Let Britain Decide

As we at the Adjournment pointed out in a previous article about the membership of Britain in the European Union, the British people have not had a say on what is a very dominant political force in our everyday lives in the last 40 years.

It does not matter whether you are strongly opposed to the idea of the European Union or whether you are in favour of further integration, the point is that it is time to bring the debate to the country and give the people a voice regarding the future ofthe United Kingdom.

The Member of Parliament for Stockton South, James Wharton MP, topped the private member's bill ballot earlier this year and is bringing the referendum bill before Parliament.

The Adjournment supports the great effort by James Wharton to finally bring this bill forward before the next general election, but we recognise there is a long way to go from here.

As the Prime Minister pointed out last week in the House of Commons, there appears to be confusion from the opposition benches regarding this issue with some members of the Shadow Cabinet apparently expressing the need for a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Those many weeks ago when Ed Milliband stood up in the Commons to respond to the Prime Minister, stating that the Labour Party does not support a referendum in a bid to expose the 'deep Tory divides' on the issue of Europe has backfired incredibly, because the British people want to have that say.

You can get behind the campaign to deliver that referendum promise before the next election by visiting;  www.LetBritainDecide.com

You can find details of how to get involved and how to get in touch with your local MP.

So what are we waiting for? Let us bring the debate to the British people today for a better tomorrow.

        

Prime Minister's Questions: 5 June 2013

Speaker Bercow: Migrant Worker Controversy

Another day, another controversial comment from the Speaker household, although this time not from the outspoken Sally Bercow whose obessession with not endorsing the traditional image of the speakers wife, in her view, landed her in hot water as she accused Lord McAlpine of being involved in sexual abuse via Twitter.

Mr Bercow was elected Speaker in 2009.

The Speaker, John Bercow, has caused uproar as he suggested that migrant workers from Eastern Europe make better worker than British people, claiming that migrant workers have more 'aptitude and commitment'.
Although many would agree with Mr. Bercow that the influx of migrants from the European Union has been a great advantage to the United Kingdom, many will also find that the comments of John Bercow to be totally unfounded and out of touch, for those Britons who roll up the blinds everyday and go to work, where they aim to provide for their families, they will feel undermined by the Speaker.

The issue with these controversial comments is that they come from a political figure who is supposed to be politically neutral, and Mr Bercow has clearly broken the boundaries to comment on matters of policy. The UKIP leader Nigel Farage told the Daily Politics show that Mr. Bercow was a disgrace to the office of Speaker.

Speaking whilst on an official visit to Romania, the Speaker stated that as a friend of Romania, he could see the benefits of immigration in the United Kingdom, but to suggest that the migrants are better workers than the natives of these islands is an outrage, I am sure Mr Bercow would object to the notion of an Eastern European taking his place as Speaker of the House of Commons.
It seems somewhat doubtful as to whether Mr. Bercow will issue an apology for his comments.

Say Sleaze: The Return of the Lobbying scandal?

This week, we have observed the return of the one word which stigmatises the whole basis of the confidence of British voters in the politicians in Westminster, 'Sleaze.'
Over the years, we have seen the big political stories such as cash for honours and cash for questions which has ruined the reputations of politicians from a number of political parties.

It has been revealed, by undercover reporters from the Sunday Times, that three members of the House of Lords were prepared to raise questions in Parli
ament in return for cash from companies, in this case, a South Korean energy firm.

MP's & Peers are allowed to speak on behalf of lobbyists.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with big companies attempting to get close to politicians, the representatives of big industries have an interest in lobbying politicians on issues such as changes to the law, for example, which would see the companies of which the lobbyists are a part, succeed further and grow. This is a perfect example of the operation of democracy because people, whether they are individuals or members of a company have the rights to push those in office or those with influence on the big issues which affect them or their businesses.

The problem in this case, is that the three politicians which have been named by the Sunday Times apparently showed them offering to host functions in the House of Lords, as well as lobby Ministers in return for money.
This is strictly forbidden by rules which are regulated by the Parliamentary Code of Conduct and states that politiciians cannot receive payment as a result of the positions they take on behalf of the lobbyists.


All three Peers deny breaking the rules.

The Ulster Unionist peer, Lord Laird and the two Labour Peers, Lord MacKenzie and Lord Cunningham have referred themselves to the House of Lords Comissioner for standards. Whilst an investigation is being carried out, the Labour Party has rightly taken swift action and suspended both of their Peers, and Lord Laird has resigned the Ulster Unionist whip.
It remains to be seen whether the three Peers will be subject to further action as an investigation is being carried out into the conduct which has appeared to have been carried out in the video recordings of the Sunday Times, but it must be re stated by the Prime Minister and all other party leaders that this kind of self-interest demonstrated by members of all political parties, will not be tolerated and swift disciplinary action will be taken against any MP or member of the House of Lords who seeks to make a profit out of raising an issue within Parliament.

As with any story of potential of misconduct in Westminster, there are those who call for a change in the rules to ensure that this kind of behaviour cannot happen again. The Adjournment does not support any change in the rules, to call for such a change is merely reactionary, to make it seem like something is being done to prevent this kind of behaviour. Both the House of Lords Code of Conduct and the MP's Code of Conduct make it clear that members are not permitted to accept payment for raising question in Parliament, so why is there a need to change the rules? This call for change indicates that there is an ever growing obsession to fix what is not broken. There will always be people in Parliament who will seek to bend the rules, but when they are caught then they face the consequences.