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.
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.
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
