I’ve quit as shadow minister over article 50 to follow the true will of my people

‘How could I possibly vote in favour of triggering article 50, when so many of my constituents still don’t have guarantees that their | residential rights will be protected after Brexit?’

Sleepless nights, cold sweats, recurring nightmares. No, not pregnancy this time – it’s the emotional turmoil that has accompanied so many votes in the House of Commons. Maybe I was naive. Before being elected as an MP, I knew there would be difficult decisions to make – policy compromises or funding trade-offs with no way of satisfying everyone. But I hadn’t realised how emotional it would be.

Without exception, every time I vote, I do it with my local constituents in mind. From finding solutions to cases of local destitution, to voting on matters of national security, not a day goes by when I forget the faces of the local people who sent me to Westminster. The upcoming vote to trigger article 50 has brought that responsibility into sharp focus.
I did not want to choose between my frontbench responsibilities and the upcoming vote, but the enforcement of a three-line whip by the Labour leadership meant the decision was taken out of my hands. My time as Labour’s spokesperson for early years education has been inspiring. I’ve fought against the government’s woeful underfunding of the sector and the risk of closure for hundreds of nurseries. And I’ve worked to expose the government’s amateurish preparations for expanding the free childcare entitlement and how it will result in it reaching fewer than half the families who will need it.
It is not a role I want to give up. But I simply will not trigger article 50 when the government “plan” defies both the stated preferences of those who elected me to my seat in parliament, and my best understanding of their interests. As I made clear in my resignation letter, I do not represent Westminster in Hampstead and Kilburn, I represent Hampstead and Kilburn in Westminster. And in doing so, I cannot escape the fact that leaving the European Union presents enormous uncertainty for my constituents.
How could I possibly vote in favour, when so many of my constituents still don’t have guarantees that their residential rights will be protected after Brexit? Similarly, with serious questions over our future security arrangements, how could I, as an MP for a London constituency, seriously consider voting for a process that could undermine counter-terrorism efforts?
Nor does the proposed bill provide any guarantee of full single market access, which is integral to so many livelihoods. So, as their MP, in no good conscience could I vote to leave the European Union with such important issues still up in the air.
I will look carefully at amendments brought to the debate, consider them in their own right, and work constructively in the house to mitigate my concerns and those of my constituents. I support Keir Starmer, the shadow minister for Brexit, and my Labour colleagues, and know they are seeking to ensure the government gets the best deal for Britain throughout this process.
I also acknowledge that this is one of the most complex constitutional questions this country has ever faced. It has divided families, streets and constituencies along new lines in British politics – and many of my colleagues have constituencies that are far more divided than my own. I can well imagine how hard their decisions must be.
It is unfortunate, but hardly surprising these days, that my decision has led to a wave of online abuse. That said, it does amaze me that the decision of an MP to represent the will of her constituents is met with disgust from those who have been so adamant that our country and our politicians should “take back control” and reflect “the will of the people”. The majority in my constituency who voted for remain far exceeded the national majority for leave. And even that national majority might have looked quite different had our current hard Brexit not been so firmly denied by prominent leave campaigners during the referendum campaign.
In resigning my frontbench role and fighting Theresa May’s hard Brexit from the back benches, I believe I am truly reflecting the will of the people – my people.

The writer is the a British Labour Party MP for Hampstead and Kilburn 

The Guardian

Ive quit as shadow minister over article 50 to follow the true will of my people

How could I possibly vote in favour of triggering article 50, when so many of my constituents still dont have guarantees that their | residential rights will be protected after Brexit?

Sleepless nights, cold sweats, recurring nightmares. No, not pregnancy this time its the emotional turmoil that has accompanied so many votes in the House of Commons. Maybe I was naive. Before being elected as an MP, I knew there would be difficult decisions to make policy compromises or funding trade-offs with no way of satisfying everyone. But I hadnt realised how emotional it would be. Without exception, every time I vote, I do it with my local constituents in mind. From finding solutions to cases of local destitution, to voting on matters of national security, not a day goes by when I forget the faces of the local people who sent me to Westminster. The upcoming vote to trigger article 50 has brought that responsibility into sharp focus. I did not want to choose between my frontbench responsibilities and the upcoming vote, but the enforcement of a three-line whip by the Labour leadership meant the decision was taken out of my hands. My time as Labours spokesperson for early years education has been inspiring. Ive fought against the governments woeful underfunding of the sector and the risk of closure for hundreds of nurseries. And Ive worked to expose the governments amateurish preparations for expanding the free childcare entitlement and how it will result in it reaching fewer than half the families who will need it. It is not a role I want to give up. But I simply will not trigger article 50 when the government plan defies both the stated preferences of those who elected me to my seat in parliament, and my best understanding of their interests. As I made clear in my resignation letter, I do not represent Westminster in Hampstead and Kilburn, I represent Hampstead and Kilburn in Westminster. And in doing so, I cannot escape the fact that leaving the European Union presents enormous uncertainty for my constituents. How could I possibly vote in favour, when so many of my constituents still dont have guarantees that their residential rights will be protected after Brexit? Similarly, with serious questions over our future security arrangements, how could I, as an MP for a London constituency, seriously consider voting for a process that could undermine counter-terrorism efforts? Nor does the proposed bill provide any guarantee of full single market access, which is integral to so many livelihoods. So, as their MP, in no good conscience could I vote to leave the European Union with such important issues still up in the air. I will look carefully at amendments brought to the debate, consider them in their own right, and work constructively in the house to mitigate my concerns and those of my constituents. I support Keir Starmer, the shadow minister for Brexit, and my Labour colleagues, and know they are seeking to ensure the government gets the best deal for Britain throughout this process. I also acknowledge that this is one of the most complex constitutional questions this country has ever faced. It has divided families, streets and constituencies along new lines in British politics and many of my colleagues have constituencies that are far more divided than my own. I can well imagine how hard their decisions must be. It is unfortunate, but hardly surprising these days, that my decision has led to a wave of online abuse. That said, it does amaze me that the decision of an MP to represent the will of her constituents is met with disgust from those who have been so adamant that our country and our politicians should take back control and reflect the will of the people. The majority in my constituency who voted for remain far exceeded the national majority for leave. And even that national majority might have looked quite different had our current hard Brexit not been so firmly denied by prominent leave campaigners during the referendum campaign. In resigning my frontbench role and fighting Theresa Mays hard Brexit from the back benches, I believe I am truly reflecting the will of the people my people. The writer is the a British Labour Party MP for Hampstead and Kilburn The Guardian