Another instalment in my occasional series of letters to my Tory Brexiter MP about Brexit. I'm lobbying for a better Brexit rather than the "Hulk smash" kind of Brexit we seem to be heading towards. At increasing speed.
I do, sometimes, get a bit grumpy with my MP. Mainly because the responses tend towards "thank you for your letter, lovely Brexit, thoughts and prayers" rather than actually engaging meaningfully with any of the points made.
This seems a particularly appropriate post for today. Hope everyone who's marching today has a wonderful time, raises their banners high and shakes Parliament's roof-tops. (But not too much given the state of dis-repair). Wish we could be there in person rather than in spirit.
17 June 2018 - Me to My MP
I am writing to ask you to vote for Dominic Grieve’s clause 5c or whatever it ends up being called after the House of Lords returns it to the Commons next week.
This is vital clause merely ensures in the event of no deal the House of Commons can re-assert control of the process. The country did not vote for a a no-deal Brexit and this was never mentioned as a potential outcome during the Referendum or General Election campaigns. The economic, social and political consequences would be terrible. If that happens, it is essential there is an informed, honest and open debate in our Parliament about what happens next before any decisions are made.
As far as I can tell, two arguments have been put forward to reject this clause:
- That it would strengthen the hand of the EU in its negotiations and we would end up with a worse deal than otherwise. The EU has always had a stronger hand in these negotiations as the UK is the one leaving while seeking to minimise the economic consequences. Although people want Brexit, no one appears to want to pay for it.
- That it is a ploy to reverse the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. There is a clear majority in Parliament for Brexit – and as Labour’s concession on the EEA amendment makes clear – for leaving the Single Market. All that is wanted is a desire for Parliament to control the terms of Brexit – especially in unknown circumstances of no deal – not to reverse it.
What matters is that the nature of the deal is influenced by the interests of ordinary constituents and that there is a democratic debate and decision at what would be an incredibly difficult time. That is all the clause does. It hands control and sovereignty to Parliament - one of the key drivers for Brexit. It also helps make the government more accountable.
Thank you for reading. l look forward to hearing from you.
My MP to Me - 22 June 2018
Thank you for contacting me about the European Union Withdrawal Bill and making me aware of your views. As I am sure you will understand, I have received a large volume of correspondence from my constituents concerning the recent votes on the Lords amendments, and therefore I am not able to respond to each email individually.
I would like to set out from the start of my response that I did not support any of the amendments tabled to the EU Withdrawal Bill by the House of Lords. I did not believe the amendments either respected the referendum result, offered any protections that are not already guaranteed by the government or helped the government to negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom as we leave the European Union. Consequently, these principles dictated why I voted against all the amendments. I have stated on many occasions my firm belief that Parliament voted overwhelmingly to have a referendum, the result was clear from a free and democratic referendum and Parliament therefore voted by a large majority to trigger Article 50 and begin the process of leaving the European Union, and these points must never be undermined and should be respected to ensure the best interests for our country and its renowned democratic process are fully implemented.
Furthermore, I want to address the amendments that have made up the vast majority of the emails I have received one at a time.
Firstly, with regard to Amendment 51 for the UK to remain in the European Economic Area, I strongly believe that to remain in the EEA and Single Market would be contrary to the wishes of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave the EU in the referendum. In 2017, I stood and was elected on a Conservative manifesto pledge for the UK to leave the EU, including both the Single Market and customs union. If we became members of the EEA, the UK would still have to accept EU rules, such as freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and would have no say over the making of those rules.
These same arguments also apply to Amendments 1 and 2 to remain in a customs union with the EU. To remain in a customs union would remove the UK’s ability not only to pursue trade deals with non-EU countries, but would also remove the ability for the UK to reduce tariff rates. In fact, there has already been considerable interest for trade deals already from a number of countries on a global scale, including Australia, The US and India. In addition, the EU imposes high tariffs for many goods being imported into the UK, including, for example 10% for cars and as high as 20% for sugar and confectionery. However, as you know, departure from the European Union will give this country the chance to reduce or remove these import tariffs, which in turn will lower prices for UK consumers.
With regards to Amendment 19 and the more recent addition of Clause 5c, calling for a meaningful vote for Parliament on the Withdrawal Bill in the event of a no deal with the EU, I also voted against this amendment. To allow Parliament to direct the UK’s negotiations with the EU would be unprecedented, impractical and would severely weaken the government’s negotiating position.
Amendment 19 would effectively tie the hands of Government and reduce the chances of us getting a deal that is beneficial to the UK. It is clear that MPs will have their voice heard in the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, however I firmly believe that Parliament should not be granted the power to reverse the result clearly made by the British electorate in the referendum, and that this democratically-determined result must be respected and implemented.
I have also received emails concerning Amendment 3 to maintain the EU’s environmental principles in domestic law once the UK leaves the EU. I am strongly committed to ensuring the protection of our environment outside of the European Union, and I am happy that the EU Withdrawal Bill will enable the conversion of all EU environmental law into UK law once we leave in March 2019. Ultimately, I failed to see how Amendment 3 would have been sufficient to have fulfilled its aims, and therefore I voted against it. However, as you will know, the Government proposed another amendment which puts a legal obligation on the Government to publish an Environmental Principles Bill containing nine environmental principles within 6 months of the EU Withdrawal Bill becoming law, which I myself also voted for. This Bill also includes the setting-up of a government watchdog to hold the government to account over environmental protection and management in the future. I see the UK leaving the EU as a great opportunity to have the highest standards of environmental protection and I assure you that this is the aim of government as well.
I would also like to touch on Amendment 24, which would enable unaccompanied child refugees in one EU member state to join relatives in another EU state. I do agree that the Dublin Regulation itself has done much to help asylum-seeking children since its creation. However, if this regulation were to be continued indefinitely, this would create a semi-permanent scheme that would not only create an additional pull factor that will lead to more children travelling dangerously across the Mediterranean, but would inevitably put more children in the hands of unscrupulous people traffickers. The UK has always been at the forefront of refugee protection on a global scale and the government is seeking to continue co-operation with the EU to maintain this level of assistance. However, as Amendment 24 called for the perpetuation of the Dublin Regulation on a permanent basis, I therefore decided to vote against the amendment.
I hope my response has justified my reasons for not supporting the recent Lords amendments.
Thank you again for taking the time to write to me.
Me - Not sent
Not really, particularly given Boris Johnson's reported four letter response to queries about business' concerns relating to Brexit and the Airbus and BMW announcements, but thank you for your comprehensive response. What are the odds of you supporting a #peoplesvote?
No comments
Post a Comment