More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
They were rebels with a cause. Seven Kent MPs dug their heels in and opposed the government’s Brexit deal.
Yet the group, two of whom resigned from government jobs to vote against the plan, all eventually changed their minds and voted in support of the Prime Minister's proposals, which they had previously described as doomed and a betrayal of voters.
The u-turns were not enough to get the Prime Minister's plans over the line.
She has since begun talks with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to see if she can find a way forward for the Brexit process.
Here is what they said before - and what they said after deciding to back the EU Withdrawal Agreement.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham)
Before: “There are no legally binding changes on the backstop..we would not be able to leave backstop without EU consent undermining sovereignty.This is why I voted against it.”
After: “The reality day by day is [we have] a remain Parliament that either wants to frustrate delivering Brexit or have a soft Brexit or deliver no Brexit at all.
"Having spoken to my constituents they just want us to get on and deliver Brexit in line with what they voted for nearly three years ago. So, it is with a heavy heart I will be voting for it.”
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
Before: “If the UK is kept for an unlimited period in the Northern Ireland “backstop”, thereby effectively keeping us in the Single Market and the Customs Union, with all that entails, it would be a betrayal of the vast majority of people in Sittingbourne and Sheppey who voted to leave the EU. I cannot and will not betray those people.”
After: “I have come to the conclusion that despite having severe reservations about the Withdrawal Agreement, if it is a choice between voting for that agreement or losing Brexit - and I fear they are the only two options we have left - then I will vote for it. My only priority is trying to ensure that those people who voted Brexit are not betrayed any more.”
Charlie Elphicke (Dover)
Before: "Having listened carefully to the debate it was clear the Withdrawal Agreement still contains a backstop without end. It was clear nothing had really changed. This country voted to leave the EU - yet was set to remain tied to it under the backstop. Indeed the Attorney General advised the legal risk of getting trapped remained unchanged.”
After: "Sadly, people who never accepted that will not allow us to leave without a deal - and look set to force through a soft Brexit or even a second referendum. I believe this would cause serious damage to this country's great tradition of democracy.”
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford)
Before: "I do not believe it delivers the Brexit that Chatham and Aylesford voted for but also removes any certainty for our local businesses who trade with Europe.
"Around 65% of the constituency voted to leave but under this deal we will remain subject to the many rules and demands of European Union membership. The lack of clarity around transition and backstop arrangements risks continued EU power over our future and this is not what people voted for."
After: "The Withdrawal Agreement is utterly imperfect but the real risk now is whether there will be any Brexit at all. I'll vote for the WA tonight but only to stop remainers from keeping us locked in the EU forever."
Gareth Johnson (Dartford)
Before: “I can not in all conscience support the government’s position when it is clear this deal would be detrimental to the nation’s interests. Unfortunately, this agreement prevents us taking back control and instead could lead us perpetually constrained by the European Union.”
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe)
Before: "My preferred option throughout the last few months has been for an amendment to the Prime Minister's deal in order to remove the provisions that would leave us locked into the backstop arrangements, should we fail to agree a future relationship with the European Union, during the transition period.”
After: “This deal is poor in many ways. If this deal doesn’t get through, what are the other options? A second referendum would rip this country apart. My concerns stand but the risks have shifted.”
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks)
Before: “This gives us the worst of all worlds. No guarantee of smooth trade in the future and no control of tarriffs to conclude trade with the rest of the world. Unless the Commons can be persuaded that trade deals can be concluded with the rest of the world, then yes, I think the deal is doomed.”
After: “My conclusion is that we must implement the Referendum result as we promised, and we must avoid the potential damage to our economy and disruption here in Kent of leaving without any deal: the Leave campaign itself argued for “a careful change, not a sudden stop”. My view is that there is now a greater risk of a disorderly exit if we do not support the Withdrawal Agreement.”
