Thread by @EmporersNewC

Well this is interesting. If we must avoid hypocrisy then we should probably look at the debate to invoke Article 50 to consider what was actually said at the time.

order-order.com/2019/01/11/bri…

Edward Miliband voted for article 50, but stipulated "The Prime Minister’s apparent wish that our choice will be to accept her deal or face a hard Brexit on World Trade Organisation terms is quite wrong."

Yvette Cooper referenced some amendments on a meaningful vote, arguing "If this was about parliamentary sovereignty for all of us, let us have the strength and the confidence to use it."

Ian Murray argued that they must fight for "every single amendment so that the House sends a strong message—both to the Government and to our European partners—that we will make sure that the country gets the best deal for our constituents."

Nicky Morgan declared: "As colleagues have said, Parliament must be involved, not just at the start of this process, but throughout and particularly at the end."

Stephen Hammond suggested "If the deal needs the consent of the European Parliament, it should need the consent of this Parliament as well.", before noting, it gives the House a chance to show that they can come together, heal divisions and "find the best deal for this country."

Before Clive Betts also insisted that parliament must have a vote on the final outcome.

Henry Smith believed they were voting for Article 50 "to start the official formal withdrawal process, and so that this Parliament can once again exercise its sovereignty in rightly holding the Government to account to ensure that we get the best possible deal."

Nigel Huddleston suggested he was looking "forward to playing my part by providing constructive input and holding the Government to account to ensure that they deliver a successful deal".

Christian Matheson insisted that although he was voting for the motion, it was not a blank cheque, adding "I will respect the result of the referendum, but after that, all bets are off."

Robert Neill said he believed that the pledge of a vote in both Houses on the final deal must be a meaningful one.

Seema Malhotra said, "A vote for article 50 today is not a blank cheque. It must be for this House to be consulted and to meaningfully vote on the final deal."

Adrian Bailey added he wasn't committing himself to accept the final outcome and reserved the right to vote against the subsequent outcome if he did not feel that that it had been achieved.

Jeremy Lefroy believed it was also vital that the House of Commons "—not the Government or the European Parliament alone—have the sovereignty to make a decision about our future relationship with Europe."

Parliamentary sovereignty, holding the government to account on the deal, and the principle that this vote was not an acceptance of the deal were all principles that were expressed in the debate.

Regardless of who is, or is not, on the list, if those politicians, or any other politician who held those principles, does not believe that the deal is the best for the country, they should vote against it.

Otherwise, they will really will be hypocrites.

/End