Best for Britain - Do what is Best for Britain
Best for Britain's blog

5 Days to Ensure a Meaningful Vote on the Brexit Deal

We’re just days away from the most important point of the Withdrawal Bill Committee stages – 8 days of debate that are shaping the way the Government tackles the legal side of the Brexit process. And on Wednesday 13th December, it’s the turn of the vitally important Amendment 7 to take the floor.

You’re here reading this, so we hope you’re interested and ready to take action in what could be the biggest week in Brexit so far.

Quickly, first, have you signed our Lucky7 petition already? If not you can do that here.

If you’ve already done this, then why not:

1. Call your MP? Ask them to: uphold Parliamentary sovereignty, take back control and support Amendment 7 to Clause 9 of the EU Withdrawal Bill. You can find your MP’s contact information here.

2. Write a letter to your local paper? 17% of people get all or almost all of their news from local news sources! Today I have written to local papers across the country. Here is what I’ve said for some inspiration:

Dear Sir/Madam,
When people voted in the EU referendum last year, little was known about what a future deal with the European Union would look like. 16 months on, it is now very unlikely that any deal will be able to provide the same easy terms of trade and commerce with our most prosperous neighbour.

This is why I believe Joe Bloggs, as Anytown’s MP, should have a meaningful vote on the deal struck with the EU and why everyone in the country should also then be entitled to a Vote on the Deal.

I urge you therefore, by December 13th, to add your name to this amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill.

* Amendment 7: ensures that Parliament has a vote on the Deal. This is an amendment tabled by your colleague Conservative MP Dominic Grieve. It has cross-party support. The referendum was about ‘taking back control’ and giving it to Parliament. This amendment does just that.

People in Anytown are asking you to trust them.

Yours sincerely,
Eloise Todd
CEO Best for Britain

3. Take the campaign to the streets in your local area. We’ve done a great print-ready, A5, flyer template that you can use. Download the pdf here!

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Brexit Reports – The Revenge

Last month, we started our #BREXITREPORTS campaign in support of a group of over 120 cross-party MPs who had joined forces in calling for the release of the 58 long-awaited Brexit economic impact studies, promised by DExEU.

A trending hashtag, thousands of tweets, and almost 10,000 messages to MPs was the direct result of your backing. Thank you.

But, what’s been the impact in terms of real world results?

Well the pressure paid off, with an additional 54 MPs (see the list here) adding their voices to the demands that Parliament get to know what these Brexit Reports contained. And that, at the very least, the Select Committee for Exiting the EU get full view of all the analysis produced.

This demand for Government transparency received a big boost when it gained Shadow Cabinet backing, with Labour’s Keir Starmer taking up the charge. A riveting Commons debate and binding resolution followed – requiring the Government to produce the reports, or risk being held in contempt of Parliament (read the transcript here).

The Department for Exiting the EU’s repeated failure to produce the documents (despite issuing public statements that listed the industry sectors they covered, as well as announcing that the Prime Minister had read Summary Briefs of them) led to yet more backing for the movement, this time with Conservative MPs also pushing for publication.

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg–thanks to his deep love of parliamentary procedure and history–became an unlikely ally.

David Davis, and his extensive team, were then given a seven-day deadline by Speaker of the House John Bercow, to handover the reports described by their creators as ‘being in excruciating detail’, or explain why they could not.

The response was baffling. Suddenly the sector reports weren’t reports at all, merely a collection of information that the department would need ‘more time’ to transform into an acceptable format for handover.

Rumours that these documents (originally due for completion in February 2017) didn’t actually exist, suddenly seemed to have some grounds in reality. DExEU asked Hilary Benn and his Select Committee for more time, and were charitably granted it. They were given a new deadline – 3 weeks, or suffer the consequences.

This brings us to Tuesday 28th November. 850 pages of analysis were finally handed-over to the Commons Select Committee for Exiting the EU, as well as The Lords Committee, and representatives of the devolved parliaments. Barely two ring-binders full. MPs were astounded. Keir Starmer tabled an urgent question in Parliament to find out where the rest of the information was, and why it hadn’t been included in the dossier.

The Speaker had, after all, been explicit in his instructions that all materials should be handed over to the Select Committee, and they should be the ones to make the decisions as to what ‘sensitive materials’, if any, should be withheld.

Again, David Davis was nowhere to be seen, leaving Department Minister, Robin Walker to once more be the de facto spokesperson for Government evasion. Their reply was that the Select Committee had failed to ‘give assurances’ about how the so-called ‘commercially sensitive’ material would be handled. The Speaker incredulously asked ‘what assurances had been sought, and when?’

Unable to provide an answer, DExEU Minister Walker was instructed that David Davis (his boss) needed to present himself before the committee and provide whatever materials they requested, as a matter of urgency.

Bercow’s exact words were, “When it is suggested that that meeting should be soon, it means soon; it does not mean weeks hence. It means very soon indeed. Nothing–no commitment, no other diarised engagement–is more important than respecting the House, and in this case, the Committee of the House that has ownership of this matter”.

The Government is now only a single mis-step from being held in contempt of Parliament, which (according to Wikipedia) would have the following result:

‘MPs accused of Contempt of Parliament may be suspended or expelled.[17] They may also be committed to the clock tower of the Palace of Westminster,[17] although this practice has not been used since Charles Bradlaugh was detained in 1880.’

I know a few people who might be in favour of bringing that last option back, chief among them the MPs whose open letter (and persistence) kicked all this off – Seema Malhotra and David Lammy.

We’ll let them have the final word (for now). We’re sure there’s still plenty more drama to come in the saga of the #BREXITREPORTS.

See the full thread from @DavidLammy here –

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

It’s Far From Over: Article 50 Architect Lord Kerr Lays Out The Legal Case for No Brexit

With Mrs May’s Government falling over itself to provide the next moment of ineptitude and national shame, they’ve been astonishingly together when it comes to delivering their PR line of ‘Brexit is a done deal’.

It’s been enough to drive cross-bench peer, respected statesman and lawmaker, Lord John Kerr, into speaking out to clarify a few points and counteract this ‘misrepresentation of the law’. And he did it in front of the UK’s biggest press organisations.

As one of the creators of Article 50, he wanted it noted that he does know exactly what he’s talking about, and he wanted the public to know why the Government has got it wrong. The how, when they’ve apparently already received legal advice stating exactly that, is a question we’d like answered.

In the meantime, you can get super-informed by reading the full-text of Lord Kerr’s speech below. Then, TAKE ACTION by backing our #LUCKY7 campaign in support of of the ‘meaningful vote’ bill amendment here –


The full text of Lord Kerr’s speech:

“Article 50 emerged 15 years ago, in a Convention of 200 Parliamentarians from all the countries who then were members of, or were then negotiating to join, the EU. I was their Secretary-General.


“One of their concerns was to demonstrate that the Union was a voluntary partnership of sovereign nation-states, based on treaties between states, not the incipient super-state of Eurosceptic nightmares. Including an Article setting out a procedure for orderly divorce was one of several ways of underlining the voluntary nature of the Union. Though we called our product a Constitutional treaty I can’t recall anyone suggesting adding any “We, the People…” claim to a legitimacy going over the heads of elected national governments.


“Nor do I remember any serious opposition to the idea, enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty in what became Article 50, that nation-states were entitled to change their minds, and leave if they so choose. Equally I’m certain no-one dreamed that in 2017 a member state would trigger the procedure, as Mrs. May did on 29 March.


“Now that we’re in the procedure, it’s important to understand it; and I am concerned that some aspects of the Article seem to me rather inadequately reflected, or indeed misinterpreted, in our current public debate.


“I want to highlight 4 points.


“First, while we’re in, we’re in. While the divorce talks proceed, the parties are still married. Reconciliation is still possible. The Article requires the parties to negotiate the “arrangements” for our withdrawal; but we are not required to withdraw just because Mrs. May sent her letter. We can change our minds at any stage during the process.


“Second, however, there is a time-limit. To reassure a member-state wishing to leave that it could not be trapped in endless fruitless negotiation, the Article is clear that after 2 years, one is out. But the time-limit can be extended if all parties consent: this could become important.


“Third, Article 50 is only about divorce. Any Agreement about future relationships, e.g. on trade, between us and the 27 would be negotiated under other Articles, with different voting rules; and could only be concluded after we had left; and, unlike an Art 50 Agreement, would probably require ratification in every member-state, which in some countries would require referendums.


“Fourth, once we’re out, we’re out. The Article is clear that there can be no keeping a back-door key. If, once we’d left, we were to change our mind, and want to go back in, we would have to go through the full Accession procedure, like any other candidate-country. That would entail paying a price.


“Taking these in turn…


“First, and crucially, as required by the Treaty, Mrs. May’s letter was only a notification of the UK’s “intention” to withdraw. Intentions can change. We still have all the rights of a member-state, including the right to change our minds and our votes, as member-states frequently do, for example after elections. The Article is about voluntary withdrawal, not about expulsion: we don’t have to go if at any stage, within the two years, we decide we don’t want to.


“The clause that says that “once we’re out, we’re out” says just that, and only that. If we had wanted declaring an intention to go to be the Rubicon moment, if we had wanted a notification letter to be irrevocable, we would have drafted the clause to say so. But we didn’t, and the clause doesn’t. So, the die is not cast irretrievably. The letter can be taken back.


“That has subsequently been confirmed by formidable legal experts. Let me cite just two. Jean-Claude Piris, Legal Counsel to the Council in my Convention days, is clear that “even after triggering Article 50, and notifying the EU of its intention to leave, there is no legal obstacle to the UK changing its mind.” Sir David Edward, UK Judge in the ECJ when the Article was drafted, says the same.


“The Government give the impression that the Rubicon has been crossed, but they currently refuse to publish their Law Officers’ Opinion: I think we know why. They have been careful not to say that we could not take back Mrs. May’s letter. During the Miller case, and at the Despatch Box in both Houses, Government spokesmen have consistently said only that “as a matter of firm policy “, we won’t take it back. That formula in itself confirms that we could take it back.


“The fact is that a political decision has been made, in this country, to maintain that there can be no going back. Actually, the country still has a free choice about whether to proceed. As new facts emerge, people are entitled to take a different view. And there’s nothing in Article 50 to stop them. I think the British people have the right to know this – they should not be misled.


“Supposing we were to exercise our right to withdraw Mrs. May’s letter, how would leaders across the Channel react? We know from what they have said: they would applaud. Let me cite a couple of Presidents…


“If the UK wanted to stay, everybody would be in favour. I would be very happy.”

That’s Antonio Tajani, President of the European Parliament.

“It is in fact up to London how this will end: with a good deal, no deal, or no Brexit.”

That’s Donald Tusk, President of the European Council.


“Or take the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar … “The door remains open for the UK to stay in the EU.” Yes. It does.

And President Macron has said the same.


“Most EU leaders think Brexit would be a disaster, worst for us, but bad for all. Most believe that, in a world of Trump and Putin, of Daesh and Islamic State, of Asian competition, of climate change and migration misery, Europe should stick together and work together. They of course recognise that we have every right to take a different view, but they hope that in the end we won’t. They value our contribution to the Union’s vitality, remembering with respect how Mrs. Thatcher fought to create the Single Market, and John Major and Tony Blair insisted, when the Wall came down, that we must bring in the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe.


“They often find us difficult partners, annoyingly pragmatic and practical. But they now find us puzzlingly dogmatic and doctrinaire on Brexit. If we were to change our minds, Putin and Trump would be disappointed, but our near neighbours, and our true friends across the Atlantic and in the Commonwealth, would cheer. I think the country should know that.


“My second concern is less fundamental, but I am uneasy that the country isn’t being told much about the possibility of taking more time.


“I don’t know why Mrs. May was in such a rush to send her letter in March, before her Cabinet had an agreed plan. It was odd to start the clock and not start negotiating, instead calling an Election. And I don’t know why both Government and Opposition now seem to discount the possibility of our seeking an extension. Predicting how the 27 would react to such a request is harder than predicting how they would react to our withdrawing the letter, and if anyone refused there would be no extension. I believe much would depend on our perceived motive. If we were seen as simply wanting to take a deadlocked financial negotiation into Extra Time, I doubt if we could be sure of the necessary unanimous consent.


“But if, for example, we were to need time for Parliament to consider a final deal, an Election, and/or to pass the legislation needed for a referendum giving the people the final say on this process, to check that the country, having seen the facts emerge during the negotiation process, still wanted to Leave, I do not see any of 27 democracies denying us the chance to consult the people. They would think we had every right to check that the country, by then aware of the facts, still wanted to Leave.  How the people should be consulted at the end of this negotiation process is an issue for the politicians not me, but the country is entitled to know that different options are open to it.


“My third concern is over confusion about “transitions”, “implementation periods”, “standstills”, and cliff-edges.


“I believe it was unwise of the 27 to insist on “sufficient progress” on money before turning to the future relationship. I think they were wrong to be misled by suggestions here that they could “go whistle”, and that we might refuse to honour our commitments: I’m sure we never would. And it would of course be self-defeating: lengthy arbitration or court proceedings about unpaid bills would severely complicate full WTO accession. I believe that there should now be parallel tracks, one looking back, on settling debts, one looking forward, on future partnership plans, everything on the understanding that nothing can be finally agreed on either until all is agreed on both. I hope that will now happen.


“But I am puzzled by UK suggestions that a fully comprehensive agreement about the future can be completed and initialed by this time next year. EU trade agreements with third countries come under Article 218, not Article 50. They take time, and Association agreements take longer. And getting widely-drawn agreements ratified can be tricky: the Canadian negotiations have taken 7 years, and I hope that a UK/EU agreement would go wider, extending beyond Goods into Services. And ratifying widely-drawn agreements can be problematic: the Canadian deal got stuck in the Wallonian parliament.


“But we, the Article 50 drafters, had thought of the timing problem: hence the stipulation in the Article that the divorce settlement must be drawn up “taking account of the framework for the future relationship with the Union.” When will we at last put forward a draft framework, a “Heads of Agreement ” text, the basis for an agreed outline, or set of principles, which would guide the subsequent detailed sectoral negotiations? And why do we insist that the ball is in the EU court? Having service is usually seen as conferring an advantage. The best time to submit our ideas for the framework might have been before starting the 2-year clock. But better late than never.


“And do we really envisage that by next October we shall have not only initialed a permanent agreement, but will have also, subsequently, reached agreement on a transitional regime to get us from here to there, so avoiding the cliff-edge in 2019? This seems no less puzzling. Since we won’t have a clear picture of the detail of future permanent arrangements, I don’t see how we could build a bridge to them. Without some framework, we risk having nothing to “transition” to, nothing to “implement”.


“In her Florence speech Mrs. May seemed to acknowledge this, and floated instead the idea of a standstill, for some two years, during which we would, after Leaving, continue to apply all EU rules and regulations. The 27 have in fact offered that from the start: their April Guidelines say that ” should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require all existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary, and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.” In Florence, it sounded as if Mrs. May might buy all that, for two or three years. But subsequent statements by Mr. Johnson, Dr. Fox and Mr. Gove suggest that they don’t.


“But the key point about such a standstill is that it doesn’t avoid the cliff-edge; It merely postpones it for a couple of years. That wouldn’t provide the certainty business so badly needs. And whether it’s called Transition, Implementation or Standstill, it would follow our Leaving. Once we’re out, say in March 2019, we’re out, with no votes, no judge, no commissioner, no MEPs, and no way back, other than an Accession negotiation, starting from scratch. Again, I think the country needs to know that.


“My last point can be briefly put.  I think the country should also be aware of one big difference between, on the one hand, negotiating for accession, and, on the other, drawing back from secession: in the former, there’s a price to pay; in the latter, there isn’t.


“If we were eventually to apply to re-join the EU, it might be rather difficult to persuade 27, or by then maybe more, member-states, many of them less wealthy, in per capita terms, than us, that we should have a budget rebate. Mrs. Thatcher secured it from inside, after quite a fight, and it isn’t universally popular. To sell the idea again, from outside, would not be possible.


“Conversely, while we’re in, we’re in; and there would be no price to pay if we were to decide to stay in.  The rebate is part of a legal text known as the Own Resources Decision, which can be amended only if all member-states agree. While we remain a member-state, we would not agree to drop the Rebate. and since we are entitled to remain a member-state, we could not be forced to do so.


“My conclusions are simple.


“The national debate about Brexit should take account of the facts that:


  1. our Article 50 letter could be withdrawn without cost or difficulty, legal or political;
  2. a standstill agreement is no panacea;
  3. once out, there is no easy way back in, and there would be a price to pay;
  4. but while still in, the option of stopping the clock, in order to consult the people again, is available.


“All four facts will still be relevant when Parliament next autumn gets the chance, as it must, to assess the outcome of the negotiations.”

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

The Brexit Reports: What Happened on Wednesday

The Wednesday that was. ‘Remember, remember the 1st November’ might be the new chant for Remain campaigners, on the back of a significant debate and unopposed vote that took place in the House of Commons yesterday.

Sir Keir Starmer, KCB, QC and Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, tabled an Opposition Day Motion that came right out of the Jacob Rees-Mogg playbook (i.e. one written a few hundred years ago), that even seemed to earn the respect of that ‘Right Honourable Gentleman’ for North East Somerset.

Sir Keir took the floor and tabled that a ‘humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty’s Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union’. (You can read more here –

What this means is that HRH, The Queen, will now be asked to instruct the Government to release the Brexit Reports – exactly what we’ve been fighting for with our Let There Be Light campaign. Thanks to the support of Conservative MPs in the House during the debate – among them Anna Soubry, Dr Sarah Wollaston and Jacob Rees-Mogg – and that of MPs (and members of the public) who’ve backed our campaign and David Lammy and Seema Malhotra’s open letter, the motion was passed unopposed by the Government, making even a vote unnecessary in the end.

You can read the full debate transcript here (it’s a doozie!) –

The Government now have 12 weeks to act, with Chris Heaton-Harris MP, being responsible for bringing the humble Address to royal attention.

So what’s this mean? Well, hopefully this will result in the Brexit Reports being released in some form to the Select Committee for leaving the EU, chaired by Hillary Ben MP. Or maybe to all Select Committee Chairs. This release might involve redactions. It might just be the Summary Outcomes that the Prime Minister has apparently reviewed.

Whatever the Government response, there’s still a way to go, and we still need the backing of the public and of as many MPs as possible to keep up the pressure and ensure the country knows what our impending post-Brexit future looks like and exactly what it will cost.

So, if you haven’t already, please check out our list of MPs backing the call for the reports to be released here – #BREXITREPORTS

And a huge thank you to those who’ve supported the campaign already. You really have made a difference. Here’s to more success to follow!

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Campaign Trainings Launch Across The Country

It’s official – we’re taking our local campaign training on the road! Following our first event in London last month (over 150 people attended), we’ll be hosting nine events across the country in November and December (with even more coming in 2018!).

Our “barnstorm” training events are about practical steps you can take to make a difference. They are hands-on, interactive sessions driven by two key principles:

1. We must get out of the echo chamber and persuasively talk about a No Brexit option to expand our supporter base.

2. Our efforts have to go from mass rallies to direct action, to build the base  and apply constant pressure on MPs to sustain change.

Don’t worry – if we’re not in your area before new year, our goal is to get within 75 miles of almost every person in the UK in 2018!

Please join our experienced Field Campaigns Director who has worked on elections both in the UK and the USA and our growing field campaigns team for an interesting, fast-paced and exciting evening.

RSVP using the links below:

November 14th – Bridgend

November 15th – Bristol

November 21 – Portsmouth

November 22 – Southampton

November 28 – Richmond

November 29 – Barnet

December 4 – Norwich

December 5 – Doncaster

December 14 – Vauxhall

RSVP soon as places are limited!

Note: If we’re not yet coming to your area but you’d like us to, secure 50 people and a venue and we’ll aim to host a special event where you are!

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Remain, Leave and the General Election: A Little More Insight

In case you missed it, last week we published a report we commissioned to investigate the voting behaviour of Leave and Remain voters. It yielded some pretty interesting results!

‘A constituency by constituency analysis suggests that, while a significant number of leave voters appear to have switched to the Conservatives, many remain voters supported the party in their constituency most likely to beat the Conservatives (mostly Labour).’

You can read all about it in this 2-page summary, which highlights the key findings. GE2017 Post-EU-Referendum Tactical Voting Report 2-pager

And because (almost) everything is better with a picture, here’s a handy infographic.

Brexit and the 2017 General Election

Or in you’re a fan of crunching the numbers, you can find the analysis in full (and more) here – Best For Britain Tactical Voting Report.

Download the full size infographic here.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

#StopTheWitchHunt. Stand up for academic freedom

Britain’s universities are a great success story. But now they’re under threat from the Brexit bullies – from extremist Brexiteers to the Daily Mail – and freedom of speech in our country is under threat again.

It’s time to stand up to the Brexit bullies and for everyone who values academic freedom to #StopTheWitchHunt – sign our petition here!

The UK’s universities earn billions for us in foreign exchange, deliver excellent education and make a world-leading contribution to research and development in countless fields.

Like much else they were already under threat from the economic impact of Brexit – potentially losing access to the EU’s research funding and discouraging the brightest and best from Europe and beyond to teach and study in the UK.

But what’s happening now goes beyond Brexit, and is about our ability as individuals, as academic institutions, to speak up for different points of view without being tracked or bullied by government. This attempt to suppress academic freedom has echoes of dark periods in history – and we don’t want the UK to go down that route.

Universities must be free to teach their curriculum and not have to run it by the most extreme anti-Brexiteers. It’s now time to #StopTheWitchHunt.

It started with a letter from Chris Heaton-Harris MP – a minister of the crown and number three in the government whip’s office – on official House of Commons stationery, asking for universities to report who was teaching European studies and to outline their syllabus.

That letter provoked outrage – as well as fear – and while the government has tried to brush off the controversy and thus far no action has been to rein him in.

But that letter was only the start. Now the real attack dogs of Brexit have joined in – with the Daily Mail attacking academic freedom on their front page and launching a dedicated email address on which non-compliant academics can be reported and – no doubt – lined up for future attack.

It’s time to stand up to the Brexit bullies and for everyone who values academic freedom to #StopTheWitchHunt.

That is why we are asking everyone to sign our petition to #StopTheWitchHunt and to write to their MP to demand they support academic freedom.

Sign our #StopTheWitchHunt petition now.

Show the Brexit bullies you won’t be intimidated.

Fight back for that greatest of British values – the right to freedom of speech, freedom of thought and the pursuit of truth over dogma.


Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

The Research Is In: Tactical Voting Works

The Conservatives cannot win an election by relying solely on supporters of Brexit, while Labour could get closer to its goal of majority government if it does more to peel off anti-Brexit voters who are still backing the Tories: these are two of the key conclusions of a new report we published on 24 October 2017.

The report – from independent data scientist Dr Abigail Lebrecht – shows that the Conservatives were successful in appealing for the votes of previous UKIP supporters and other leave voters but that was not enough to deliver victory in the face of a grassroots revolt by tactical voting supporters of remain.

Dr Lebrecht states that the evidence shows “the Conservatives cannot win on a leave only platform” and “we can say with some confidence that the grassroots anti-Brexit tactical vote denied Theresa May her majority.”

Her work shows that the Conservative’s vote rose in proportion to support for leave in each constituency but also fell in proportion to remain voters. Labour’s vote rose in proportion to the remain vote, but there was no clear relationship with leave votes.

In 2017, The Tories went for ‘peak Brexit’ and yet lost their majority – strongly suggesting that they cannot win by travelling further in that direction. Labour said little about Brexit during the campaign but were big beneficiaries of grassroots-organised tactical voting campaigns – including that organised by Best for Britain. B4B’s ‘tactical voting dashboard’ was visited over one million times during the course of the campaign – particularly in marginal constituencies.

Eloise Todd, CEO of Best for Britain, added:  “We did not issue a blanket call for Labour votes, but we did back Labour in many of the key marginals where Dr Lebrecht’s work suggests the outcome was determined by tactical, anti-Brexit, voting – such as Bristol North West and Kensington.

“We also endorsed Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru candidates in seats in which they were most likely to win and advised supporters where the Conservative candidate was likely oppose an extreme Brexit.

“The electorate has understood the power of their vote, the remain vote swung the 2017 election and both main parties will need to attract more of that floating vote if they want to get ahead and break the UK’s Brexit stalemate.”

To stay up-to-date on all of Best for Britain’s work don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

UPDATED: Let There Be Light – Our Call for the Release of The Brexit Impact Reports

Best for Britain are calling for the release of the Brexit Reports with our Let There Be Light campaign.

Over the last fortnight, over 170 MPs have come out in support of the call for the release of these long overdue sector-by-sector impact studies of the likely effects of Brexit, in its various forms, on the UK economy.

The ball was set rolling by an open letter from David Lammy and Seema Malhotra, which gained the backing of more than 120 Members of Parliament as well as MEP Molly Scott Cato, and House of Lords members Lord Cashman, and Lord Peter Hain.

Our campaign efforts have since gained the backing of 50 additional cross-party MPs, who believe these reports need to be published as was promised by David Davis and his Department for Exiting the EU back in February.

We applaud their call for transparency regarding the biggest economic and political shift our country has ever faced, and hope more MPs will come on board in the days to come.

If you don’t see your MP’s name in our list, please back us by contacting them through our campaign page here – Let There Be Light.

If they have already shown their support, please share with friends and family in other constituencies, and on Social Media with the hashtags #BrexitReports and #LetThereBeLight

See the list of backers (as it currently stands) on our new dedicated website here –

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

The Best of The Brexit Bits From the Tory Party Conference

Well, what a conference that was! They say a day is a long time in politics, and this four day spell of Mancunian-magic proved the old adage all too true. (We feel Mrs May would heartily agree!)

We’ve trawled the news, views and memes from Manchester to bring you the best bits of Brexit: The Tory Party Conference Edition.


Boris Johnson
Boris does his best impersonation of a Loyal Government Minister…

“Theresa May won. She won more votes than any party leader and took this party to its highest share of the vote in the last 25 years and the whole country owes her a debt for her steadfastness in taking the country forward as she will to a great Brexit deal. Based on that Florence speech on whose every syllable, I can tell you the whole Cabinet is united.”

Did anyone else have to look up ‘murrain’? If only the Foreign Secretary’s job was expanding the nation’s vocabulary, rather than international affairs and diplomacy…

“It is time to stop treating the referendum result as though it were a plague of boils or a murrain on our cattle or an inexplicable aberration by 17.4 m people. It is time to be bold, and to seize the opportunities and there is no country better placed than Britain.”

Our premiere business and political paper should apparently be more ‘Tiggerish’…

“Every day a distinguished pink newspaper manages to make Eeyore look positively exuberant, and across the world the impression is being given that this country is not up to it; that we are going to bottle out of Brexit and end up in some dingy ante-room of the EU, pathetically waiting for the scraps but no longer in control of the menu.”

Michael Gove
When you’d rather just make things up, because it’s too tricky to listen with your fingers stuck in your ears…

“When Tony Blair or Vince Cable tell us that the referendum decision to leave the EU must be overturned, that the votes of 17.4 million people should be disregarded, that we should exit from Brexit and stay in the European Union – then I feel it’s time to stand up for something precious, something special to us all, something that defines us a nation. Democracy.”

Now where have I heard this intro before?…

“We’re leaving. We’re taking back control. We’re going to make a success of life outside the European Union. And nowhere are the possibilities for progress greater than with the environment.”

Brexit – it’s the only way to save the planet. “Paris Agreement? Never heard of it!”…

“And leaving the European Union gives us the chance to secure a special prize – a Green Brexit.”

Clearly the EU is sneakily destroying the planet, and Gove’s been the only one smart enough to notice…

“But now we are leaving – and taking back control – there are so many ways in which we can enhance our environment. Take the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy – it has been economically and environmentally disastrous. Lack of control over our own waters has gone hand in hand with drastic overfishing and the depletion of a wonderful, renewable, natural resource. Outside the EU we can do so much better.”


Liam Fox
Nay, nay I say… that’s really not how job markets work…

“Because the naysayers got it wrong – and doesn’t it annoy you when people preface any piece of good news with the phrase “despite Brexit”. Well, doesn’t it? So let’s just have a reality check. We have the highest number of people in employment ever, “despite Brexit”.

Last year we had the highest inward investment to the UK ever, creating over 75,000 new jobs and safeguarding over 32,000 others, “despite Brexit”. We have new cars being built in Sunderland and Cowley, amongst the highest economic growth rates in the developed world, an 11% rise in exports and the best order books for British manufacturers in 22 years.

No, not despite Brexit but because of the sound economic management of a Conservative government under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Theresa May and Chancellor, Phillip Hammond.”

This is where he finally clues in that Brexit hasn’t actually happened yet…

“We will leave the European Union, and with it, the Single Market and the Customs Union, at the end of March 2019. We are now making the preparations for that to happen.”

Where he admits we want exactly what we have now…

“Second, we have to translate into UK law, the trade agreements that the EU has, with other countries, and to which we are a party.

There are around 40 such EU free trade agreements and we have been working to ensure that we continue our trading advantages with important markets, such as Switzerland and South Korea, avoiding any disruption at the point we leave the EU”

Having your cake and eating it too, instantly pops to mind…

“Of course, as we look globally, we must continue to recognise the hugely important market for the UK that the EU provides. That is why the Prime Minister and David Davis have consistently said that we want to see a full and comprehensive agreement with the EU, retaining an open and free trading area across the European continent.”

David Davis
The only people I’ve heard telling him to get a move on are the EU…

“When we met last year in the shadow of the Referendum emotions were still raw. A year later, there is a new mood.

People want to look to the future.

They are fed up that people in Westminster seem to be stuck in an endless debate while the rest of the world wants to get a move on.”

His idea of polling the electorate leaves a little to be desired…

“Over a year later I still get people coming up to me every day saying: ‘best of luck’ or ‘get a good deal for us Mr Davis’, and even, ‘Surely it can’t be that difficult?’

And that’s just the Cabinet.”

I’m pretty sure he’d find they were leave voters if he asked…

“People – not leave voters, or remain voters any more – just ordinary decent people, enthusiastically come up to me and wish me well on our shared project.

They know it’s not going to be easy or straightforward.”

Okay, he might actually have a fair point with this one…

“Now, I would be happy to work with the Labour Party in the national interest, putting aside our differences for the good of the country.

But they have been playing a different game.

They’ve now published 11 separate Brexit plans and they are to paraphrase Tolstoy, each unhappy in its own unique way.

For the customs union…then against it

For the single market…then against it

For freedom of movement…then against it

Where we have introduced a Repeal Bill to take control of our laws and provide legal certainty…

They opposed it and offered no alternative.

Where we set out our negotiating positions and got the process started…

They opposed it and offered no alternative.

Where we have set out a plan for life outside the EU…with free trade and a strong economy…

They opposed it and offered no alternative.

They claim they respect the outcome of the Referendum…..but oppose every step required to deliver it.”

Theresa May
When an argument against Labour turns into a resounding endorsement of the EU’s basic principals…

“That idea of free and open markets, operating under the right rules and regulations, is precious to us. ‘It’s the means by which we generate our prosperity as a nation, and improve the living standards of all our people. ‘It has helped to cement Britain’s influence as a force for good in the world. ‘It has underpinned the rules-based international system that helped rebuild post-war Europe and the world beyond.”

“It has inspired 70 years of prosperity, raising living standards for hundreds of millions of people right across the globe. So don’t try and tell me that free markets are no longer fit for purpose. That somehow they’re holding people back.”

Theresa ‘I’m a leaver now, really’ May…

“Together, quite simply, we are stronger. So we must unite the country around our Conservative vision of a global, prosperous Britain in which the British Dream is alive.”

And finally, because a picture’s worth a thousand words (and we’ve had enough of those already). Here’s our favourite from the Guardian.

Senior Tories at End of PM's Conference Speech

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn