• Contact
  • About
  • ISSN 3049-9747
  • Authors and editors
NEWSLETTER SIGN UP
Sussex Bylines
Advertisement
  • Home
  • Politics
  • Environment
  • News
  • Business
  • Community
  • Sussex
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Politics
  • Environment
  • News
  • Business
  • Community
  • Sussex
No Result
View All Result
Sussex Bylines
Home Politics

Take back control? Protect the NHS? No thanks, say Sussex MPs

Before their summer holidays, Sussex MPs were offered the chance to take control of trade policy, and to protect the NHS. They rejected it

Robert Ellson by Robert Ellson
03-08-2020 14:55 - Updated on 25-08-2024 11:28
in Politics, Sussex
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
A photo of the Houses of Parliament in the 1970s

Photo credit: Ugur Akdemir on Unsplash

As Parliament debated the post-Brexit trade bill, Conservative MP Jonathan Djanogly brought forward an amendment requiring Parliamentary approval of new trade deals. The full clause can be read here (search for NC4).

Seems exactly what Vote Leave meant when they wanted Britain to take back control, doesn’t it?

But almost without exception, Sussex MPs rejected the amendment, putting trade policy firmly in the hands of the government rather than giving a say to our elected representatives. Quite why you would want to become an MP and then vote to take away your own influence is anyone’s guess, but the amendment was rejected by 323 votes to 260.

During the same debate, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer introduced an amendment, supported by Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas, designed to prevent the NHS being up for negotiation in the event of a UK-US trade deal.

The new clause aimed ‘to protect the NHS and publicly funded health and care services in other parts of the UK from any form of control from outside the UK’. The full clause can be read here (search for NC17).

Again, just the sort of thing that you would want to support if you had been visibly clapping for carers outside your door during lockdown.

But the same Sussex MPs also voted against this amendment, and it was also rejected, by 337 votes to 242.

You can see how your MP voted below.

The following MPs voted against both amendments:

Arundel and South DownsAndrew GriffithCon
Bexhill & BattleHuw MerrimanCon
Bognor Regis and LittlehamptonNick GibbCon
ChichesterGillian KeeganCon
CrawleyHenry SmithCon
EastbourneCaroline AnsellCon
Hastings and RyeSally-Ann HartCon
HorshamJeremy QuinCon
LewesMaria CaulfieldCon
Mid SussexMims DaviesCon
WealdenNus GhaniCon
Worthing East & ShorehamTim LoughtonCon

Worthing West MP Sir Peter Bottomley did not vote on either amendment.

The three Brighton MPs all voted for both amendments:

Brighton, KemptownLloyd Russell-MoyleLab
Brighton, PavilionCaroline LucasGrn
HovePeter KyleLab

Sussex Bylines will be keeping an eye on how our representatives vote in the House of Commons. You can look back on your MP’s voting record at theyworkforyou.com. If you don’t like what you find, do let them know: you can find contact details here. As the website says, they (are supposed to) work for you.

Tags: NHS
Previous Post

Will Brighton lead the way on basic income?

Next Post

Now you see her, now you don’t: will the Surge of Power just be temporary?

Robert Ellson

Robert Ellson

I know that this is vitriol, no solution, spleen-venting, but I feel better having screamed, don't you?

Related Posts

A newborn baby with mum
Health and care

Listening is part of safety: what three births taught me

by Kieran Simkin
8 September 2026
Brighton's Food Hall Kitchens
Community

A sustainable future : Changing the food system in Brighton

by James Joughin
4 September 2026
Leeds City railway station
Business

Standards in public life matter

by Tom Serpell
3 September 2026
Greenfield land in East Sussex
Community

Changing the landscape in local government

by Alison Rees
1 September 2026
Jihad amongst the rubble of his house
Human rights

The struggle to survive in Gaza – Jihad’s story

by Bruce Smeath
28 August 2026
Next Post
Protestor by statue of Churchill

Now you see her, now you don’t: will the Surge of Power just be temporary?

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR CROWDFUNDER

BROWSE BY TAGS

Afghanistan Animal welfare Art Autobiography Biodiversity Brighton and Hove Christmas Citizenship Climate change Conflict Cost of living Covid-19 Eastbourne East Sussex Energy Equality Finance Food and drink Gaza Gender rights Hastings International Women's Day Lewes Local elections Media Music Nature Newhaven NHS Pollution Refugees Rewilding Schools Sewage Species survival Sport Sunday read Ukraine USA Walking Water pollution West Sussex Women Worthing youth
Sussex Bylines

We are a not-for-profit citizen journalism publication. Our aim is to publish well-written, fact-based articles and opinion pieces on subjects that are of interest to people in Sussex and beyond.

Sussex Bylines is a trading brand of Bylines Networks Limited which is separate to, but allied with, Byline Times.

Learn more about us

No Result
View All Result
  • About
  • Authors and editors
  • Complaints
  • Contact
  • Donate
  • Newsletter sign up
  • Letters
  • Network RSS Feeds
  • Network Map
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Download the Bylines Network App

© 2020-2026 Sussex Bylines. Powerful Citizen Journalism. ISSN 3049-9747

No Result
View All Result
  • Politics
    • Democracy
    • Elections
    • Human rights
  • Environment
  • News
    • Brexit
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Health and care
    • Home affairs
    • Transport
  • Business
    • Economy
    • Farming and fishing
    • Planning and housing
    • Science and technology
    • Trade
  • Community
    • Culture
    • History and heritage
    • Lifestyle
    • Sport and leisure
    • Travel and tourism
  • Sussex
  • World
    • Europe
  • Authors and editors

Newsletter sign up

CROWDFUNDER

© 2020-2026 Sussex Bylines. Powerful Citizen Journalism. ISSN 3049-9747