Wrekin MP to defy Cameron over Europe vote
DAVID CAMERON was today facing the biggest backbench revolt of his 18-month premiership over Britain’s relationship with Europe – amid warnings it was vital to Telford’s economic future.
DAVID CAMERON was today facing the biggest backbench revolt of his 18-month premiership over Britain’s relationship with Europe – amid warnings it was vital to Telford’s economic future.
Up to 60 Tory MPs are expected to defy Mr Cameron tonight – including Wrekin MP Mark Pritchard – in a historic vote on Britain’s future in the EU.
MPs have forced a debate and historic vote on whether to hold a referendum on Britain staying in the European Union after more than 100,000 people signed a petition to Downing Street.
And Telford MP David Wright today said as well as being of national importance it was a ‘very big issue’ for his constituents. “I will be listening to the debate very closely but will most likely vote against the motion,” said the Labour MP.
“The European economy is at a very fragile point. A massive debate around the withdrawal could force us into another recession.
“I’m acutely aware that a massive proportion of jobs in Telford depend on the European Union. This is a very big issue for Telford.”
Although a vote in favour of a referendum would not be binding, it would put pressure on Mr Cameron to promise one at a later date.
The PM has made it clear he is opposed to such an in/out referendum.
The Government has imposed a three-line whip requiring Tory MPs to vote against or damage their chances of a ministerial job.
But a defiant Mr Pritchard, secretary of the Tories’ powerful backbench 1922 Committee, vowed to put ‘country first, party second’.
Earlier today Foreign Secretary William Hague inflamed the passions of Tory rebels by comparing calls by Tory MPs for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union to spraying ‘graffiti’ on the walls of the House of Commons.
Mr Pritchard said: “Conservative backbenchers do not want confrontation, but it is obvious there are some in the Government who do want confrontation. Therefore, any wounds endured over this debate, and over the coming months, will be very much self-inflicted”.
By London Reporter Sunita Patel
Comments for: "Wrekin MP to defy Cameron over Europe vote"
Iron Flag
I always agree with country first, perhaps mr pritchard could use the same approach when considering support for the stupid planning reforms.
Woody
The top Tories are quite afraid, it's as if Guido has come back to haunt them with fireworks a plenty guaranteed!
If there was ever a time to have a referendum on Europe it is now. There inept monetary system is found wanting and it won't get any better no matter how much money they throw at it.
The MP's should be reminded they are elected by their constituents and their job is to represent them. Not, as some grandees tend to act, that they know better than us plebs!
I hope they stand up in force and embarrass the coalition leadership.
Rich Telford
Madness...
The guy is the MP for a large chunk of the town is fed by industry which is ether owned by, or supplies trade to europe... and the MP of part of Telford wants us to leave it?!?!
I love it when MP loose the grip of who they are actually represent, i understand that he has rural consisuants in his patch.. but even they benefit from the cash cow which is the common agricultural policy.
We are not in the euro so we are not getting dragged too far into greeces problems... so what is his point!?
R Suppards
He may not want us to leave the EU. He just wants his constituents to say whether we want to leave or not, via a referendum.
R Suppards
An MP's role is, above EVERYTHING else, to represent the views of the majority of his constituents. Even if this goes against Party doctrine, if an MP does not observe this fundamental obligation, he has no right to be sitting in the HofC.
So I am delighted to see that this MP - along with others - has the moral fibre to do what is right.
A three line whip - NOW who's the DICTATOR, Prime Minister??
pp
good on him
finally a politician who knows who the real boss is
(US)
Tutu
i dont support this guys politics but i am pleased he stands up to the PM on this and on the circus issue he is shown to be an independent mp which is what they should all be sticking up for us the people not towing the party line all the time
more shropshire mps and councillors should follow his lead and vote with the people who elect them for waht we want
Matty
good man
i was always pretty liberal on europe until the euro crisis you have to say these so called right wing nnutters have been proved totally true on the euro and game set and match to them really they were correct we should never join the euro and the eu should be a free trade block NOT a full union
Grey
My problem with a refferendum on the EU is how horribly misinformed the general population is about the EU. If we had a real sensible debate and then made an informed decision then fair enough but how many people's opinions are coloured by the publishers of the Sun and Daily Mail?
Peter
I saw one Euroscpetic trying to justify the idea of a referendum on the basis that "millions of people vote on a weekly basis for 'The X Factor' and 'Strictly Come Dancing'" therefore they should have a direct say in whether or not we stay in the EU.
Whilst TV reality shows are one thing, I would much prefer that we left more important decisions to a politically and economically literate group of people to decide - that's why we elect competent representatives to parliament - do we really want X-Factor voting Sun readers to make such an important decision?
We've seen much bleating from an assortment of 'Little Englanders', assorted xenophobes, and vested interests such as big business who want to see the removal of essential laws, many European in origin, which protect ordinary working people.
Their typical complaint is that the UK government has no power any more. Well, last night, the UK government voted overwhelmingly against the idea of allowing a referendum.
The mother of parliaments has spoken decisively - now it's time to move on and concentrate on playing a positive part in Europe as our neighbours do.
James
'I saw one Euroscpetic trying to justify the idea of a referendum on the basis that “millions of people vote on a weekly basis for ‘The X Factor’ and ‘Strictly Come Dancing’” therefore they should have a direct say in whether or not we stay in the EU.'
That's the whole trivialisation of our political culture for you. It seems undeniable to me that significant numbers of people would treat a vote on the EU no more seriously, perhaps even less so, than they would a vote on the X-Factor. One problem, amongst others, with this is that while many people are instinctively anti-EU, they don't really see it as all that important to their lives - if they did, UKIP would surely be more of a force than they are.
There's another story here, though, which is that the whole history of Britain's relations with the EU has been rewritten, so that it appears to be right-wing Tories who have always been the heroic few fighting for British sovereignty. Not so. The most strident anti voices last time there was a referendum were Tony Benn, Michael Foot and Peter Shore. The Tories have always tried to spread this myth that they want nothing more than a free-trade block when in fact that was never feasible - the EU has always been an integrationist project. That's largely why I'm a 'pro' - because of common interests in foreign policy, the cultural connections and the fact that nationalim hasn't raised its ugly head in the EU area for over 65 years.
Mike Oxlong
Oh Peter, I had to laugh at this statement;
I would much prefer that we left more important decisions to a politically and economically literate group of people to decide – that’s why we elect competent representatives to parliament.
If that were true, we wouldn't be in this mess, and our future generations wouldn't be left wondering why they will, for years, be paying for the mistakes made by these clowns.
Peter
Mike,
Our elected representatives are far from perfect - but are you really telling me that we would reach a decision on a better-informed basis by using an 'X-Factor' or 'Big Brother' style vote?
Surely not?
Mike Oxlong
^ Better informed, probably not, but better ? yes.
The best quote I've seen on this topic is here;
The elite of Europe are currently trying to devise a plan to save the euro and recapitalize the banks.
I'll translate that for you - the elite of Europe are currently devising a plan to steal your taxes, your savings, and your pensions so they can throw it onto a big bonfire in a desperate attempt to keep their doomed folly alive.
JOHN JONES
In 1975 the last time we had a vote over the EU,I worked for an American company in Shrewsbury called Warner and Swasey, we were told via the union that if the country voted to leave the EU our factory would close, and move production back to America. Most of the employees, to save their jobs voted to remain in the E.U, but they closed the factory in 1976 with the loss of nearly 500 jobs. So Mike Oxlong, in all your points you are correct.
Ken Adams
Yes the public is misinformed and mostly by the political parties and EU propaganda, we have been for the past 40 years, but we can now see all the lies about how wonderful this political construct is coming home to roost, and we are the ones paying for this train wreck.
Herman Van Rompuy
I'm unclear as to whether Mark Pritchard supports UK membership of the EU or not. However it is disingenuous of politicians to demand referendums on some issues whilst ignoring the public will on others (capital punishment). Personally I support the EU but there should be better control of the excesses which exist. I travel weekly to Brussels with several MEP's on the same flight. It is a 50 minute flight from Birmingham but there are regularly MEP's in business class, wasting tax payer money. My company, like many others, do not allow business class tickets for such short flights.
Bill
Oh dear, more political posturing from Pritchard the Pompous. Anything to get his name in the press.....
Knowing the motion is doomed to failure (because about 450 MPs from all parties will vote against) why are they bothering? Because they need to raise their profiles as they fail to keep up with changing times?
And, as Rich says above, has he forgotten that a very large number of his constituents' jobs depend on open trade with Europe?
If the dyed-in-the-wool Eurosceptics get their ultimate objective, it can only fundamentally undermine Britain's economy. Have they forgotten that the 'guaranteed market' of the Empire disappeared some fifty years ago and those countries no longer have any reason of loyalty to buy British rather than from India or China?
Clinging to past glories the way right-wing Tories do is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic...
Bob
And you call Pritchard "Pompous"???
Ron
This person is my MP, i didn't vote for him but he now represents me but i dont recall him calling a surgery whereby his constituents can speak to him and he can gauge peoples feelings rather than that of the daily mail or just his own, for instance had he called a surgery and 100 people visited him and say 65 were for the EU would he have voted for it? I dont think so, and before anyone says the online thing where 100k is need to spark a debate, there are some 60million in this country and 100k is a small amount.
Pull out of Europe and we see investors/employers pull out of the UK as it will be easier trade in europe from europe where the chosen place for investments goverment will have a say. Not just European companys by many Japanese will up and go.
Mr Grumpy
I think the basic point was that Mr Pritchard believed that we as citizens should have a right to say that we're in or out, not whether *he* was for or against the EU.
It's late in the day now, as we've already been told we don't have the right to say whether we're in or out of Europe. I'd strongly suspect though, that if by some miracle we had won the right, the government would make our ability to vote in or out as complicated to fathom as a Tax Credits form.
Telford Ron
At last a MP with something between his ears and his legs. Well done Mark.
Jean
oh dear
the mad tories are at it again, they did it to major and cost themselves power for 12 yrs and they will do it again if they're not careful. if they feel strongly that eu rules are bad they should try to be an mEp not an MP and then they can make the rules in the first place so they will like them then
Watchdog
A MP with backbone? Now there's a rarity. This issue will not go away, no matter how the leaders try to suppress it. A discussion about our position in the EU is all that is required, but that it is not, nor ever will be, allowed (if they get their way) should ring a few alarm bells in the head of anyone who has ever hitherto been pleased to live in a democracy.
Mr Grumpy
Exactly why are the government so afraid of letting us all have a say in whether this country stays in the EU or not? Surely it's our right as a taxpaying citzen to decide what our future should be?
The main issue here appears to be that 'Call Me Dave' has completely forgotten who is working for who here, and has even openly resorted to threatening all members of his party to back him or get out with this 'three line whip' arrangement.
Only the lack of police gunfire on this country's people in the streets separates the behaviour of this government towards us from that which we've all seen on TV in South Africa and the Middle East.
They work for us, not the other way round. Remember this next time the General Election comes round. I for one only liked the eighties because of the music, not the strikes, depression and dictatorial control of the Nanny State.
Leon
good on him he is a patriot and many of the cabinet esp lib dems are not
i live david cameron though and i agree with the pm though when ur neighbours house in on fire you dont squabble about neighbourhood disputes you help them put it out if only to stop your own home catching up
DON
AS ONE PATRIOT TO ANOTHER I SALUTE YOU MR PRITCHARD
WE DEMAND A VOTE ON THE EU
WE DONT WANT EUROPEANS TELLING US WHAT TO DO
VIVA L'ANGLETERRE
pickaxe
A heady mix there Don. English, Spanish, French. And stupidese.
A bit shouty but - Bravo!
Ken Adams
The debate was called because this government introduced a system to allow the people to have a voice in government, if a petition gets more than 100,000 votes it must be debated in Parliament.
We do not have to be in the EU to trade with EU states, China the USA and the rest of the world do quite well trading with the EU. Also our trade with the EU is in deficit and does anyone really believe the Germans would stop selling us their cars or the French their cheese.
All those trying to use scare tactics about loss of trade should ask themselves exactly how wonderful the EU actually is and acknowledge that it is a political union and not a trading group.
And just look at the state we are all in with standards of living dropping like a stone, pensions under threat, retirement age increasing, NHS under threat, we have lost our national Rail service our national postal service, higher education being squeezed with students having to pay for their education, an open door policy on immigration which is putting pressure on all our services and housing, all this and much more, whilst our government is spending billions of our tax money to the EU and now its currency the Euro.
Ken Adams
Sorry I was misinformed the debate was triggered on the proposal of Mr David Nuttall made on Oct 18th.
James
'China the USA and the rest of the world do quite well trading with the EU'
They do indeed. I suspect they would find trading with an independent UK as a separate entity somewhat cumbersome - or they would bully us in a way they wouldn't try to bully the EU. Interestingly enough, the US - that country our right-wing seems to think we have some sort of special relationship with -sees the UK's place as being in the EU.
Anyway parliament has rejected calls for a referendum by a decisive margin so the question has been put to rest for now. Perhaps UKIP would have some sort of voice in parliament if we had a more representative electoral system but a referendum that did actually happen rejected that idea out of hand as well.
Ken Adams
The EU is a political union not a trading group so any talk of trade is a meaningless and misleading distraction.
This will never be put to rest until the British people have agreed to to a political union, until they have agreed that we will no longer be an independent sovereign state but a subsidiary of a greater United States of Europe.
On trade if we left the EU we would be free to make any trade agreement with any country in the world we wanted for the benefit of this country, at present we are not allowed to make our own trade agreements. And bulling is silly are you bullied when you go shopping, only those with 100% of a product or a cartel can bully.
The whole argument about leaving the EU and loosing trade is dishonest and GROSSLY MISLEADING! We are in deficit with other EU states on trade so they would be cutting off their own noses.
Also the level of trade claimed is over egged 80% of our trade is internal that leaves 20% with the rest of the world, Britain's trade with the world, excluding the EU: 10% hence only 10% of our trade is with the EU and that is ignoring the the Rotterdam effect. In other words, we needlessly load 100% of our businesses with EU bureaucratic red tape for the sake of 10% of our trade.
Bob
What bothers me most is that I was too young to vote when we joined the Common Market and although I'm now middle aged, my opinions have never been canvassed. You see it in some posts here that in common with my fellow citizens, I am apparently too uneducated and ignorant to be worthy of having a view where the EU is concerned. Arrogant twaddle and dangerously undemocratic. I guess if asked in a Referendum, most people would wish to remain part of the EU, but many would express concern over what appears quite plainly, to be a one sided relationship. The argument that we do so much business with the EU that it would be unwise to jeopardize it may well be true, but it is offset by the cost of our membership and the cost of implementing EU regulations - the latter being done with such typically British pedanticism that a mini industry of regulatory consultants has sprung up. If Esther Rantzen was still awarding the "Jobsworth" cap, she would have unlimited candidates to consider in contemporary Britain. In the world of economic competition, we've slipped from 7th to 12th. Not good. Human rights? Another vacuous industry pursued by an elite with a zeal that is deeply and offensivly opposite to the original and extremely worthy concept. Immigration? We've had some great folk come to join us, but we haven't been able to regulate the inflow, so now we have hosts of unemployed (and often unemployable) Brits living off benefits because all the new jobs are taken by immigrants, and a major housing crisis that, as it is addressed will in turn provoke future crises involving energy, food, transport and most importantly - drought and flooding. Our fishing industry is all but dead, farming - despite EU subsidies - is going the same way and our big state earner - the City of London - is likely to fall victim to a new EU Transaction Tax. We need a French Prime Minister who is willing to thump the table and say "Non!" because we can't produce a British one with enough good sense or backbone. If we could, he would be gatecrashing Sarkozy and Merkel's cosy little pre-summit meetings and wringing concessions at every level. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, but for goodness sake let them know you're there.
Wenlock Un
"Brits living off benefits because all the new jobs are taken by immigrants" is the sort of "arrogant twaddle" that inevitably seeds opinion in the less informed masses of the population and that would undermine a referendum outcome.
Of course, our unemployed are queueing up to stand outside Sainsbury's at -5 to wash your car for £5 to split between 3 of them, aren't they? Damn those foreigners, eh.
Ask yourself why our jobs are going to immigrants and more importantly, ask yourself who is making the choice to employ (or exploit) better educated individuals at lower cost and benefitting from more profit!
In IT it is the British firms refusing to pay UK rates in favour of using non-EU (e.g.Indian) immigrants.
It is the British farmers I see in my locality opting to ship in Eastern European labour from overseas rather than pay our unemployed to pick crop in poor weather.
Even Tesco are recruiting in Eastern Europe..
You can't criticise someone for turning up at your party, when you've invited them. Especially when, in the main, they're bringing the beers with them!
Ken Adams
Nothing about the work ethics of Eastern Europeans but I think that was sort of the point, WE have not invited them WE have had no say, hence one of the reasons WE need a referendum. Then you can explain in detail how brilliant it is for our services and housing to be stressed to breaking point by thousands of new immigrants.
It might suit Tescos to recruit in Eastern Europe but they can only do so because of the EU open door policy, and how many times have we heard the argument that a new store the locals opposed will bring in extra jobs, it looks like they mean bring in extra workers.
Wenlock Un
These Europeans do have a lot to answer for, don't they?
Perhaps the cause of "our services and housing to be stressed to breaking point" might be the irresponsible excesses/behaviours of our own population? (e.g. Poor parenting/education standards, Unplanned pregnancies, Smoking, Alcoholism, Diet/Obesity, etc..) coupled with this attitude of 'free entitlement'.
On the Tesco's (labour) point, so lets close the doors, we're all willing to pay more in our grocery bills to fund UK employment and preserve business profits aren't we? Simple argument that I think has been proven by the demise of your local greengrocer, or was that down to the EU aswell.
To be honest Ken, it's all subjective opinion and I've not personally seen much evidence of Europeans exploiting our country for services or housing, much of which ends up lining the pockets of British landlords charging excessive rents for substandard living conditions anyway.
So have to agree to disagree on this one, but personally I'd prefer to leave it to the economic advisers and not millions of ill-informed people who will vote for whatever Simon Cowell thinks.
Ken Adams
Your argument in support for big international companies and against workers rights is not germane to the question of holding a referendum. Support for the EU and multinational companies might form part of the debate during a referendum. Then you can argue the merits of a high tax, low wage economy, but you cannot use that argument to deny the British people the right to determine the way they are governed.
Likewise your comment displaying mistrust of the British people and their democratic rights, is not relevant, if they do vote for whatever Simon Cowell thinks that really only points to the paucity of the opposing perspective.
Your elitist argument to deny the British people a voice is not based on anything that has any relevance to the question.
We need a referendum because the conditions on which we joined the EU have changed dramatically since we were last allowed one in 1975.
James
'if they do vote for whatever Simon Cowell thinks that really only points to the paucity of the opposing perspective.'
It doesn't, it points to the fact that too many people are deaf to argument and make their decisions based on ill-informed prejudices and sloganeering. A referendum per se might not be that bad an idea but I would have cheap celebrities like Simon Cowell off the screens for a month before it so there could be a proper debate - devoted to the real arguments of both sides (of which there are many).
'the conditions on which we joined the EU have changed dramatically since we were last allowed one in 1975.'
I thought you'd said yourself - and I agreed with you - that the EU has been integrationist from its very beginnings as the Coal and Steel Community in the late 40s. Tony Benn and his left-wing pals knew this and were talking about threats to the sovereignty of the British parliament back in '75 only to be shouted down by the very type of Tory that's claiming to be heroically Eurosceptic now.
The last two referendums held in the UK, whatever I may think about the results, have been characterised by smears, misinformation and intellectual dishonesty. If there were to be an EU one (a hypothetical question at present), it would need to be done better, not to ensure the 'right' result but to ensure some intelligence in the debate.
Ken Adams
You are concerned that one side of the debate should be silenced to allow what you term as an intelligent debate, I too have concerns:
For a start the EU should not be allowed a voice in any debate, it should not be allowed to issue any information or use public money to influence the debate. This is about what power we as a nation want to give to an intentional organisation, hence that organisation is excluded from any debate because it is an interested party in the outcome.
The BBC must be forced to be totally impartial on this subject (because it is publicly funded) considering its previous bias on this subject, that is takes large grants and special interest loans from the EU and that Lord Pattern is an ex EU commissioner in receipt of a conditional EU pension.
All Lords and all others, like for instance Mr Clegg who are in receipt of an EU condition pension or stipend must also be excluded.
The government should not take a stance either in or out and then use public money to win for their side.
The question should be simple - remain in the EU or leave and negotiate a trading agreement, - no third unobtainable option like renegotiate.
I don’t think any of the above will happen.
We did not vote to remain in a political union that is what the EU is and has always been working towards, we voted to remain in a common market.
You seem to be suggesting that because as you call them “Tony Benn and his left wing palls” were telling the truth and the government were not, that somehow equates to the British people voting for a political union, they did not, they believed the Government propaganda. When the Prime Minster who took us in told us their would be no loss of essential sovereignty, that Napoleonic Law would not infringe on English Common Law ect. When the pamphlet posted to every house in the country said our minsters would always have a veto on any EU law, they was not being honest, we can all see that now, so please don’t expect us to allow the rewriting of history.
James
My sentence : 'but I would have cheap celebrities like Simon Cowell off the screens for a month before it so there could be a proper debate – devoted to the real arguments of both sides (of which there are many).'
Your sentence : 'You are concerned that one side of the debate should be silenced to allow what you term as an intelligent debate'
Misrepresentation, Mr Adams. You are getting rather too good at it.
'You seem to be suggesting that because as you call them “Tony Benn and his left wing palls” were telling the truth and the government were not, that somehow equates to the British people voting for a political union, they did not, they believed the Government propaganda.'
Yes, I'm partly saying that but also that the referendum was essentially asking a dishonest question given that the Union (Common Market as it was then) had been integrationist from the very start. The smearing of Benn and his allies - and the big money-backed dismissal of their sovereignty arguments - back then has led inexorably to the relationship you're so against today.
Ken Adams
Sorry if I misrepresented you James I thought your position was to limit the “popular” anti side of the debate.
Although I think Simon Cowell is the wrong example, I have no idea what his position is, I take your point, but my point was that should this happen, then my worries should also be addressed.
We don’t want a repeat of the last referendum with the government saying it had renegotiated a our membership and then spending a great deal of public money promoting a yes vote and vilifying the opposing side. We do not want the BBC going to private meetings with the yes side each morning and deciding how to control the news that day. We do not want the EU interfering and spending our money on EU propaganda. We do not want all the EU Pensioners in the Commons and the Lords pretending they do not have a personal interest and are just simply honest brokers. We do not want the EU side to outspend the opposing side by a factor of 10.
The fact is the British people have been lied to, by our own governments, about the EU what is does and what its ambitions are for the whole time of our membership. Those who have taken the time to read the treaties and have been prepared to tell the pubic what the meaning of these documents are have always been portrayed as nutters.
You James are continuing the theme by suggesting that “part” of the OUT side are offering ill-informed prejudices and sloganeering that they are doing this for dishonest reasons based on racism and xenophobia, this is done to undermine the real substantive points they are making, to smear the OUT side and to silence part of the debate, which you want to conduct by your rules where the yes side have all the advantages and have all the money.
James
I don't want to limit real debate on either side. I've acknowledged, so many times that I'm starting to tire of it, that there are good arguments on the anti side. Reading your last paragraph, I wonder why I ever bothered.
Simon Cowell wasn't my example. I know almost nothing about him and care even less. I guess his name just came up because of one MP being quoted as saying that if people could vote on X-Factor, they should be able to vote on the EU question.
I agree with much of your 3rd paragraph ; if I'd been quick enough the first time we debated this, I'd have used similar arguments to express my referendum scepticism, which is founded on the point that referendums are inevitably hijacked by vested interests - see my point about the last EU one and how the left-wing antis were smeared.
Oddly enough you include the BBC in your hit-list of such vested interests but neglect to include the Australian-born American head of that international phone-hacking organisation known as News Corporation and his various outlets. Might that be because they are on 'your' side of the argument. Who's being 'undemocratic' there, I wonder?
I also see today that, under some obscure medieval charter, Prince Charles maintains the right of veto over legislation affecting Duchy of Cornwall interests. For all its many faults, the EU does at least get debated at general elections and one of its principal bodies is directly elected. Our future unelected head of state, by contrast, gets to meddle in our lives to his heart's content. What about a referendum asking if we want that to continue unabated?
Ken Adams
Sorry James but when you use terms like ill-informed prejudices and sloganeering then you are smearing the anti side of the argument, if not everyone then it is guilt by association, do not forget there a long history of that. Of course the subtext is anyone who wants to leave the EU must by definition be a nutter an isolationist little Englander and a xenophobe, if they are not then they are forced into the position of defending themselves against these charges, control the language and control the debate.
I did not include News Corp. because it is not a publicly funded media organisation that has a charter which clearly states it should be non biased! It does not take grants and special interest loans from the EU and its head is not an ex EU Commissioner who receives a conditional pension from the EU. Further the BBC did meet every morning with the pro side during the last referendum to decide on how they were going to spin the news that day and it has recently been shown to be biased in several reports. I also did not include newspapers like the Independent or the Guardian so I do not think I am being partial.
The Queen also has the right of veto, I think the last monarch to use it was Queen Victoria , factually the Monarchy is today nothing more than a smoke screen for an elected dictatorship. So yes as the Monarchy is no longer fulfilling its place in our constitution by using its powers to protect its Nations sovereignty from destruction, I would actually vote to get rid of it. Likewise if we do remain in the EU I see no reason to keep 650 MPs in an expensive talking shop in Westminster.