Constituent takes Thame’s MP to task over Brexit briefing

A THAME resident has written an open letter to Thame’s MP, John Howell, after the constituency’s Conservative representative in Parliament published his views on the current Brexit legislation currently going through Parliament. The letter reads:

“Dear Dr Howell,  I have just read your e-briefing on Brexit and your justification for voting against the meaningful vote amendment, and I am shocked by your disingenuous statements.

“You compare the lies of the Leave Campaign with those from the Remain campaign (which you describe using the Vote Leave spin as “Project Fear”). To Lie is to say something that you know to be untrue with the intent to mislead. Can you please identify the lies from the Remain Campaign – I have asked many Leave campaigners, and all they come up with are “emergency budget”, “I won’t resign” and similar. I am sure that you know where the lying came from during the campaign (“The EU takes £350m/wk”, “Turkey is joining the EU”, “EU Army” …), yet you claim equivalence.

“You equate the Electoral Commission fines for the Liberal Democrats and Open Britain for lack of detail in their returns with the fine for Leave.EU for deliberate and significant overspending. Details of the Leave.EU behaviour have been passed to the police for investigation of criminal behaviour. These findings from the Electoral Commission are clearly not equivalent, yet you pretend that they are.

“You claim to believe that Parliament already has “a meaningful vote” on Brexit, but you must be aware that a vote that has “the deal as negotiated” and “no deal” as outcomes, is clearly not “meaningful” in any real sense of the world.

“Most readers of your e-briefing will take you at your word, because you are their MP. Misleading your constituents in this way is not the sort of behaviour I expect from my MP.

Sincerely,
Roy Motteram   (Pictured taking part in the recent Thame Carnival procession)
Thame
(Full address details supplied)

NB You can read John Howell’s e-briefing by linking HERE 

NBB John Howell has since replied to Mr Mottram’s letter, accusing him of attacking his personal integrity. Here is JH’s response in full:

Dear Roy, Thank you for our email. But I am simply not going to accept your attack on my personal integrity.

In the last few days I have had correspondence with many constituents who have thanked me for the openness, honesty and thoughtfulness with which I have addressed the issue. Those correspondents have come from both sides of the argument and many have commented on the integrity I have shown. So, until I receive an apology from you I am not prepared to continue with our exchanges.

I claim equivalence of the lies on both sides of this argument and I have the evidence of how the Remain campaign has included and distorted what MPs have said in the literature they have provided.

I claim equivalence in the fines that have been received both by the Liberal-Democrats and Open Britain and with the Leave side. A fine from the Electoral Commission is a fine whatever the detail of the circumstances.

I do not accept your view of a ‘Meaningful vote’ but I accept your right to disagree with me.

I look forward to receiving your apology.

John

NBBB Mr Motteram’s reply to John Howell’s response:

Dear John, Thank-you for the rapid response.

Since you were part of the Remain campaign, you should have a good insight into any lies that were told as part of it. I would welcome you to share that insight, since I am not aware of any. Despite asking for evidence from any number of people who claimed that Remain lied, I have seen none. To imply that both sides lied, as you did means that either you know of such lies, or are attempting to mislead. Given examples of such lies, I would willingly apologise publicly.

“A fine is a fine” you say, and both sides are equally black is your implication. That is clearly not true. Neither the Liberal Democrats nor Open Britain were fined for exceeding their spending limit “by at least 10%”, nor did it find that for either of them that there were “reasonable grounds” that they “committed criminal offences”, unlike Leave.EU. The extent of wrongdoing – “disappointing” inadequate transparency vs significant unlawful overspend involving “potentially criminal offences” are clearly not equivalent, as your statement “Similar fining of the Leave campaign” implies. So on this point, an apology is not merited.

I look forward to hearing your examples of Remain Campaign lies & being able to issue a public apology to you.

Sincerely
Roy Motteram