Thame’s MP challenged over Brexit

ONE of Thame’s leading anti-Brexiteers, has written an open letter in response to a article defending the Prime Minister’s handling of the Brexit and opposing a ‘People’s Vote’, by Thame’s MP John Howell.

In his recent blog post, John Howell wrote: “We have already had a ‘people’s vote’ and Leave won. I do not believe that another referendum would help cure the divisions we currently face in our country. Furthermore those seeking a second referendum seem to believe that it would be decisively ‘remain’. This may not be so……….in a national referendum, the Remain argument lost the vote and it does none of us any good to continually go back over this and use opinion polls to suggest that the situation has changed.” (You can read the whole of John Howell’s blog post HERE)

People’s Vote Thame founder member, Robin Storey’s letter, headed ‘Brexit – Scrutiny to expose reality!’, reads:

“Having read John Howell MP’s Brexit Update on December 20, there may be constitutional confusion about what an MP should be doing to support their constituents’ interests at this time.

“MPs have a simple issue of principle to consider when voting on the Brexit deal secured by Theresa May’s Government. They should follow the proper constitutional role of an MP to effectively scrutinise – what is before them in 2019 – after the realities of a two-year negotiation have come to light – thereby giving constituents their judgment on the cold realities of the final document.

“MPs should not simply support a damaging policy that has failed to deliver for leave or remain and proceed regardless with the Theresa May Brexit deal.
So what broken promises should John Howell MP alert us to now?

Economic damage

“The Government’s Office for National Statistics estimates this variant of leaving the EU will be significantly damaging to the economy, compared to staying in the EU, thereby limiting taxation and public spending. Indeed, the ONS predicts a loss of otherwise projected cumulative economic growth over 15 years due to leaving the more sophisticated trade arrangements with the EU. This will be around £100Bn less GDP per year by 2030. Incidentally, the ”no deal” figures are more than twice as bad.

“This economic damage isn’t progress, and many other promises have been found wanting, so we face not £350M per week extra for the NHS, but a declining tax base from which to pay for health and social care for an aging population. Locally, the NHS already faces an exacerbated staff crisis today at the John Radcliffe, as EU nationals return home, leading to ward closures. Meanwhile, BMW frets over its supply chain in Cowley and High-tech company CEOs in Harwell lose EU business and staff. Commuters at Haddenham watch as City institutions redeploy well paid employees and their tax receipts to Dublin and Frankfurt. So, the future of lower growth due to missed investment and loss of skills is already setting in around the constituency.

“Yet, our MP so far ignores the effects and concentrates on a series of standard letters to constituents that are increasingly irrelevant to the real facts of jobs affecting constituents, outside of Westminster or the Conservative Party. Nor is a comparison with “no deal” the correct question. Court judgments are quite clear that the EU Withdrawal Notice may be withdrawn by the UK at any time, so all options, including a People’s Vote, are possible, subject to Parliamentary vote. There is no need to leave.”

Democratic damage – a loss of control

The failure of policy and implementation is not just economic; whilst the proposed arrangements in place (and many still to be agreed) are less economically effective, perversely they are also far less capable of UK democratic control, as large areas of EU law will still be followed, in both the interim and long term. This is why both leave and remain sides of the argument agree that this is not what was voted for and calls for a People’s Vote are so universal. We’re not taking back legal control at all, we’re ceding it.

“The scrutineer MP’s response would be to call the issue as it is and inform constituents – you do realise that practically speaking, laws will continue to be set in Brussels in many areas, that we are no longer party to these political structures, have no votes, but are seeking to stay involved as best we can, with future bilateral agreements. For example, “equivalence” and the right to operate across the EU in various financial services becomes a whim of the EU, not a firm legal right for UK companies. Witness the creation of EU bank subsidiaries and movement of assets to the EU to avoid this risk. The aspirational Political Declaration is required, as so much hasn’t been agreed at all– and years of further work will result in multiple agreements which can only realistically agree to existing EU terms and structures if we want to be involved again, despite having the UK having just left them. If the Irish Backstop revelation is anything to go by, the UK cannot expect more than a sign on the dotted line to the rules approach.”

Instead of accepting legal reality others are blamed

“In the interim, the Backstop in Northern Ireland has become a political problem as the EU can’t be expected to legally compromise its internal market comprising oversight bodies, standards and controls, for the sake of a country seeking to leave those arrangements. The legal certainty of avoiding a hard border means retaining symmetry in all these things on both sides of the border and, if this can’t be done, accepting symmetry longer term. Otherwise, these differences must be verified at the border. Is that export car part made to the correct safety standard or a dangerous copy? It is unhelpful of John Howell MP to blame EU nastiness towards Mrs May – when the EU is simply wanting legal certainty at its own borders. The UK is reaping the legal consequences of our own requests and MPs need to be honest with their constituents about these implications, which were entirely predictable.”

“Longer term, those safety standards for a car part, or procedures for a company trading on the London stock exchange are unlikely to diverge in practice from EU standards, so laws that the UK once shaped through membership of EU processes and votes, will become laws that are simply followed from outside. In the event that UK manufacturers wish to sell into the EU, our largest export market, or London wishes to compete as a financial centre, it’s unlikely that being out of kilter with the much larger EU market’s standard regulation will help. This is long-term loss of democratic control and it is disingenuous and simply not good enough for MPs to resort to the take back control mantra as the opposite is happening.

“The will of the people is not the principle constitutional issue, proper scrutiny of Government is. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. No Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Just as the majority will choose to vote in each general election, so we expect Parliament to be constantly reviewing what is in our interests from year to year. In any event, extensive polling indicating a clear majority of John Howell MP’s constituents, and the wider nation, now want an EU outcome that is quite different. National polls such as Channel 4’s Survation poll, are now regularly showing around 55% remain and South Oxfordshire district and constituency figures have risen from just below 55% remain to 59% remain.

“I would urge John Howell MP to exercise his role clearly as a scrutineer of Government throughout the parliamentary session and it may well be that Theresa May’s proposals fail; there is no majority for a chaotic “no deal” and therefore another solution is required.

“If MPs are unable to level with the electorate just how sub-standard this deal is, compared to what we currently have with EU membership, then the issue needs to go back for a People’s Vote – this time on an informed basis. It is simply not correct to present the Theresa May deal as either good for constituents, or inevitable.”

Robin Storey
People’s Vote Thame
January 4, 2019

PLEASE NOTE – Thame.net would welcome responses/views from other constituents on Brexit, SO LONG AS they are calmly and logically argued and not just sound bytes and/or rude outbursts or personal attacks.