Thursday, 2 March 2017

Brexit and my MP - Part 8

OK, here it is. Something of a scattergun approach and certainly not the best piece of argument I've produced but I needed to get something to my MP quickish - otherwise she'll think I've given up.

(Plenty more in this series elsewhere in my blog)



The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
3 March 2017
Dear Anne

Thank you for your letter of 31 January 2017 and particularly for taking the time to pen your post script describing your decision making process with respect to the triggering of Article 50. While I acknowledge that, at this stage, no argument about the conduct of the advisory referendum is going to change your decision nor deflect the Government from its chosen course I do wish to make one comment on your letter.

Language
You state “the Country voted to leave the EU”. At the risk of going over old ground, the Country comprises approximately 65.4M people. Of these approximately 51.4M (78.5%) are of voting age and on June 23 last year some 46.5M of these (71% of the population) were registered to vote. In the end about 33.6M (54% of the population) actually voted; with 17.4M (26.6% of the population) voting “Leave”. It is indisputable that, of those who were able, and chose, to vote marginally more voted “Leave” than “Remain”. Never-the-less it has to be acknowledged that almost ¾ of the population either could not vote or did not vote “Leave”. To label 17.4M people as “the Country” is, I believe, a dangerous misuse of language. If taken at face value, without careful thought about its meaning, it may be read as a general agreement in the Nation to Brexit which is manifestly not the case. I urge you to avoid all phrases such as “the Country has voted” or “the people have decided” – they are insidious distortions of the truth.

Now, to look forward:

Respect
In his speech on 27 February Sir John Major stated inter alia “....in the afterglow of victory, their cheerleaders [i.e. of anti-Europeans] have shown a disregard that amounts to contempt for the 48% who believed our future was more secure within the European Union,.......They [the 48%] do not deserve to be told that....they must keep quiet and toe the line”. This captures much of my feeling at the moment.

The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto promised to “respect the outcome of the [advisory] referendum”. This surely should de minimis acknowledge the hopes and desires of the 16.1M who voted “Remain”? Recently, in response to a letter I sent to No 10 I received what appears to be a standard reply from DExEU which is so hectoring in its tone that it felt more like an edict from 1937 Germany than a communication from a 2017 UK Government department. Sadly, the advisory referendum exposed deep division in our society and unfortunately, the handling of the outcome is doing nothing to heal those rifts.

Less Haste More Speed
We appear to be racing at a somewhat unseemly pace to trigger Article 50 within the next few weeks. I am reminded of a recently heard anecdote from someone with a private pilot’s licence who tells of one of the psychological factors leading to poor piloting being what’s often called “press-on-itis”. This occurs when a pilot is flying into steadily worsening conditions and subconsciously wishes to get to his/her destination, land and be safe when the safer option would be to return to his/her starting point or land as soon as possible at a nearby landing site. All too often the outcome is “a controlled flight into terrain” – a crash in which the pilot does not lose control of the plane, just the situation. I do hope that the dash for triggering Article 50 is not an example of this problem.

EU Citizens’ Rights
Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU I am afforded citizenship of the Union. This confers upon me a number of rights, one of which is the right to move and reside freely within the EU. This right is clearly in jeopardy in the Brexit process although, as ministers have suggested, may be maintained through the negotiations by using the rights of citizens from the other EU states as a bargaining chip. This may be the logical approach from a gaming point of view but I find it utterly un-British and morally reprehensible. I am therefore very pleased with the amendment to the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill passed by the Lords yesterday. I trust that you will not be party to, nor support, its reversal by the Commons.

The Final Deal
I was surprised to read one estimate of the UK’s exit costs being up to 60bn; that’s almost 1000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Given the source of this estimate I suspect that it is something of an exaggeration. However, there will be a cost and I suggest that many “Leave” voters will not have considered this when they cast their votes. Indeed, some may have regarded the process as costless or even, given the unfortunate promises to repatriate £350M per week and redirect it to the NHS, have thought that there would be a net cash benefit. Similarly others may have anticipated a “soft” Brexit with the UK retaining full access to the single market, or at least remaining in the customs union. How many expected the “hard” Brexit that the Government is now pursuing? (I doubt that very many people at all thought about other issues such as the UK’s position in Euratom). Will “the People” have any say in approving the final deal? At the very least Parliament should have frequent opportunity to scrutinise and criticise the Government’s progress; and to be the ultimate arbiter of the final deal with a guaranteed definitive vote. I do hope that you will press for this.



Yours sincerely

No comments:

Post a Comment