has already admitted that in all possible Brexit outcomes, the country will be worse off. People didn’t vote on these facts and it’s important that this decision is made with this new knowledge.

Promises made by politicians about Brexit, like more money for our NHS, are not going to be kept.

In fact, Brexit will leave our health service with less money and more staffing problems. The Brexit hat was promised is not the one that is going to be delivered. You should always check the bill  before signing. And the public have every right to demand a People’s Vote on the final Brexit deal.

The EU has changed since we voted to leave

New rules on mobile phone means we no longer face the same bills we once did when using our mobile phones abroad. The EU also agreed trade deals with both Japan and Canada and is about to start trade negotiations with both Australia and New Zealand. The Brexit that was promised is not the one that is going to be delivered. You should always check the bill before signing. And the public have every right to demand a People’s Vote on the final Brexit deal with this knowledge in mind. The Brexit process is a complete mess and the negotiations are going badly, which makes it more likely that we will get a bad deal. Theresa May’s Chequers Car Crash proposal for Brexit satisfies no-one and is rapidly losing whatever support it once had in Parliament. Two Cabinet ministers have quit over it and now, with Justine Greening coming out against it and backing a People’s Vote on the final Brexit deal, it is on life support and it is plain it cannot command the support of the Commons. It’s a, half-in, half-out plan for a hard Brexit that tries to satisfy everyone, but ends up satisfying no-one. It is the polar opposite of taking back control. Britain would be trapped and the whole thing looks less like a soft Brexit than a national humiliation. Not only would it fail to secure all the trade we have presently but it would severely compromise our ability to negotiate future trade agreements with other countries. More and more members of the public know the only way to sort this political mess out is to take back control of the process with a People’s Vote on a final Brexit deal.

It is important in the democratic process for the public to have the final say in the deal.

Far from being anti-democratic, we believe a vote on the deal would be entirely in keeping with the democratic tradition of proper Parliamentary and public scrutiny of the big decisions made by government. The 2016 referendum determined that Britain should negotiate the country’s departure from the EU and the People’s Vote campaign respects that decision. However, the terms on which we leave, and Britain’s future relationship with the EU, were never formulated or put to the public in the referendum and much more information and hard fact about this exists now than was available then. As the detail of the deal becomes clear, what would be anti-democratic would be to give the public no further say in decisions that will dictate the country’s future for decades to come.

It is important the public holds the Prime Minister to account for the deal she makes.

Theresa May has given an unequivocal undertaking that the negotiated deal she comes back with in the Autumn will be the real deal and which everyone can understand and take a position on and that it won’t be fudged. We take her at her word and therefore it should be straightforward for the public to understand and form a view on. Far from being anti-democratic, we believe a vote on the deal would be entirely in keeping with the democratic tradition of proper Parliamentary and public scrutiny of the big decisions made by government. As the detail of the deal becomes clear, what would be anti-democratic would be to give the public no further say in decisions that will dictate the country’s future for decades to come.