Letter to MP

anon88169868 · 1 December 2018 22:20

Well, it probably won’t make much difference but here is the letter that I have just sent to my MP.

Dear Member of Paliament

Now that the Prime Minister has negotiated a withdrawal agreement and framework for our future relationship with the EU you face the heavy burden of deciding what best serves the interests of your constituents and the country as a whole.

I know you will discharge that responsibility carefully. But as one of your constituents I wanted to tell you how I feel on this matter.

There is much woolly thinking on the subject of our withdrawal from the European Union. The current debate seems to be centred mostly upon the arrangements to ensure that a friction free border is guaranteed between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland should no other agreement be reached which delivers this in accord with the Belfast (or Good Friday) Agreement - the so-called “backstop”.

Despite the Prime Minister’s reassurances the backstop is not a good deal for the UK; this has been widely analysed. There is no provision for access to the EU services market, there are no transport agreements, so permits for UK hauliers will be limited. In theory we will be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries but committed to alignment of tariffs and rules with the EU (per Article 3 of Annex 2 of the draft Withdrawal agreement) we will have little to offer. Even if we seek trade deals outside the EU it has been clear from comments by the Indian and Chinese authorities that any trade deal struck with these large markets would come at the cost of increased visa allocations almost as the first concession in negotiations.

If the EU opens up additional markets with new trade deals we will not be able to benefit from reduced tariffs for our exports (because we will not be a member state), yet will have to apply reduced tariffs to any imports because we are bound to align with the EU.

EU laws that are “amended or replaced” are automatically updated in Northern Ireland, with no say from the people they will affect.

There are other issues with the backstop but better minds than mine have identified and discussed these at length; I am sure that you have your own views.

The backstop does not deliver on trade or sovereignty; the control of our borders which it delivers is illusory and, finally, as we cannot exit the backstop except by mutual consent entry into it risks being a one way door .

Of course you might reasonably point out that nothing in the draft agreement makes entry into the backstop inevitable and that if we negotiate a trading relationship with the EU during the transition period the backstop will not be triggered. Unfortunately being able to successfully conclude such negotiations within the time frame available (at the maximum by the end 2022) seems unlikely. CETA took five years to negotiate and two to ratify. Any UK-EU deal will be harder as it will have to somehow provide for frictionless trade and movement across the UK-Irish border and, almost uniquely, will seek to start with two parties in regulatory alignment but allow for the fact that one of them wishes to diverge (otherwise why leave the EU in the first place); this is the the opposite of most normal trade negotiations and exposes the fallacy in Liam Fox’s claim that a trade deal would be trivial because we are already aligned.

Consequently it appears that in practice, if not in the letter of the agreement, we will indeed, inevitably, enter the backstop with all its attendant problems if we accept the current draft agreement.

I urge you, therefore, to reject the current draft agreement.

It is all very well to say “do not do this thing” with no consideration of what one might do instead. In this case rejection of the draft agreement brings the real danger of a “no deal” exit from the EU. The default position is that by automatic operation of law on 29 March 2019 the UK will leave the EU and the European Communities Act 1972 is also set to be repealed on the same date. It will take positive action to prevent these two events taking place.

There are a number of possible ways forward. There is growing support for a further referendum, while this might have some superficial appeal I do not think that it is a wise choice. The 2016 referendum was flawed and has left deep divisions within our country and our Parliament; I do not think a further plebiscite would heal these divisions, especially if the vote were close - and that is even assuming agreement on what question to put to the country could be reached in a timely fashion. The main benefit to a popular vote would be to absolve the politicians who have lead us to the current impasse from having to take responsibility for it. While I am sure some of your honourable colleagues would view this positively I do not think it is what the nation needs at the present time.

Much has been said as to the “Will of the People” as if it can be set in stone and then never revisited. As has been pointed out by many commentators it is not a democracy if one cannot change one’s mind, but if we are to honour the result of the 2016 referendum we need to consider carefully what mandate that actually gave the government. As someone who voted remain and believes in the EU project (for all its flaws) I feel my voice and the voice of the 48% who voted along with me to stay in the EU is no longer being heard.

However I recognise that David Cameron had a point when he felt that our relationship with the EU needed to be re-evaluated, that we as a nation were not entirely comfortable with the path to “ever closer union”. The referendum result seems to show that he was correct on this point at least.

There is no sound economic argument for any form of Brexit but we can honour the 2016 vote by leaving the EU and joining EFTA and the EEA (remembering, of course that we were a founding member of EFTA prior to joining the Common Market). This would allow us access to the single market, solving the problem of the Irish border. It would free us of the influence of the ECJ and we would be exempt from the Common Fisheries Policy and Common Agricultural Policy though might choose to negotiate terms in these areas. While we would have to accept freedom of movement this could be mitigated by applying the full range of controls which EU legislation provides including requiring any migrant worker exercising FoM rights to either have gained employment within three months or be able to demonstrate that they are self-sufficient and not a drain on the UK economy. In exceptional circumstances we could make use of the Article 112 provisions to limit free movement.

Naturally Mr Rees-Mogg and the ERG members would cry betrayal but in truth EFTA membership would not be unfaithful to the 2016 vote - indeed it would deliver on the widest range of the promises made by the Leave campaign at the time, including the claim made by several prominent campaigners such as Boris Johnson, that we would not leave the single market.

It is true that we would forsake representation in the European Parliament and European Council but we would retain the ability to lobby for our national interest and EFTA with the UK as a member would be a powerful trading block in its own right.

I would ask that you give serious consideration to backing EFTA/EEA membership - perhaps by support for Nick Boles’ campaign although we need to seek EFTA membership on a permanent, not temporary basis. Only in this way can we seek to deliver on the referendum promises while at the same time limiting the harm to the UK economy and our place in the world.

Jane_Williamson · 2 December 2018 01:09

I don’t agree that a further Referendum would cause further division.
One would hope that any new Referendum would be held on a more equal platform and the Leavers would not have access to suspect money and , quite obviously, would not be able to claim that leaving was simple.
There are more young people whose future is being restricted and they would have the chance to make their voices heard.
Freedom of movement is vital to the future of our young people and restricts both academic and commercial co-operation.
It keeps families apart and losing it is a totally retrograde step.
Lobbying by certain groups such as vegetable growers, horticulturalists and the social care sector is resulting in exceptions being made to immigration laws as we desperately need these people to do the work that our own nationals do not seem keen to do.
Immigration was for many people the most important factor and one would hope they might now understand how vital it is to the UK economy.
President Macron’s idea for a more integrated Europe seems to be like his future, distinctly uncertain and being able to carry on having the tempering voice of the UK would be a distinctive advantage for all of Europe.
I have writren a letter to my local paper in UK because my MP is a Shadow Minister and as he demonstrated in the recent debate on the Petition that Should there be No Deal Brexit would be stopped, he is working for his party and not his constituents, who voted Remain.
The Editor has agreed to publish my letter.
A new Referendum without Cambridge Analytica working behind the scenes is the only fair outcome if TM’s deal is voted down.

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 09:32

But this is an extremely naïve hope - it is likely that the campaign would be just as vicious and divisive as the 2016 referendum; given that feelings run so high on the subject of Brexit it could end up being even more so.

Then there is the “question of the question” - what choice would be put to the country and the outcome - I’ve expanded on why I think the result would not provide much clarity in a previous post

To be fair EFTA/EEA membership is not my preferred solution but it is a compromise that I could just about get behind and it would preserve FoM - something I am sure many members of SF would feel was important.

Corona · 2 December 2018 10:00

That is only speculation, now we actually have a contract (crap though it is) for some the mist has cleared and reality is now staring them in the face.
The ballot paper for the referendum should clearly state, “none of the above options has anywhere near 350,000,000 going to the NHS or immediate deportation of anyone speaking with a different language”

graham · 2 December 2018 10:03

Too many long words in your letter… and it’s too long.
Me thinks ‘round objects’ (those of a certain age who watched Yes Minister will understand)

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 10:09

It is a bit long I agree but it’s about as short as I can make it without condensing the arguments too much.

Well, yes it is speculation but can you really see it being the sort of level headed, intellectual discussion that Jane wants?

The polls suggest that the nation has not moved far from the 2016 position - perhaps remain is slightly in front at the moment but not so far that the referendum is likely to produce an unambiguous result.

Jane_Williamson · 2 December 2018 10:22

George Osborne actually apologised for the abysmal way the Remain Campaign was run.
We could have more of a level playing field this time and the car manufacturers could tell their workers that their jobs are on the line if the UK doesn’t stay in the EU.

Corona · 2 December 2018 10:42

Which polls Paul?

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 10:44

I can see that you are an optimist

That was done last time and didn’t help.

But, as I said, it does not matter how level the playing field is, the result will not provide the necessary long term clarity.

Just about all of them

Corona · 2 December 2018 10:56

That data is up to mid August, a fair way before the May “deal” was clear, really need something more up to date.
If the exit vote has grown, I would imagine it is because the EU has been so cruel that many a Brit would give the EU a two fingered salute. Some colleagues are of that mind set despite the major issues it will cause. Other exitiers have now changed their minds to stay with the EU. small sample of people I associate with.

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 11:10

I think you will struggle to find it - the Independent was reporting 54-46 for remain in September (probably the same poll data though). Politico reported 53% remain, 12% undecided and 35% for leave in October but that is still from before the draft agreement was published and it does not guarantee that people would vote that way in a referendum.

However, unless we swing north of 65-70% for one side or the other I don’t think a further referendum will be decisive enough to put the issue to rest. This seems very unlikely given how close the polls still are - if anything “the deal” might swing some pragmatist remainers to think that leaving won’t be so bad and make the margin even tighter.

Another tight vote will not help.

Besides - saying “lets have a referendum” is not an answer because the real question is what choice would you put to the country - that is, itself, contentious.

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 11:28

It might not get that far (but see my previous comments on the desirability of a general election).

Unfortunately I think that this threat might strengthen May’s hand.

Corona · 2 December 2018 12:10

Yes I agree.

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 13:49

BTW, Mr Walker’s Alma Mater is Balliol College, Oxford where he read Ancient and Modern History so he should be able to cope with a long word or two.

Jane_Williamson · 2 December 2018 17:03

Do you really believe the self serving Michael Gove?

Aquitaine · 2 December 2018 17:15

Well, he’s sure that a second referendum will result in a bigger majority for leave.

anon88169868 · 2 December 2018 17:28

You had me totally confused there until I realised that the link which earlier had a piece about Keir Starmer claiming that Corbyn would table a no confidence motion if May looses the vote has now been replaced to a piece with a fragment of an interview by Andrew Marr with Michael Grove.

No, I don’t believe a thing he says - but then he’s a politician.

Peter_Bird · 2 December 2018 18:04

Good point, and what if the people voted again to Leave ?
Would the remainers then be happy to accept the vote ?

Corona · 2 December 2018 18:20

Yep the thicker than thick Labour party sure know how to polarise the cons to form a team to prevent labour getting anywhere, even if that is against the public interest. Why don’t they shut up until after the May vote then put their plan into action. There are no political parties fit for the role of government

Jane_Williamson · 2 December 2018 18:32

That is the real dilemma.
The two main parties are so polarised that they are not just one party at all, but lefts and rights.
The centre is so disorganised that there is no party to vote for other than the Lib Dems, who really need a kick up the backside.