My latest statement on Brexit and the proposed EU Withdrawal Agreement (apologies in advance it's a very long read so you may need a cupper!)
The UK’s departure from the European Union is undoubtedly one of the most important issues to face the country since my election as your Member of Parliament in 2015.
I have therefore taken every step possible to ensure that my decisions at each stage are balanced and informed, and I hope my explanation below fully explains my reasoning behind each decision.
The Withdrawal Agreement.
The Prime Minister has successfully negotiated a Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union, and this was put to a vote on Tuesday 15 January 2019. I voted against the Withdrawal Agreement, and it was defeated by 432 votes to 202.
The reason I voted against the Withdrawal Agreement is that the Brexit negotiations are comprised of two rounds. The first round of talks have come to a close, and the Withdrawal Agreement established the legal parameters that would set the course for the second round of negotiations.
As this second round of negotiations will set the course for Britain’s future relationship with Europe for many years to come, these talks are expected to be more challenging than the first. They will be hard, and they could be protracted.
I believe that if the current version of this deal had been approved by Parliament, we would have accepted an inherent position of weakness in the second round of negotiations as a matter of law, and I could not accept that.
The source of this weakness is the proposed Backstop. Under the Agreement, any stalemate in future talks between the UK and the EU would force the United Kingdom to form a customs union with the EU, and therefore maintain regulatory alignment with EU rules. This is necessary to ensure no hard border in Northern Ireland, and thereby ensure the hard-won peace of the Good Friday Agreement.
This would mean that Britain would have surrendered its seats in the European Parliament, and therefore while having no say in the formation of EU rules, we would still be bound by them, particularly Northern Ireland.
If Parliament ever chose to pass alternative legislation domestically at any point while stuck inside the Backstop, our rules would diverge from EU laws which must apply to Northern Ireland. This divergence between British and European law would mean that any goods passing between any part of the country and Northern Ireland would be subject to a declaration process, similar to an international trade.
How could we claim to be a United Kingdom under such terms?
I do not believe that we should abandon Northern Ireland in pursuit of a hasty Brexit, and therefore could not support this deal.
Some have argued that the Backstop is intended to be a temporary measure, until any stalemate in negotiations has been resolved. This may not be the case. As the Attorney General’s legal advice made clear, we would not have a unilateral right to leave the Backstop under any circumstances.
The legal advice explicitly states that “In the absence of a right of termination, there is a legal risk that the United Kingdom might become subject to protracted and repeating rounds of negotiations”. There is no end date for such negotiations, hence why I fear that the second phase of Brexit could have lasted indefinitely if the Withdrawal Agreement had received Parliamentary approval.
To illustrate why this would be so dangerous to our national interest, imagine that the Withdrawal Agreement had passed. We would have proceeded with negotiations over the coming years, they would likely have proven difficult, we would have refused to back down, and the Backstop would be triggered. The UK would then conform to EU rules over which we have no say, and we would have put forward a set of proposals to break the deadlock.
The EU could then consistently reject our proposals. Where do we go? What is Plan B? We cannot abandon Northern Ireland, and as the Attorney General made clear, we would be stuck in that Backstop indefinitely as a matter of law.
In what way could we apply pressure upon the EU in such a situation? They would only argue that Brexit was the United Kingdom’s decision. While the EU is required to show good faith in negotiations, they are not bound to accept proposals which they find unacceptable any more than we are. As the Attorney General has clearly stated in his legal advice, all the EU “would have to do to show good faith would be to consider the UK’s proposals, even if they ultimately rejected them. This could go on repeatedly without such conduct giving rise to bad faith or failure to use best endeavours.”
How would this deliver upon the 2016 Referendum result? Tied to the negotiating table as a matter of law, the United Kingdom would have lost control of the negotiating timetable and Brexit would be indefinitely postponed.
It could have become a regular occurrence for EU negotiators to meet in Brussels, ponder our proposals, and then reject them out of hand until, after a number of years, we would have been so desperate that we would accept whatever terms they offered, terms significantly worse than are on offer now.
I did not want to support such a deal, and then to be asked why Brexit was still not over in the early 2020s or beyond.
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 ultimately I must do what I believe to be right for Colchester and our country, and consequently I resigned on Saturday 8 December.
On Tuesday 15 January, I voted against the Withdrawal Agreement.
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 an amendment to the Backstop to include either;
• A unilateral exit mechanism so that we could not be trapped inside the Backstop.
OR
• A time limit to the Backstop, so that we could not be trapped inside the Backstop.
If you want to know what I am for, rather than what I am against, that is it. I would have liked to support the Prime Minister’s deal, provided that this small amendment could be made to the Withdrawal Agreement. To the Prime Minister’s credit, she listened and has opened up negotiations with the EU to seek to secure this concession.
Unfortunately, to date the EU has not yet agreed to either concession. Instead, the EU has only offered a letter of assurance that “just like the United Kingdom, the European Union does not wish to see the backstop enter into force. Were it to do so, it would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides.” Unfortunately this letter, welcome as it is, does not offer the legally binding assurances on the Backstop which we require.
As a result, my position remained unchanged.
My Position on a No-Deal Brexit.
The default legal position of the United Kingdom is that, in the absence of an alternative deal being agreed, the UK will leave the EU on Friday 29 March 2019 with no deal.
There is a wide range of opinion as to what a No Deal Brexit would mean for our country, largely because of the uncertainty involved. The European Union and the United Kingdom share many reciprocal agreements over different policy areas, from security arrangements to economic agreements, and it is unclear what would happen to these arrangements in the event of a No Deal scenario.
While some believe that No Deal will be catastrophic, and others believe it would be hugely beneficial, both conclusions are moot points and debatable depending on different scenarios and whether further bilateral and reciprocal arrangements are entered into and the timescale over which we are to assess the impact.
Prior to my election, I was a solicitor, and therefore I believe that the case for or against a No-Deal Brexit should be guided, where possible, by hard facts obtained from multiple sources, and not emotive conjecture made by anyone in pursuit of a political agenda.
To ensure that my judgement is guided by verifiable facts, I have employed a multi-faceted approach, which I have set out below.
• Firstly, I have held a series of meetings with local businesses in Colchester to determine what the economic impact of a No Deal Brexit could be. This included a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss MP, and over 60 representatives of Colchester’s largest private sector employers on Friday 30 November.
• Secondly, I have raised the issue of No Deal preparations in my private discussions with ministers and senior officials. I have met with the Brexit Secretary of State, Steve Barclay MP, and the Contingency Planning Minister Chris Heaton-Harris MP in the Department for Exiting the European Union. I have also attended a briefing with the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, discussed the issue with the Attorney General, and of course raised the issue with the Prime Minister in person.
• Publicly, I have raised the issue in the House of Commons Chamber. For example, on Tuesday 18 December I asked the Defence Secretary whether our Armed Forces are prepared for the eventuality of a No Deal, and a video of his full response is available on my twitter feed. To summarise, he assured me that there are 3,500 soldiers ready for any eventuality.
• As always, I have consulted the views of my constituents as expressed through the many emails and letters I receive.
Considering the above, I am convinced that the Government is genuinely doing all it can in preparation for a No Deal scenario. A total of £4.2 billion has been provided to government departments and the devolved administrations to prepare for the UK's exit from the EU, and so public services will be prepared. Anyone worried by a No-Deal Brexit should rest assured that we are ready and preparedness will continue up to and beyond our exit.
However, it is possible that some private businesses across the country are not as prepared. Given the nature of a free market, government cannot dictate to private business how to act, and to that end the Government has released guidance on how businesses can best prepare for a No Deal scenario. I cannot guarantee that every company is prepared, and therefore there is a real risk of economic disruption and potential job losses in the event of No Deal.
Similarly, there is uncertainty over our future trading relationships with non-EU countries. For example, the European Union has trade agreements with approximately fifty non-EU states, such as Canada. We therefore currently trade with Canada on the rules established by EU agreements. Should we adopt a No Deal scenario, would we still trade with Canada on EU terms? This remains unclear, and if it is unclear, how can a business prepare for it?
As a result, my position is that while I am not afraid of No Deal, I do not believe it is ideal and we should try to avoid that outcome. My preference would be for an orderly exit from the European Union, and for that reason I would like to support the Withdrawal Agreement, subject to an amendment to the Backstop.
However, I do not believe that we should rule out a No Deal scenario at this stage.
The real threat that we may walk away from the negotiating table is crucial to securing a concession from European negotiators over the Backstop.
In other words, ruling out No Deal is similar to entering a shop, declaring you will not leave until you purchase an item, and then trying to negotiate a good price. It would only result in intransigence from the other side, who now knows that you will never be prepared to walk away.
While I do not want a No Deal outcome, it would be a fundamental mistake to try to rule it out now, while negotiations are still underway.
Negotiating tactics aside, I do not believe that a No Deal scenario is likely, given the current Parliamentary arithmetic. Multiple amendments have been tabled by MPs from all major parties to try to rule out such a scenario, and they may well succeed in the coming days.
Next Steps.
On Tuesday 29 January, Members of Parliament will vote on a series of motions and amendments that will indicate where we go from here. My position, as explained above, is that I believe Brexit should be delivered, and I would like to support the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement if the Backstop can be suitably amended.
I am not afraid of a No Deal scenario, but I do not think it an ideal or desirable outcome. Of course we can manage a No Deal scenario, and I am convinced that the Government is ready. However, I hope that the Prime Minister can secure the necessary legal changes that she is currently negotiating for from the European Union. I do not think it is unrealistic to say that Brexit itself depends upon it.
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.
I believe my role is to familiarise myself with the facts, to attend the meetings on your behalf, to consult, to do the due diligence, and to use my judgement to decide what I believe is in the best interests of my constituents and our country.
I hope you are satisfied with the steps I have taken to date. As always, should you have any thoughts or suggestions that you would like to share with me, my door is always open.