Brexit developments this week

You may already be aware that I voted for the Letwin amendment on Saturday, and against the Withdrawal Agreement Bill on Tuesday, and then against the ‘programme motion’.  

I am clear Boris Johnson’s deal would be even worse for my constituents than Theresa May’s deal, which I, and indeed the majority of Parliamentarians, felt unable to support on the three occasions it was put before the house.

This deal risks jobs, worker’s rights, environmental protections, and puts a border in the Irish sea – something that the PM promised he would never do.

I don’t believe Boris Johnson can be trusted not to sell off our NHS. A large number of my constituents have written to me to express their grave concerns about the potential for an NHS take-over as a result of deals with the unscrupulous Trump administration. Despite the PM’s assurances, actions speak louder than words, and I was dismayed that on Wednesday the Conservatives refused to back Labour’s motion to safeguard our NHS from being sold off to US corporations in a Johnson-Trump trade deal.

Such a trade deal would inevitably lower food standards. In March the US published its negotiating priorities for any post-Brexit trade deal with the UK and the US ambassador to Britain invited us all to look again at US production methods and to drop our opposition to certain practices, such as the use of hormones in beef and chlorine washes for chicken.

I do not believe that the Prime Minister or his Government can be trusted to retain our current standards on food, environmental and consumer protections or worker’s rights. In fact, I believe the end game is to erode these long-fought rights.

I want the UK to maintain close ties with the EU, our geographically closest trading partners. Whatever happens next, we cannot ignore the largest trading bloc in the world.  This bill creates more distance and therefore more uncertainty than even Theresa May’s deal. It explicitly rules out a new customs union and a close future relationship with the single market – a key demand of industry and trade unions.

Despite promises of frictionless trade, it is now explicit that there will be new trade barriers with the EU and additional checks at borders. Provisions on services have not been improved and commitments on rights and protections are now significantly weaker. There has also been no progress on the question of our future participation in security arrangements or agencies.

I remain extremely concerned that this deal isn’t sufficient to rule out a departure on WTO terms, in the event that a free trade deal is not negotiated by the end of the implementation period. It would be highly unusual for such a complex agreement affecting so many states to be agreed within a matter of months – even relatively simple trade deals take many years to negotiate. It is anticipated that negotiating the next stage of Brexit will take about 3 years, even before implementation. So, although we all want Brexit to end – I’m afraid we haven’t even completed the first stage of negotiations. The next stage will be significantly more complicated.

I have said many times that I will do all I can to avoid a No Deal Brexit, because I think this would have a disastrous effect on our economy. I believe this because I have listened to the many expert witnesses giving evidence to parliament and read the many, many documents published in Parliament on the impact of Brexit – including the Government’s own assessments. I have weighed this against what was promised my constituents and I know they have been short-changed. It is now clear Brexit will make the people of Bedford poorer. It may be the case, some are prepared to accept this outcome, but some won’t. And we need to be sure. This is why the fairest way to proceed is for the Government of the day to seek the consent of the public on the final deal.

The ‘programme motion’, which I voted against on Tuesday, would have resulted in this flawed piece of legislation being pushed through at breakneck speed. Even if I had thought that Boris Johnson’s Withdrawal Agreement Bill was worthy of my support, it deserves proper consideration by MPs who can try to improve it, and a majority of MP’s shared that view. Rushing such an important Bill just to satisfy an arbitrary deadline of the 31st October was highly irresponsible and in my view a cynical attempt by the Prime Minister to pit Parliament against the People.  Parliament is doing its job – scrutinising and improving legislation. That is how laws are made. Circumventing this vital process is dangerous for democracy.

However frustrating this is, the reality is Brexit is extremely complicated. MP’s need more time to work through the bill to shape into something that does not risk jobs, living standards, our NHS, or food standards, or do untold damage to our manufacturing industries.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *