Dear Mrs Milton,
Thank you for your 4th January response to my
email of 21st December although I was disappointed that it reads as
though you are passively watching events rather than taking any part in
attempting to influence them to the benefit of your constituents.
I was also disappointed, in perusing what purports to be the
list of signatories to the recent letter to the PM urging her to rule out a
no-deal Brexit, that I did not find your name. Please accept my apologies if
that’s an oversight on my part.
The overwhelming balance of opinion amongst experts is that
a no-deal Brexit would be extremely damaging to the UK. Therefore, I suggest
that it is imperative that Parliament ensures that a no-deal Brexit cannot and
does not happen, whether by default or design.
The House of Commons is currently debating the proposed EU
Withdrawal Agreement ahead of a so-called “meaningful vote” next week. If that
vote is in favour of the proposed Agreement then so be it; although I,
personally, can find little to recommend it.
However, at the current time it appears likely that the Agreement
will be voted down. What then would be the options? Broadly, I think they are
as follows:
1)
A no-deal Brexit. As I outline above, I believe
that MPs would be reneging on their duty to act in the interests of the nation
if they allowed this to happen. I hope you agree and are working to ensure that
there is absolutely no chance of a no-deal Brexit.
2)
A renegotiated agreement is put forward. Time is
short. An extension to Article 50 would almost certainly be required to obtain
any substantive change to the current draft Agreement and one must doubt
whether there is the appetite among the other 27 EU nations to enter such
negotiations. Furthermore, given the wide range of attitudes, objectives and desires
held by MPs one must question whether there is any hope of bringing forward to
Parliament any acceptable proposed agreement. This option would appear to be a
non-starter.
3)
Put the question to the nation – the so-called 2nd
referendum. Again, timing is of the essence and an extension would almost
certainly be required. And, again, one must question whether unanimous
agreement could be obtained from the 27. I doubt that it could. The only
possibility would seem to be a rapidly called, and consequently botched,
referendum. We have already had one, let’s not have another. As a result, I
suggest that this option is also a non-starter.
4)
Revoke Article 50. This would cause howls of
dismay and anger, and more than likely create even more division in the country
even if it was somehow sold as some form of delay to Brexit rather than
cancelling it altogether. Be that as it may. This option would now appear to be
the only course forward.
Government and Parliament will not be thanked for this
outcome. Vast sums of money will have been wasted across the EU. UK politics
will become even more fractious. The UK’s relations with the 27 and its
influence within the EU, and consequently its attractiveness to other nations
as a gateway to the EU, will have been markedly damaged.
This then is the root of my disappointment. It stems from
the calling of a badly formulated referendum to solve an internal party
political problem. It stems from taking the “advice” of 37% of the electorate
and believing it should be applied to the entire nation, no questions asked. It
stems from the inadequacies of “Brexit means Brexit” as a meaningful policy
statement. It stems from the premature invoking of Article 50. It stems from
the apparent ignorance and ineptitude of some MPs and ministers. It stems from
the UK becoming a world-wide laughing stock. It stems from the rise of divisive
politicking. It stems from the lack of anyone in a position of authority who
could even marginally be considered as a statesperson.
In summary, it stems from the failure of our representatives
in Parliament and Government to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bawden
No comments:
Post a Comment