On a topic as divisive as Brexit, it is impossible to please everyone.
Colchester was evenly split in the 2016 Referendum, with a small margin in favour of Leave, and I do not believe that this has drastically changed.
In the months since last November up until the end of February, I replied to 1,643 emails and letters on Brexit sent by my constituents, and I can assure you that very few people on either side of the campaign have changed their minds.
I can also confirm that neither side is united on what solution they want to see. Not everyone who voted remain wants a second referendum, and not everyone who voted leave wants a No Deal Brexit.
There are as many opinions on Brexit as there are people, and it is my task to represent everyone in Colchester, whether they voted leave or remain.
Several possible paths have been suggested, and each have their own drawbacks. I believe it is my duty to ensure that all decisions I take at every stage of the Brexit process are balanced, informed, and consider the views of all my constituents – hence the length of my response to you.
I voted to Leave the European Union, and I am committed to delivering upon the Referendum result.
The UK’s departure from the European Union is one of the most important issues to face the country since my election as your Member of Parliament in 2015, and while the wide diversity of opinion on the topic means I cannot please everyone, I hope I will demonstrate that I have considered everyone in making my decisions.
The Four Options.
There are four Brexit options that are routinely raised in the correspondence I receive.
- Back the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement
- Accept No Deal
- Pursue a ‘Soft Brexit’ (Customs Union)
- Hold a Public Vote (Referendum or General Election).
Views are strongly held on each option. Regardless of the likelihood of their adoption, I will deal with all of them in this letter.
I want to give you the full details of the situation so you may want to grab a cup of tea before we get started!
The Withdrawal Agreement.
The Prime Minister has successfully negotiated a Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, and this was first put to a vote on Tuesday 15 January 2019.
I voted against the Withdrawal Agreement, and it was defeated by 432 votes to 202.
While there are several elements I dislike, the broad terms of the Withdrawal Agreement are acceptable. However, I voted against it in January because the Brexit negotiations are comprised of two rounds.
The first round of negotiations has ended, and the Withdrawal Agreement establishes the legal parameters that will set the course for the second round of negotiations.
This second round of negotiations will agree Britain’s future relationship with Europe for many years to come, and under the Withdrawal Agreement, any stalemate in the second round of Brexit talks would trigger the Northern Ireland Backstop.
The Backstop is essentially a temporary customs union, and would therefore require Northern Ireland to maintain regulatory alignment with some EU rules on customs. This situation would last until a subsequent agreement could be reached to break the stalemate.
Having the same set of rules apply to either side of the Irish border is necessary to ensure that no hard border is required in Northern Ireland, and thereby preserve the hard-won peace of the Good Friday Agreement.
I do not want to see the Backstop come into force, and I do not want one part of the UK to be under a substantially different set of rules to another. On Thursday 6 December, I met with the Prime Minister privately to express my concerns, and to highlight that I could not support the deal without changes to the Backstop.
Adopting this position required that I resign from my position within the Ministry of Defence, and I sincerely wished that this were not the case. Yet I must do what I believe to be right for Colchester and our country, and consequently I resigned on Saturday 8 December.
My resignation letter to the Prime Minister can be found on my website.
On Tuesday 15 January, I voted against the Withdrawal Agreement, and it was defeated.
To find a solution to the above problem, I once more met with the Prime Minister and urged her to return to Brussels and seek amendments to the Backstop so that we could not be trapped inside it.
The Prime Minister returned from Strasbourg on Monday 11 March with concessions on the Backstop. While I would have liked them to go further and eliminate the risk all together, these concessions have reduced the risk of being trapped in the Backstop.
By this point, Parliament had voted in a non-binding motion to rule out No Deal, and this undermined our negotiating hand because it showed that we were not prepared to walk away.
Consequently, with our negotiating leverage undermined, I believed this deal to be the best one achievable under the circumstances.
If the Withdrawal Agreement failed a second time, the most likely outcome is a so-called ‘Soft Brexit’. This would see us remaining in the EU Customs Union, which would restrict our ability to conduct trade deals with the rest of the world.
This outcome would be significantly worse than the Prime Minister’s deal, because it carries the flaws of the Withdrawal Agreement, without any of the benefits.
While the Backstop is an insurance policy which risks a temporary customs union, a Soft Brexit wholeheartedly embraces a permanent customs union. This is clearly not a good choice to face, but what other option is there?
On Tuesday 12 March, and in light of the legal concessions secured from the EU and the consequences of its rejection, I voted for the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement.
The Withdrawal Agreement was nevertheless defeated, by 391 votes to 242.
My Position on a No-Deal Brexit.
Following the second rejection of the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement on Tuesday 12 March, a vote was held the following day on whether to accept or reject a No Deal Brexit.
Parliament has previously voted to reject a No Deal Brexit, but this was on a non-binding motion. The vote on Wednesday 13 March was more significant, and the Prime Minister promised to act in accordance with the result.
The initial motion was only to rule out No Deal on Friday 29 March. However, an amendment narrowly passed by 312 votes to 308, to reject a No Deal Brexit under any circumstances.
I opposed this amendment as I do not believe we should rule out a No Deal scenario for negotiating purposes, but it passed nevertheless.
When Parliament came to vote on the overall question of ruling out a No Deal Brexit under any circumstances, the motion passed by 374 votes to 164.
The reason I opposed ruling out a No Deal Brexit is because a desire to avoid a No Deal Brexit is the common ground we share with the EU. As long as a No Deal Brexit remains on the table, we can work with our European counterparts to secure a good deal for all.
Taking it off the table removes that unifying incentive. Keeping No Deal credible was necessary to negotiate in a co-operative spirit, regardless of whether No Deal is a desirable outcome or not.
Just as my concerns with the Backstop were that it tied us to the negotiating table, my problem with ruling out a No Deal Brexit was that it similarly tied us to the negotiating table, and this is a position of weakness.
It is similar to declaring that you will not leave a shop until you purchase an item, and then trying to negotiate a good price. It would only result in intransigence from the other side who would refuse to negotiate, as they now know that you will never be prepared to walk away.
There is also a danger that removing No Deal could prolong the Brexit negotiations.
The reason ruling out No Deal could have this effect is that it removes the ticking clock element. Previously we had to reach a deal by 29 March, and both our Government and the EU were working towards this shared goal. Now that No Deal has been ruled out in all circumstances, where is the urgency for the EU to conclude an equitable Brexit Deal with us?
As a father of two young children, I will use a more personal metaphor. Removing No Deal is like homework being set with no deadline – it takes a lot of the urgency out of the air, and increases the chances of the whole affair dragging on. I do not want Brexit to drag on with no end date, so keeping No Deal on the table is necessary.
Negotiating tactics aside, Parliament has rejected a No Deal Brexit under any circumstances.
Next Steps.
Following the rejection of the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement and rejection of a No Deal Brexit, a third vote was held on Thursday 14 March over whether to delay Brexit.
I voted against a delay as I believed Brexit should be delivered on time, as did a majority of my Conservative colleagues, but nevertheless Parliament voted by 413 votes to 202 that the date of Brexit should be delayed.
In order to enforce a delay to Brexit, which is currently scheduled for Friday 29 March, we needed to reach an agreement with the European Union to do so.
An extension has now been agreed, and the UK will leave the European Union on 22 May if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved. This extension allows for the necessary time it will take to ratify the Treaty.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is not approved, the UK will leave the European Union on 12 April. On this date we must leave with no deal, or indicate a new way forward.
Until we leave, the UK will retain its current rights and obligations as a full EU Member State.
A ‘Soft Brexit’.
A ‘Soft Brexit’ refers to the situation in which the UK seeks to remain part of the EU Customs Union on a permanent basis.
Some have advertised it as a compromise solution, but I believe it to be the worst of both worlds. To explain why this is the case, I must be clear what the EU Customs Union actually is.
A Customs Union is an agreement in which all Member States agree to remove all duties on products originating in each other’s territory, and to have a common external tariff.
What this means is there is no additional charge to importing or exporting goods to or from EU states such as France, Germany, Ireland and so on, but there is an additional charge put on importing goods from external countries that have not negotiated trade agreements with the EU.
The reasoning behind this is to encourage Europeans to purchase European goods, rather than products from other continents – for example, to protect European farmers from an influx of cheap agricultural produce from foreign states where it is cheaper to produce.
This may sound positive, but the need to harmonise the external customs policies of 28 EU states means that EU Member States must speak with one voice in international trade discussions.
To do this, Member States mandate the European Commission to negotiate trade agreements on their behalf through the EU’s Common Commercial Policy (CCP).
The CCP is the voice through which the EU negotiates trade deals as a united entity. It is an exclusive EU competence.
If we leave the EU, as we must in order to deliver on the 2016 Referendum, the UK is therefore very unlikely to hold a veto over the CCP’s decisions, as we will not be an EU Member.
Remaining part of the EU Customs Union while leaving the EU therefore commits the UK to observing EU decisions on custom agreements as determined by the CCP, while forfeiting the right to have a say on those agreements.
It therefore surrenders the ability to operate an independent customs policy.
This is not the control that many of my constituents voted for. It forfeits the advantages of Remain while failing to secure the advantages of Brexit.
The Backstop of the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement is controversial because it suggests that the UK should form a temporary customs union until another agreement can be struck. A ‘Soft Brexit’ is therefore even more controversial, as it wholeheartedly embraces the EU Customs Union with no end date in sight.
I am not in favour of this option, however if a No Deal Brexit and the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement are irrevocably defeated, it may become a possibility that Parliament may vote to pursue a ‘Soft Brexit’.
That is why I decided to vote for the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement, despite my reservations. Brexit should be delivered, but I am increasingly concerned that a Brexit in name only or no Brexit at all will be the current outcome.
Another possibility referred to under the title of a ‘Soft Brexit’ is the Norway Model, membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), or staying within the EU Single Market. I am opposed to these options for several reasons but not least because they all necessarily require the continuation of Freedom of Movement, which was a key concern of the Brexit campaign.
Second Referendum.
Parliament has voted to reject the Prime Minister’s deal on Tuesday 12 March, voted to reject No Deal on Wednesday 13, and voted for a delay to Brexit on Thursday 14.
A ‘Soft Brexit’ is no Brexit at all, and if Brexit cannot be delivered, I suspect many of my colleagues may push for a Second Referendum.
I understand the strength of feeling on the matter of a Second Referendum. While much is made of the 17.4 million voters that voted Leave, I have not forgotten the 16.1 million voters that voted Remain.
Colchester was split evenly over Brexit, and I know that for every email I receive advocating Brexit, I receive another advocating a Second Referendum.
However, at this stage I do not believe that a Second Referendum is likely. On Thursday 12 March, opposition parties put forward a motion backing some form of public vote.
The Second Referendum motion was defeated by 334 votes to 85.
Even if the official opposition party had not abstained, and every opposition MP backed a Second Referendum, there would still not be enough votes to approve a Second Referendum.
Based upon the current Parliamentary arithmetic, I do not believe this initiative is likely to succeed. While I entirely understand the frustration with Brexit, particularly amongst those who did not vote for it in the first place, I do not believe that there is the political appetite for a Second Referendum.
I know this will disappoint those frustrated with Brexit, but I expect that the solution to Brexit must be a compromise.
Conclusion.
I did not come into politics to only talk about Brexit. It is an important issue, but it is one of many. I would rather concentrate upon the economy, schools, hospitals, the environment etc.
Nevertheless, it is the most dramatic event in recent British political history. I therefore see it as my duty to provide you with an exhaustive explanation of every element of the proceedings, and hope I have done so.
I hope you are satisfied with the explanation I have provided of the votes to date, and my thoughts at each stage. As always, should you have any thoughts or suggestions that you would like to share with me, my door is always open.