McCartney selected as the candidate for Lincoln, his former constituency

The former MP for the city will now seek to unseat the Labour incumbent.

Congratulations to Karl McCartney, who was selected last night as the Conservative candidate for Lincoln.

The former MP for the city, from 2010-2017, was reselected through an unusual process. The local Conservative Association opted for a fast-track process – agreed with CCHQ – designed to give priority to those MPs who lost their seats at the last election. That meant that association members met yesterday to cast a yes/no vote on whether to select McCartney.

It wasn’t a unanimous vote, in the end – I gather some of those in the room, including at least one councillor, gave the ex-MP a tough time in the Q&A.

Brexit featured prominently in the discussion, as you would imagine. A source tells me that McCartney described the Prime Minister’s deal as a bad deal, and said that he preferred a No Deal outcome – the candidate himself says that is “accurate” but that his view is “a tad more nuanced”.

Following the speech, questions and debate, he was reselected, and will therefore now seek to overturn Karen Lee’s 1,538 vote majority at the next election.

“Dear Donald…” – May’s letter requesting a Brexit extension to the end of June

“However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.”

This is the full text of the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council.

Dear Donald,

The UK Government’s policy remains to leave the European Union in an orderly manner on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed in November, complemented by the Joint Instrument and supplement to the Political Declaration President Juncker and I agreed on 11 March.

You will be aware that before the House of Commons rejected the deal for a second time on 12 March, I warned in a speech in Grimsby that the consequences of failing to endorse the deal were unpredictable and potentially deeply unpalatable. The House of Commons did not vote in favour of the deal. The following day it voted against leaving the EU without a negotiated deal. The day after that it supported a Government motion that proposed a short extension to the Article 50 period if the House supported a meaningful vote before this week’s European Council. The motion also made clear that if this had not happened, a longer extension would oblige the UK to call elections to the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be in either of our interests for the UK to hold European Parliament elections.

I had intended to bring the vote back to the House of Commons this week. The Speaker of the House of Commons said on Monday that in order for a further meaningful vote to be brought back to the House of Commons, the agreement would have to be ”fundamentally different-not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. Some Members of Parliament have interpreted that this means a further change to the deal. This position has made it impossible in practice to call a further vote in advance of the European Council. However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.

In advance of that vote, I would be grateful if the European Council could therefore approve the supplementary documents that President Juncker and I agreed in Strasbourg, putting the Government in a position to bring these agreements to the House and confirming the changes to the Government’s proposition to Parliament. I also intend to bring forward further domestic proposals that confirm my previous commitments to protect our internal market, given the concerns expressed about the backstop. On this basis, and in the light of the outcome of the European Council, I intend to put forward a motion as soon as possible under section 13 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 and make the argument for the orderly withdrawal and strong future partnership the UK economy, its citizens’ security and the continent’s future, demands.

If the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law. While we will consult with the Opposition in the usual way to plan the passage of the Bill as quickly and smoothly as possible, the timetable for this is inevitably uncertain at this stage. I am therefore writing to inform the European Council that the UK is seeking an extension to the Article 50 period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, until 30 June 2019.
I would be grateful for the opportunity to set out this position to our colleagues on Thursday.

Yours ever,

Theresa May

Anthony Speaight: Six reasons why we are now less likely to be trapped in the backstop

Whilst it remains the case that the Protocol could conceivably remain in force indefinitely, that scenario has become more theoretical than it was previously.

Anthony Speaight QC is Chairman of Research for the Society of Conservative Lawyers.

To some UK eyes, what was so unattractive about the Northern Ireland Protocol, as originally agreed, was that it could appear to envisage that, whatever the future trading relationship between the EU and Britain, the permanent future of Northern Ireland was in both a single market and customs union with the EU.

The status of the UK was dealt with separately from that of Northern Ireland in Articles 6(1) and 6(2) respectively. Article 1(3) stated that the arrangements of the Protocol were “necessary”, rather than merely desirable, and that such necessity related not only to the avoidance of a hard border, but also inter alia to the conditions for North-South cooperation and the protection of the Belfast Agreement “in all its dimensions”.

Bearing in mind that the EU had not been a party to the Belfast Agreement, and that that Agreement contains no prohibition of customs posts or the like at the border, this created the impression in some that the UK was now agreeing to the EU undertaking a new role almost as guarantor of Ireland’s interests. It was such features, as much as the absence of a unilateral right of withdrawal or end date, which contributed to the concern that the EU or Ireland or both had no real interest in seeking technological or other solutions to avoid a hard border, and that the UK was acquiescing in the consequence of Northern Ireland being permanently in a seamless trading relationship with Ireland.

The joint drafts issued on 11 March went a long way to remove those concerns by six features:-

  • The recital to the Joint Instrument identifies only the absence of a hard border as the required characteristic of the arrangements which would replace the backstop. This weakens the impact of the vague aims of Article 1(3), and, therefore, the scope for the EU or Ireland at a future date to assert that the Protocol is about anything wider than the avoidance of a hard border.
  • Paragraph 5 of the Joint Instrument strengthens the impression of temporariness of the Protocol by introducing a new date, namely a year from the date of UK’s withdrawal, for the conclusion of negotiations of a replacement. If the Withdrawal Agreement is now ratified, that will be considerably earlier than the date mentioned in the Protocol, namely 31 December 2020.
  • Not only is the target date for the conclusions of replacement negotiations thus advanced, but it ceases to coincide with the end date of the implementation period. This emphasises that the agreement of the replacement need not be contingent on the agreement of the future trading relationship. That is significant, and must seriously diminish the scope for the EU or Ireland to claim at a future date that the Protocol envisaged Northern Ireland permanently remaining in a single market and customs union with the EU.
  • The Joint Instrument makes specific mention of study of technological measures for avoiding a hard border. Paragraph 7 commits the parties to the study of inter alia technologies. This is the approach which the UK has been advocating all along. The EU’s response to date has created the concern that it would never look seriously at technologies. There had been no mention of border technologies in the original Withdrawal Agreement or Protocol and it will now be impossible for the EU to escape from detailed study of such.
  • A further feature of reassurance to the UK is that such study of technologies is stated in paragraph 6 of the Joint Political Statement to cover not only existing but also “emerging” technologies meaning the EU will no longer be able to bat back this topic with the refrain that no adequate technology is yet in use anywhere in the world.
  • The Joint Instrument in paragraph 10 explicitly recognises that a replacement arrangement will not be “required to replicate its provisions in any respect”. That must finally knock on the head the scope for the EU or Ireland in future to claim that the Protocol always envisaged Northern Ireland permanently remaining in a single market and customs union with the EU.

Therefore, whilst it remains the case that the Protocol could conceivably remain in force indefinitely, that scenario has become more theoretical than it was previously. In practice, that scenario will arise only if intensive work with a genuine focus on the possibilities of every kind of technology, including those which are not yet in force anywhere in the world, fails to demonstrate a way to avoid a hard border.

Although the EU may be regarded as adept at finding legal technicalities of assistance to its political objectives, it remains a mature and responsible player in the realm of international agreements. The EU would be unlikely to countenance the reputational damage of being seen to resile from its commitments in the six features identified above.

Final three candidates shortlisted for Birmingham Northfield

Two councillors and an experienced teacher will contest the final on Thursday.

Amid all the national news, the selection of Parliamentary candidates continues to rumble on.

Next to select, at an Association meeting this Thursday, is Birmingham Northfield. Richard Burden gained the seat for Labour in 1992 and has held it for the ensuing 27 years, currently with a majority of 4,667 votes.

The three candidates who have made it through to the final selection meeting are:

Cllr Tim Mayer. A Coventry City Councillor, for Westwood ward, Mayer works in sports sales and marketing and is Deputy Chairman of the Heartlands Conservative Association. In 2017 he was the Conservative candidate in Coventry North East. He sits on the Board of Coventry Refugee and Migrant Centre, and is a former board member of Age UK Birmingham.

Jonathan Gullis. A teacher and Head of Year at a Birmingham secondary school, Gullis is Secretary for the Conservative Education Society and has served as a union representative for the NASUWT for the last three years. At the 2017 General Election he contested the constituency of Washington and Sunderland West, and he currently serves as Deputy Chairman of Stratford-on-Avon Conservative Association. He has written on education policy for ConservativeHome.

Cllr Gary Sambrook. A Birmingham City Councillor, he gained the Kingstanding ward for the Conservatives for the first time since the 1960s back in 2014. He serves as Shadow Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods in the Conservative council group. Formerly a Campaign Manager for the Conservative Party, since 2015 he has worked as a Parliamentary Assistant to James Morris MP.

Why – resentfully – I would vote for the Prime Minister’s deal

Like it or not, the choice has shifted away from ‘Deal or No Deal’ towards ‘Deal or No Brexit’. It’s better to fight against a bad deal outside the EU than to Remain.

This article was originally published in today’s edition of the i paper.

I deeply dislike Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement. It doesn’t fulfil her promises, it doesn’t maximise the opportunities of Brexit, and it doesn’t fully free our country from the undemocratic EU. On her own terms, it is a bad deal.

But we have reached a point at which MPs ought to vote for it. The value of the proposal has not improved – no legalese figleaf or empty verbal assurance makes it any better. Rather, the alternative to it has changed.

The negotiating logic that No Deal is better than a bad deal still stands. I would support a No Deal Brexit if one was on offer, as we were promised. But it no longer is.

Exit without a deal on 29 March remains the legal default. The rules and conventions of our democracy – as well as May’s very clear promise – should make that almost impossible to change. But politicians accustomed to getting their way have decided to get what they want at any cost.

The Speaker disgraces his office by ignoring his responsibility to be impartial. The House of Lords overreaches its constitutional role to meddle in the purpose of legislation. Cabinet ministers abandon collective responsibility. All these are outrageous offences: powerful people prioritising their desires above the rules and reputation of our democracy.

But while it is disgraceful, it has still happened. Despite the severe cost to Parliament, enough politicians have behaved dishonourably that they are about to get what they want. The choice facing us – for now, at least – has changed from “deal or no deal” to “deal or no Brexit”.

All the high-minded principles they cited – accountability, compromise, deeper scrutiny of the terms of exit – were a lie in the service of Remain. The latest falsehood is that a delay without a deal is simply time to work on the details. It isn’t, it’s a deliberate effort to try to obstruct the very possibility of fulfilling the referendum result.

That presents Eurosceptics with a choice – the same choice we faced through four decades of campaigning for democratic self-government. We can be pure, regardless of circumstance, and lose, hoping to warm ourselves in defeat with the cold comfort that we went down fighting. Or we can be pragmatic, take what limited victory is available, and fight on for the eventual goal.

The temptation to go out in a self-indulgent blaze of glory is strong. But this is a test of principle. Is our cause truly about escaping the EU, as we say, or is it about imagining a heroic myth about ourselves? Do we want to win, or spend our lives moaning about how we could have won?

I wish we were leaving the EU properly and promptly. I wish politicians kept their promises. But we must deal with what is real.

Though I would like to be able to hang up my sword, 13 years after co-founding the Better Off Out campaign with the support of just one MP, that evidently will not be allowed. Forced to choose between fighting to get us out of a bad deal, but from outside the EU, or restarting the 40-year battle to leave from scratch, I opt for the former.

After the shameful performance of so many MPs, I expect that if we stay in they will do stop at nothing to lock us in forever. The cost – economic and democratic – would be vast.

Some people will be aggrieved by my choice. I feel that way about having to make it. Eurosceptics should exact a price for being forced into such a corner.

Those who made this happen – the Prime Minister, as well as those Cabinet ministers and MPs who promised one thing then did another – should be turfed out. The Speakership should be given to someone who values it. Eurosceptics must harshly scrutinise our own errors which allowed us to be outmanoeuvred.

And the campaign to escape the deal should begin on day one.

Clark’s association passes pro-Brexit motion opposing a delay beyond the European elections

Despite obvious points of disagreement, the AGM remained a “civilised and constructive” affair in which the Business Secretary sought to reassure his activists.

The latest addition to our rolling list of Conservative Associations passing pro-Brexit motions is a particularly notable one: Tunbridge Wells.

News of grassroots Conservative members supporting a prompt and proper exit from the EU might not in itself be surprising, but the timing and context of this particular AGM is worth considering. The meeting took place on Friday. Two days earlier, the local MP, Greg Clark, had defied a three-line whip by abstaining on the No Deal motion. The prospect of a delay to Brexit was thereby opened up, effectively with Clark’s tacit assistance.

It was against that background that Graham Riddick – himself a former Conservative MP, and the Chairman of the Association Patron’s Club, the local network of donors – proposed a tweaked version of the motion previously passed by the Nation Conservative Convention:

‘The Association supports the commitments that the Prime Minister has made to the country to honour the European Union referendum result of 2016 and resolves that we will leave the European Union on 29 March 2019 or, failing that, by no later than the date of the 2019 European elections. Another referendum, a delay beyond the European elections, taking “no deal” off the table or not leaving at all would betray the 2016 People’s Vote, would prolong a very damaging period of uncertainty and damage democracy and our party for a generation.’

Riddick is described as a “serious person” within the association, and I’m told his “forceful” speech in favour of the motion was met with loud applause, following which the motion was passed. That in itself was an implicit rebuke to the Business Secretary, given that he had failed in the very same week to oppose taking No Deal off the table.

In that circumstance, Clark can have been in no doubt about the view of his activists and donors – although it’s important to note that the tone of the meeting remained “civilised and constructive” throughout.

In his remarks to the assembled members at the end of the debate, I’m told that he sought to reassure them on various aspects of Brexit. In particular, I gather he agreed that Parliament must not seek to withdraw the Article 50 notice, and that there must not be a second referendum, an idea he apparently described as a “disaster”.

There’s some disagreement, however, about his position on the question of a delay to Brexit. At least some of those in the room got the impression that he opposed postponing Brexit beyond the point of the European elections, which would imply reverting to No Deal if the Withdrawal Agreement had not passed by that point – something they found reassuring. But the Business Secretary tells me that he is still of the view that No Deal would be “disastrous”, and that his message to the AGM was not that there could not be a delay beyond the Euros, rather that “it would be desirable to conclude [Brexit] not just before the European but before the council elections”, and therefore that it should be concluded by then by the medium of agreeing a deal. That’s a very different position.

That may be a bit concerning to local activists who had hoped, in the words of one, to pre-empt any effort by their MP “to go more soppy on us” at a later date by further delays or dilutions of Brexit. No Deal, Clark tells me, could not be “taken off the table” because it is the default in law – but it is still not an outcome he would find acceptable.

There is a wider insight offered by this story. It’s notable that while I’m told “a minority” in the Tunbridge Wells association are trying to put together a No Confidence motion in Clark, they are meeting with limited success because “Greg is liked by most of the membership”. Instead of a rush to deselect or no confidence him, there is this motion addressing the policy, and a dialogue between MP and association about the former’s views and intentions. There are obvious differences and disagreements here, but they are handled – in this case, at least – through open discussion and with mutual respect, rather than the trench warfare that is sometimes claimed.

That’s a stark contrast to the breakdown in relations seen between Nick Boles and the association in Grantham and Stamford. If the Andrew Cooper theory that Boles’s troubles are an inevitable product of the dominance of “extremist” party members was true, then we would see the same outcome here. But we do not.

As it is, even the people voting for the Brexit motion on Friday in Tunbridge Wells feel that “we do all like Greg, and apart from this issue he is an excellent MP and top chap”, and so it hasn’t blown up further. As I wrote back in January, goodwill – or the lack of it – plays a huge part.

This Parliamentary farce reveals how much our political class has been infantilised

I expected a Leave victory to be a profound shock and challenge to politicians. They have struggled to adapt even more than I anticipated.

I expected a Leave victory to come as a severe shock, and a fundamental psychological as well as political challenge, to many people in Westminster. The prospect of millions of voters bluntly intruding on an echo chamber, to overturn what some had assumed to be a permanent consensus so obviously correct that it was mad to even question it, was never going to be easy.

So I never thought that accepting the outcome, adapting to it, implementing it and then moving beyond it would be simple or brief, particularly for the MPs who would have to actually put it into practice. It would produce grief, and rage, and at worst those emotions would be made flesh in abuse targeted at voters and attempts to obstruct Brexit. Even at best, we would still have to go through a discomforting period in which we discovered the degree to which the Parliamentary establishment had been infantilised by years of giving away Westminster’s powers.

Even I did not anticipate the severity of the problems which a Leave vote would expose, however. Just look at the state Parliament is in.

A Speaker who ignores the conventions of the House when it suits him, then refuses arbitrarily to table amendments he dislikes. Ministers who disobey three-line whips, but expect to retain office. A Secretary of State summing up in favour of a motion, then voting against it. A Prime Minister who promises the House and the nation something more than 50 times then proposes the opposite. A Commons that votes to trigger a timed and definite Article 50 process, then spends much of the period in question bemoaning the possibility of its own decision coming to pass. A House of Lords which disregards its constitutional limits to prioritise its own desires. Politicians who vote to hold a referendum, then pledge to honour its outcome, only to campaign ardently to run it all again – and who then won’t vote to do so when their own proposal comes before the Commons. The term “meaningful vote” being coined, then applied to votes which can be – and are – ignored and run repeatedly.

And that’s just the last few weeks. The wider picture of Parliamentary politics is little better. The Government’s mishandling of the EU negotiations, the Opposition’s endlessly shifting view of what it supposedly wants to happen, radical independents striking out for more democracy while refusing to hold by-elections, Eurosceptics blundering from one strategic mis-step to another…

All the while, the citizens who combined to deliver the biggest vote for anything in our nation’s history are left wondering why it is so hard simply to keep a promise.

They might, as some have suggested, take their votes elsewhere, potentially even to troubling and extreme opportunists, but the real tragedy is that many may simply give up voting. It breaks my heart to think of the people on whose doors I knocked, who told me there was no point voting – that politicians would never listen, and would never allow the electorate to get what they wanted rather than what MPs believed they needed. I argued that voting counted in our country, that if enough people voted then Westminster would have to listen. And yet now, years later, many MPs are still doing their level best to avoid doing so, and others who at least want to keep their promises are nonetheless failing to get the job done.

The more desperately politicians thrash and kick, and twist and bend, in the desperate hope of getting what they want, and damn honour, voters or consequences, the more harm they do to the fabric and reputation of our democracy. Some cannot see that, which is bad enough, but some surely can and do not care, which is far worse.

The continuity Remain response to this, of course, is that we should cancel Brexit. That due to the damage threatened by their insistence that they must get what they want at all costs, they should…get what they want. How much easier, they argue, to simply creep back under the EU’s wing, where all these troubling questions and shameful shortfalls would never have to be considered again.

That isn’t a serious or viable answer. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, it simply allows them to fester out of sight. Anyone who saw the rise of anti-politics in the decade preceding the referendum, and then the outcome of the referendum result itself, should realise that stripping Westminster of responsibilities has deepened rather than banished popular dissatisfaction with sub-par Members of Parliament. The more you treat people – MPs included – like children, the more they will act childishly..

The Leave vote was the first true increase in responsibility for British Parliamentarians in at least 40 years. It has proved to be a bigger shock to their system than many people expected, and many of our politicians – and the structures around them – have struggled to adapt to it. I suspect that few people, beyond perhaps Dominic Cummings, had realised how far things had declined.

None of this amounts to a case against democratic self-government. If anything, it shows the consequences of releasing a political class from many of the demands and challenges of proper responsibility and accountability. If you started a diet and a workout regime, but found out you weighed more and were more out of shape than you had thought, that wouldn’t be a reason to give up – it would be a reason to knuckle down and work harder. If our politics is struggling to adapt, we must find out why, and set it right.

The 113 Conservative MPs who voted for May’s motion to extend Article 50

Gove and Davis followed the Prime Minister, but they were heavily outnumbered in the Parliamentary Conservative Party. The Chief Whip abstained.

Including tellers, 113 Conservative MPs voted for the Prime Minister’s motion to extend Article 50 and delay Brexit this evening – despite Theresa May promising an exit on 29th March more than 50 times. They were heavily outnumbered within their own Party: 190 Conservative MPs opposed extension, and in our survey over 77 per cent of Conservative members wanted MPs to vote against. The Chief Whip abstained, while Alun Cairns abstained by voting in both lobbies.

Here is the full list of those who backed May’s motion:

  • Bim Afolami
  • Peter Aldous
  • Edward Argar
  • Victoria Atkins
  • Richard Benyon
  • Paul Beresford
  • Nick Boles
  • Peter Bottomley
  • Andrew Bowie
  • Karen Bradley

 

  • Steve Brine
  • James Brokenshire
  • Robert Buckland
  • Alistair Burt
  • James Cartlidge
  • Alex Chalk
  • Greg Clark
  • Kenneth Clarke
  • Therese Coffey
  • Alberto Costa

 

  • Geoffrey Cox
  • Stephen Crabb
  • David Davis
  • Jonathan Djanogly
  • Oliver Dowden
  • David Duguid
  • Alan Duncan
  • Philip Dunne
  • Tobias Ellwood
  • Mark Field

 

  • Vicky Ford
  • Luzy Frazer
  • George Freeman
  • Mike Freer (teller)
  • Roger Gale
  • Mark Garnier
  • David Gauke
  • Nick Gibb
  • Cheryl Gillan
  • Robert Goodwill

 

  • Michael Gove
  • Luke Graham
  • Richard Graham
  • Bill Grant
  • Damian Green
  • Justine Greening
  • Dominic Grieve
  • Sam Gyimah
  • Philip Hammond
  • Stephen Hammond

 

  • Matt Hancock
  • Richard Harrington
  • Oliver Heald
  • Peter Heaton-Jones
  • Nick Herbert
  • Damian Hinds
  • Simon Hoare
  • George Hollingbery
  • Kevin Hollinrake
  • John Howell

 

  • Jeremy Hunt
  • Nick Hurd
  • Alister Jack (teller)
  • Margot James
  • Sajid Javid
  • Jo Johnson
  • Andrew Jones
  • Gillian Keegan
  • Seema Kennedy
  • Stephen Kerr

 

  • Mark Lancaster
  • Jeremy Lefroy
  • Oliver Letwin
  • Brandon Lewis
  • David Lidington
  • Paul Masterton
  • Theresa May
  • Patrick McLoughlin
  • Maria Miller
  • Anne Milton

 

  • Andrew Mitchell
  • Nicky Morgan
  • David Mundell
  • Bob Neill
  • Sarah Newton
  • Caroline Nokes
  • Neil Parish
  • Mark Pawsey
  • John Penrose
  • Claire Perry

 

  • Dan Poulter
  • Rebecca Pow
  • Victoria Prentis
  • Jeremy Quin
  • Amber Rudd
  • David Rutley
  • Antoinette Sandbach
  • Bob Seely
  • Alok Sharma
  • Alec Shelbrooke

 

  • Keith Simpson
  • Nicholas Soames
  • Caroline Spelman
  • John Stevenson
  • Rory Stewart
  • Gary Streeter
  • Mel Stride
  • Hugo Swire
  • Justin Tomlinson
  • David Tredinnick

 

  • Edward Vaizey
  • Robin Walker
  • Jeremy Wright

The six Labour MPs who voted against the Benn amendment

The amendment was seen off by 314-312, so the six votes from the Opposition benches made all the difference.

In the end, Hilary Benn’s amendment was seen off by a narrow margin – 314 to 312. In that mix were six Labour MPs who voted against it:

  • Kevin Barron
  • Ronnie Campbell
  • Caroline Flint
  • Kate Hoey
  • John Mann

 

  • Graham Stringer

The 24 Labour MPs who voted for a second referendum – and the 17 who voted against.

The Opposition, which instructed its MPs to abstain, split three ways on the question.

It’s a double-split again for Labour on the second referendum amendment today, with a total of 41 MPs rebelling against the instruction to abstain: 24 for the amendment and 17 against. One MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, registered an abstention by voting in both lobbies.

Here are those who voted for a second referendum:

  • Tonia Antoniazzi
  • Ann Clwyd
  • Neil Coyle
  • Stella Creasy
  • Janet Daby
  • Geraint Davies
  • Rosie Duffield
  • Paul Farrelly
  • John Grogan
  • Meg Hillier

 

  • Ged Killen
  • David Lammy
  • Siobhain McDonagh
  • Anna McMorrin
  • Ian Murray
  • Albert Owen
  • Tulip Siddiq
  • Owen Smith
  • Alex Sobel
  • Jo Stevens

 

  • Gareth Thomas
  • Catherine West
  • Martin Whitfield
  • Daniel Zeichner

And here are the 17 who voted against a second referendum:

 

  • Kevin Barron
  • Ronnie Campbell
  • Rosie Cooper
  • Caroline Flint
  • Yvonne Fovargue
  • Kate Hoey
  • Helen Jones
  • Kevan Jones
  • Emma Lewell-Buck
  • Justin Madders

 

  • John Mann
  • Stephanie Peacock
  • Ruth Smeeth
  • Gareth Snell
  • John Spellar
  • Graham Stringer
  • Derek Twigg