Brexit and my MP - Part 36

Here we go again:

Dear Mrs Milton,

My previous email to you was sent before the government announced details of its no-deal contingency plans. These can be seen as nothing but complete and utter admissions of failure.

3,500 troops on standby!

A dedicated NHS ‘plane!

Space rationing on cross-channel ferries!

Emergency purchases of ‘fridges for the NHS!

Expenditure £4.2bn!

These are not the action of a “responsible government”; they are the knee jerks of a rabbit in the headlights. Why on earth is the government even contemplating a no-deal exit? It would constitute a massive act of self-inflicted harm. And it is one that is totally avoidable by a simple announcement that the government will not let it happen by pledging to extend or rescind Article 50 should there be a failure in Parliament, as seems likely, to approve the Prime Minister’s interim deal.

How can you bear to be associated with this shambles?

I suggest that now is the time for all right-thinking MPs to take action to avoid this potential catastrophe. If Parliament is really unable to come to any sensible agreement then, much as I dislike the idea of a further referendum (my earlier communications about the nature of a representative democracy refer), then the only route out of this mess is to put the deal to the people; with Remain as an alternative.

I urge you to do all you can to obtain this outcome. If you feel your Minister of State position is an impediment then there is a simple solution: resign. If pressure from your party colleagues would similarly put a block on action then resign the whip. But, please, have at the forefront of everything you do the best interests of the country in general and of your constituents in particular.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Solar Proposals Are Nuts

I think Brexit has addled brains throughout Westminster. HMG is proposing to do away with the export tariff for new domestic solar installations from April 2019. That's right - any excess generation will be provided free to the grid so power companies will not have to purchase that energy they will, in fact, be subsidised! With the country and the world currently failing to be on track to limiting warming to 1.5C where's the incentive for people to act?

There is a second blow for solar producers. Ofgem has announced that it is proposing to change access charging in a way that will increase costs for domestic solar systems. Thanks Ofgem!

Brexit and my MP - Part 35

So this is the response I received.

Gosh! Thanks!



Draft EU Withdrawal Agreement (6 December 2018)

My thanks again to everyone for continuing to keep in touch with me about Brexit. You may well have had an email before, but just to sum up, the people who have contacted me fall into 3 broad categories: those who are happy to leave without a deal, those who support the current draft Withdrawal Agreement, and those who would like a second referendum.

I know some people believe that leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules would be a price worth paying and that, although the economy would face a downturn, the recovery would not take as long as some are forecasting. Although I do not believe all the economic forecasts (economists often give quite a wide variation of views), I am yet to be convinced that this would be a responsible path to take. I remain of the view that leaving without a deal would create an economic downturn, and the subsequent social cost would be too high for some parts of the country to bear.

I now understand that it is likely to be possible to rescind Article 50 and return to the situation prior to the referendum of 2016. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is yet to make a decision on whether the UK can do this unilaterally, i.e. without the agreement of other Member States. However, the Advocate General issued his opinion this week that: ‘the Member State which has activated Article 50 TEU in order to withdraw from the European Union may ‘deactivate’ it when its will changes’. I understand that this is only advisory, however it is likely that the UK will have a clear statement over the coming days from the ECJ about whether it can unilaterally rescind Article 50.

I continue to have grave concerns about a second referendum. However, if Parliament were unable to form a majority view then a second referendum may be the only responsible way forward. A second referendum could include: the opportunity to rescind Article 50; leaving the EU on WTO rules; or indeed the draft Agreement we have before us today. I have doubts whether the enabling legislation could get through Parliament until, and unless, Parliament is deadlocked, and another referendum would undoubtedly infuriate many.

However, I feel Parliament has a duty to try and resolve this matter. There is much speculation about what will happen over the next week and I will endeavour to keep you in touch with events as they emerge. Do always use the link www.parliamentlive.tv/Commons if you would like to follow the debate. There are 8 hours of debate each day and depending on whether there are urgent questions or Government statements, the debates will start at: 10:30am on Thursday; 3:30pm on Monday; and 12:30pm on Tuesday.

Many people have raised concerns about the so-called backstop in the draft Agreement, in particular about the open-ended nature of the backstop and also concerns about Northern Ireland. I understand that the words “best endeavours” have a long legal history. However, there is still some question about what would happen next. It is possible that it isn’t in practise enforceable in any meaningful way. The advice that I have been given is that the backstop is not a comfortable position for both the UK and the EU, and that this will be sufficient to ensure we do not stay in the backstop for long.
I have little optimism that the EU will agree variations on the draft Agreement that would be meaningful. So even if the EU agreed to an extension to Article 50 it would be unlikely that this would be for the purpose of changing the deal currently on offer.

This is the most important vote the House of Commons will take in my time as an MP. I will take my time to decide how to vote, bearing in mind the views of the people in Guildford, and the best interests of the country. My position in Government will not affect how I vote. I will accept the consequences whatever they might be, to do what I think is right. I have asked and will continue to press for a free vote on the draft Agreement.

There is no doubt that how I vote will not please everyone, but I can assure you that I am giving this issue a great deal of attention and time, to make quite sure I have all the best information available from the Government, the views of my constituents and any independent advice that is available to me.

Open Access Scientific Publishing

The whole saga of scientific publishers profiting by charging for papers describing publicly-funded research has bubbled to the surface again with the actions of cOAlition S. I was fortunate enough to be a co-author of a paper published in the Faraday Society Transactions in 1973 (J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 2, 1973, 69, 1839) so I thought I'd check out its current availability. A quick search of the net revealed that it may be purchased for £42.50. Really? For a paper that's 45 years old? That's wicked. Good job I still have a copy for the family history archive.

Client Earth

Pinched from Rod Janssen's Energy in Demand Blog:-

Reviewing the work of the environmental lawyers Client Earth

This entry was posted on December 8, 2018 by Rod Janssen, in environment and tagged environment. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment

Anyone involved in the decision-making process in the EU and many countries will have seen the impact of Client Earth [https://www.clientearth.org/]. But few fully understand the full role of the organisation.  Anke Rasper interviews James Thornton, CEO of Client Earth, in an article on the Deutsche Welle website.

Client Earth: Changing environmental law, the world over

James Thornton, head of public interest law firm Client Earth, holds governments around the world accountable for environmental damage. He tells DW how the law can be harnessed for the good of people and the planet.

DW: You’ve been called one of the 10 people that can change the world. What’s your master plan?

James Thornton: The thing that allows a really small group of people to change the world is using the enormous power of the law. Legal systems encapsulate, really, what a society thinks about itself and the rules that people in the particular society have mutually agreed to be governed by. It always includes enforcement mechanisms.

If, for example, a government has passed a law about air pollution or water pollution and then it doesn’t do the right thing and protect the people like the law says, we — using the power of the law — can go to the courts and force the government to do the right thing. That’s an example of how just a few people can actually make a big difference.

You’re currently suing a number of cities and in a couple of cases courts have already ruled that diesel vehicles should be banned. Berlin is one of them — how many more do you think will follow, and what immediate effect do you hope these bans have?

I think many, many more will follow. We’re now beginning to see that when we simply write a letter to the politicians, they decide to make the changes themselves. It doesn’t always happen, and then we have to sue.

After our case went up to the highest court in Germany and we won, the mayor of Rome — who had only had a polite letter from us — she announced that she wanted to protect the health of the people by banning diesel.

What we hope is, as we bring these cases, the governments will decide on their own to follow the law. It’s not actually asking very much to have governments follow their own laws.

How do pick your battles and win as many cases as you do?

We always start by studying the science. Setting up Client Earth, one of the very first things was to ask climate scientists: ‘If we could do one thing to help slow down climate change, what would it be?’ They said, ‘Stop any new coal-fired power stations from being built in Europe and then start closing down existing ones.’

Sometimes you need to use very different sorts of laws to get to where you want to go.

I’ll give you an example: We just brought a very cool case in Poland a few weeks ago as the first case of its kind in the world. A big energy company called Enea, wanted to build a coal-fired power station.

Energy analysts said that this would be a bad investment. They wouldn’t make money from it because coal is no longer a good investment. But the government is the biggest shareholder, and for political reasons it wanted to move ahead. So we bought shares in the company.

We sued the officers and directors of the company saying that they were violating their duties under corporate law by not taking the interests of the company and the shareholders into account by investing in this bad, bad investment.

I think companies all over the world are going to notice, and of course we’ll bring more of this type of case and we will change their behavior.

Your work only makes a difference if the legal systems work. What do you do in countries where they don’t?

There are some countries where it would be impossible to do our sort of work. We’re always building the rule of law wherever we work. We’re building the rule of law in the EU. In Africa, we are working in five countries.

In Gabon, for example, we had to bring together all of the forestry law. We published what’s now the official Forestry Code of Gabon.

We started by working with NGOs and lawyers in the countries to explore what the legal rights of forest-dependent communities are, so we could protect those rights. And with African lawyers, we studied what the system of rights was in each country to see what rights were missing.

Then we supported the NGOs in going to the governments and saying, ‘We need more of this or that right.’ That’s actually been quite successful.

In each of the countries, the governments then came to us and said, ‘Well actually, we understand what you’re doing and it’s quite helpful. Could you also talk to us?’ We said, ‘Well, of course.’ Then changes in the law came.

You’re also working in China. What are you doing there?

China is very exciting. We’ve just been discussing how in Western Europe sometimes we have to fight governments. We also help them.

In China, the invitation was from the Supreme Court for me to give a seminar to members of the Supreme Court because they were hoping to write a law to allow citizens to sue companies that polluted.

They set up a system of environmental courts, from the Supreme Court all the way down to the provincial level. There are something like 3,000 environment court judges in China who are becoming experts in deciding environmental cases and it’s been a real honor that the Supreme Court invited us to help train these judges in how to make environmental decisions.

Since we’ve been working with them for a few years now, the prosecutors have brought 2,000 enforcement cases in the courts.

You’ve been criticized for this because you’re focusing on the environment and leaving aside human rights and social questions. What’s your response?

Let’s think about it this way: The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] very recently told us that we have 12 years to seriously shift the direction of society if we want a human civilization in future generations. Twelve years — that’s not very long. So if I were to sit here and say, ‘Well I’m not going to help the Chinese improve their environmental work until they’ve completely changed their human rights position,’ 12 years might come and go many times and the world might not survive from an environmental perspective. I think one has to be pragmatic and one has to actually help the world’s biggest polluter and the world’s largest population.

Your court cases often take many years. Is the law too slow?

When people ask me the question is the law too slow, I say, ‘As compared to what?’ Let me just give you the example of air pollution: We sued the UK government in 2010 — which is when they needed to have complied with the law.

So we went to court and we forced them to come up with the plans and now we’re holding them to the plans. By 2025, certainly, most of the UK should actually be complying with the limit. That’s pretty good compared to never getting there.

What does it take for you personally to do this kind of work?

You need to believe that what you’re doing makes sense. I don’t know anything that I could be doing with myself that is anywhere near as interesting. Also, I am a Buddhist and in Buddhism, you take a vow to save all sentient beings. And I have a very literal-minded interpretation of that.

James Thornton is the CEO of environmental law firm Client Earth. Having fought environmental cases in the US, he helped change European law, making it easier to sue of environmental damage. Headquartered in London, Client Earth has offices in Brussels, Warsaw, Beijing — and now Berlin. Thornton is also a Zen Buddhist priest. While taking a break in nature, he likes to set his out-of-office autoreply to “I’m not in the office now. I’m visiting my client.”

Brexit and my MP - Part 34

I have been biting my tongue as far as communicating with my MP on Brexit is concerned. However, needs must...……….

Dear Ms Milton,

I have refrained from writing to you upon the subject of Brexit for some time not because I have little to say; nothing could be further from the truth; but because the unedifying sight of government members bickering among themselves and the demonstrations of apparent ineptitude, ignorance and lack of judgement on behalf of some ministers and other MPs have so angered me that I feared any missive from me might descend into mere invective.

However, the UK now stands at another crossroads and it is right that you should hear the opinions of your constituents.

It is quite obvious that the transition deal and the vague, wishy-washy political statement about long-term relationship attached to it, promise an outcome manifestly worse than the UK’s present arrangements with the EU. A no-deal Brexit would be even more damaging.

I am reminded that item III.6 of the House of Commons Code of Conduct reads “Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents”. I have yet to hear a cogent argument explaining how opting for the so-called “least worst” position, i.e. Mrs May’s “deal”, fulfils that duty, particularly in a remain-voting constituency like Guildford.

Please don’t respond with rationalisation along the lines of “the will of the people” and “protecting our democracy”. I recall that even Mrs Thatcher was inclined to agree with Lord Atlee that a referendum is a device of dictators and demagogues. The 23^rd June 2016 referendum had little to do with our representative democracy and a lot to do with naked political expediency.

I believe that now is the time for MPs to exercise that duty outlined above and to ensure that the whole sorry saga of Brexit is called off. To do so would be a true demonstration of our representative democracy. If you and your colleagues are unwilling to do so you should at least ensure that the British people have the opportunity to say whether they wish to continue on a path that will inevitably leave the country poorer and, particularly with respect to Europe, distinctly marginalised.

Rescinding Article 50 would be mortifying for many; not to do so would be a permanent and serious mistake.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Long on Words, Short on Action?

Without delving into the numbers myself I have had suspicions that many countries actions and national plans fall short of their Paris commitments. Now there is a report from Grantham Research and ESRC that suggests that just 16 countries have set targets for cuts that are consistent with their Paris nationally determined contributions. This assessment matches the earlier Climate Action Tracker findings.

While this is not surprising - it ever was the way of the political world - it is very disappointing. Once again we are being poorly served by politicians with, at best, a 5-year horizon to the next election.

Floating Solar Farm is a Neat Idea

I'm obviously way behind the times. United Utilities has announced that it is building a second floating solar farm at one of its reservoirs capable of fully powering one of its water treatment plants. I had completely missed that the first existed!

This is a neat idea.

Disaster Looming on the Plastics Front?

Edie has posted two articles recently that have worrying implications. In the first it reports that the UK plastics recycling industry is facing an investigation into fraud and abuse. This comes after 6 plastic waste exporters had their licences suspended or cancelled in the last three months. It would appear that some operators are claiming for dealing with waste that does not exist; some waste is not being recycled but is just being allowed to rot and leach into the environment; illegal shipments are taking place; and serial offenders are continuing to export. All this comes on top of China banning UK waste and other countries looking as though they may do the same.

This latter issue has led to increased costs for local councils, which is the subject of Edie's second report. Some councils are claiming cost increases of the order of £0.5M per year.

The combined effect could be very bad news for plastic recycling in the UK.

MI5 and Privacy International

Privacy International exists to promote and defend privacy in an age of ever more surveillance, particularly bulk surveillance of citizens who are under no suspicion of committing any crime. The UK intelligence agencies, for instance, have been shown to be hoovering up such information as travel movements, financial records, and internet and telephone use. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has twice ruled that the UK agencies' access to the databases so created has been unlawful.

Now it has become clear that not only has data relating to Privacy International been swept up by GCHP, HI5 and MI6; but MI5 has also unlawfully read and captured Privacy International's private data as part of an active investigation.

Why are our intelligence agencies wasting their time and money spying on a human rights organisation that is working in the public interest? Surely MI5 has bigger fish to fry?

SP Sells Gas Plant to Drax. So What?

Edie has carried a story that Scottish Power has sold its gas generation plant to Drax. This process has been accompanied with a certain amount of ballyhoo:-

Greenpeece UK, for instance:
“Big utilities across Europe have been shedding their dirty fossil fuel infrastructure because it makes economic and environmental sense.”

This is nonsense. All that has happened is that the deck chairs on the Titanic have been rearranged. As Edie's piece points out, there has been no change in the UK's power plant portfolio; and SP will still be purchasing "brown" electricity.

The Greenpeace statement does a disservice to the renewables cause. They should stick to applauding genuine shifts in the nation's generating capacity.

Home Battery Collection - Could It Be A Runner?

This is a short article from Edie about Currys PC World trialling home battery collection when they deliver new appliances. A survey last year indicated that 6 in ten of those questioned hoard used batteries and that the total holding amounts to some 178M. The UK's battery recycling rate in 2016 was just below the EU target of 45%, which , in itself, seems to me to be somewhat unambitious.

So, if Currys' pilot is successful will it make a difference? I have no idea how many domestic deliveries Currys make in a year but let us suppose that they visit 1% of UK households. That could result in up to 1.8M batteries being recycled. Now, some of those would have been recycled anyway; let's say 50%. A nationwide scheme might thus make a net gain in recycling of 0.9M units.

On a quick trawl of the net I was unable to find a figure for the total number of units recycled in a year, only details of overall weight (OK I'm a lazy so-and-so). However, my gut feeling is that the scheme could work.

ONS statistics show that there are some 19M families in the UK, or, to take a different cut, 27M households. That would suggest that each household, on average, is retaining 6.5 batteries. This actually compares nicely with the 7 that I currently have awaiting a trip to a recycling point.

There is another action that I think could help and that is for retailers to make their recycling points more obvious. The regulations relating to providing recycling facilities are quite stringent - a shop selling on average one pack of 4 AA batteries per day would be expected to provide such facilities; but how often does one notice them? It's a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. A little encouragement could go a long way.

Public Misconceptions and Lobbying Skew Policy Decisions

Nick Butler has penned a short blog post arguing that public misconceptions and heavy lobbying have resulted in detrimental skewing of energy policy decisions. He calls for regulation of lobbying making all lobbying contracts public and having an independent fact checking organisation with fines for incorrect assertions.

What he doesn't mention is the need for policy makers to be educated in critical thinking. Yes, fact checking is essential but those investing public money have a duty to undertake that themselves, or at least initiate such checking. Hiding behind the veil of yet more regulation will help nobody.

Brexit Could Result in HMG Being Less Accountable on Climate Change

Read this and weep!

Halogen Ban - How Times Change

It wasn't so long ago that I was working for an organisation that happily supported switching from incandescent luminaires to halogens. Now the EU has agreed to ban most of the latter in favour of LEDs.

In CO2 emission terms this a good thing. Also, if my experience is anything to go by, it has positive practical implications as well. I have a few "legacy" halogens left in the house but most fittings now sport LEDs. Apart from anything else they last much longer (provided that one purchases "pukka" items - I suffered from some Chinese-made crap in the early years of my change-over). Some people cite up-front cost as a barrier, but LEDs are relatively small ticket items even if they are priced above halogens.

This is a welcome move all round.

Here we go again!

Drivers already assume they have precedence over pedestrians on the roads why should that be the case on the pavements as well?

Three More Inconsiderate Motorists!

Just gets my goat!

Two More Thoughtless Ones!

Earliest Ever Earth Overshoot Day

In this post from Edie we learn that August 1st this year is Earth Overshoot Day, and is the earliest ever recorded. That's a pretty bleak announcement. Shamefully, looking at things on a country by country basis shows the UK to have reached its own overshoot day on May 8th! In other words the UK is consuming over twice the resource level regarded as sustainable. The article also posits that if things carry on as they are the global EOD could fall half-way through the year by 2030.

While pointing to an extensive analysis of potential solutions the article also suggests there are simple actions to be taken now that could make a significant contribution to shifting the date to later in the year:

• Lower emissions through clean energy
• Retrofit the built environment
• Commit to tackling food waste
• Redefine and revalue resources.

It's all pretty obvious stuff but, essentially, we know how to do it; all that is required is political and societal will.

Brexit and my MP - Part 33 - Pairing

Below is the latest missive from my MP and it is as weasely as ever. She implies that the breaking of a pair in the recent close vote was inadvertent. I quote from the subsequent debate:

"My view started to change, however, when I learned that any mistake was made not by the right hon. Gentleman but by the Chief Whip himself. It may have been a mistake to cancel the pair, but it was not an inadvertence; it was a deliberate act. We now understand that the instruction to the right hon. Gentleman that he should vote came from the Chief Whip himself. The explanation from the Chief Whip that he did not know this was, as he terms it, a “pregnancy pair” neither clarifies nor excuses what is a prima facie act of bad faith. A pair is a pair, whatever its purpose. If the system is to work, it should be honoured and not broken at the 11th hour."

To reiterate; it was a deliberate act.

Mrs Milton goes on to say that her views are "robust". Unfortunately they do not appear to be sufficiently robust for her to call out this inappropriate behaviour. The silence from her quarter has been deafening. Maybe she was being loyal to her colleague, the Chief Whip, and to her party. Loyalty is an admirable quality but perhaps she should consider whether loyalty to principle, honour and integrity should not over-ride loyalty to party and errant individual.

Brexit and my MP - Part 32

Dear Mrs Milton

Yesterday I received this in my Facebook feed:

“Last night our Deputy Leader could not be in Parliament to vote on the trade bill because she gave birth two weeks ago.

A Conservative MP promised a 'pairing' arrangement to ensure Jo would not lose her say on this Brexit vote in the Commons. Then they went back on their word, and voted with the Government when it came to the closest votes.”

It is small wonder that politicians have fallen so low in the public’s esteem.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Another Thoughtless Idiot

Why do some people think a footpath is actually a car park??

Brexit and My MP - Part 31

OK - I've calmed down enough to reply:-

23/6/18

Dear Anne

Many thanks for this response setting out the political reasons for your stance towards the recent debate on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. While I understand the position you have taken I note that you make no mention of whether Brexit will be beneficial to the nation. Is this, perhaps, because you agree with the majority of analyses showing that it will not?

The whole process so far has been characterised by a series of blunders:

It was a mistake to call the referendum in the first place (especially as a major part of the motivation appears to have been a vain attempt to heal internal Conservative party rifts).

It was a mistake to turn an advisory process into a quasi-mandatory one.

It was a mistake, having done so, not to invoke a sensible threshold for action.

(On all the above I quote your colleague David Davis MP: “Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.”)

It was a mistake to trigger Article 50 so precipitately.

It was a mistake subsequently to hold a general election.

How many more blunders are being made behind closed negotiating room doors? It seems to me that we have a severe case of “carry-on-itis” where every action only compounds poor earlier decision making. Of course I understand that even pausing the Brexit process is a very difficult political action. However, judging by pre June 2016 soundings I suggest that there is a majority in Parliament that believes that Brexit is a mistake – and MPs are elected to take difficult decisions.

Finally, may I refer to your remarks on voting on the final deal: “.... every Member of Parliament will have a say on the final deal and be able to vote for it if they feel it is the right deal for the country or against it if they do not. The job of all MPs is to vote balancing their own views with the best interests of their constituents and the best interests of their country.” Does this mean that you expect this vote to be a free one? What would be the consequences of a vote against the deal? If it is a case of simply crashing out of the EU into a situation even worse than the poorest imaginable deal then such a vote can hardly be described as meaningful.

Yours sincerely

Richard Bawden

Original:-

Dear Richard

Thank you for contacting me about the Lords' amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which returned to the Commons on 12 June.

The Withdrawal Bill is about making sure the United Kingdom has a functioning statute book on the day we leave. It is not about deciding on policy issues. I think people, whether they voted leave or remain, expect the Government to provide continuity and certainty as we leave the EU, and that is what this Bill will do.

We have so far had over 250 hours of debate in both Houses and reviewed over 1,000 non-Government amendments and hundreds of Government amendments. The Government has listened very carefully to those who have scrutinised and improved this legislation, and a significant number of amendments have been made to address the fair concerns which have been raised.

I would encourage you to read the debate from last Tuesday, which is available via this link: https://tinyurl.com/yaptxxtm

The amendments tabled which would involve the UK re-joining the European Economic Area (EEA) after we leave would also involve continuing the free movement of people. In my view, this would be a retrograde step as we would have to comply with EU rules without being part of the debate and negotiations on those rules.

Similarly, amendments which would require the UK to stay in a customs union are not compatible with the opportunity to build deeper links with allies across the globe. Nor are they compatible with the manifesto on which the Government was elected last year. We want to make sure that our new customs arrangements with the EU can allow for trade which is as frictionless as possible, while ensuring we can tap into fast growing markets elsewhere. We do not want a hard border with Northern Ireland and the negotiations for how we deal with this are ongoing.

One of the most important issues which was raised by the Lords is the process by which the outcome of the negotiations will be considered by Parliament. It would be impossible for negotiators to have the flexibility necessary for an effective negotiation if they are stripped of their authority to make decisions. This is not the right way to make sure we have a good deal for the UK.

It is important that we both allow sufficient opportunity for Parliament to vote on the final deal but not bind the hands or reduce the negotiating power of the Government. It's a fine line but we must not send the Government to negotiate with one hand behind its back.

I am quite certain that Parliament will have the opportunity to demonstrate its view on the final deal, hold the Government to account and vote according to what we all, as individual MPs, feel is in the best interests of the country.

Since the referendum, there has been a general election in which both of the major parties committed to respect and deliver the result of the referendum. Just to reiterate, every Member of Parliament will have a say on the final deal and be able to vote for it if they feel it is the right deal for the country or against it if they do not. The job of all MPs is to vote balancing their own views with the best interests of their constituents and the best interests of their country.

Finally, I am attaching the opening of Hilary Benn's speech which he made on the debate to trigger Article 50. Hilary Benn's words are more eloquent than I could ever muster, in describing why we need to respect the result of the referendum.

I have always said that I will listen to constituents on both sides of the debate and take all views into consideration, and I will continue to do so.

My best wishes,
Anne.

The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

Minister of State for Apprenticeships and Skills

 

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

T. 0207 219 8392

anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk

www.annemilton.com