Writing to my MP about Brexit - Response to Letter #2

This is the response as received

Dear Keith,

Thank you for your reply.

I am opposed to a second referendum as it is a clearly a vehicle to stop Brexit that is being pushed by staunch remain politicians. The leading people behind the People’s Vote campaign and those in Parliament who have tried to legislate for one are all pro-Remain people who are trying to find a way of reversing the result of 2016. I am happy for people to advocate being in the EU, but we should at least deliver the result of the first referendum before we start looking at other votes.

I also appreciate that no-deal is not perfect. It would bring short term disruption, however, many of the myths peddled by Project Fear have unravelled as both the UK and the EU carry out their no-deal planning. Just last month we saw the Department for Transport announcing that flights to and from the EU will carry on as normal, even though Remain politicians and commentators have said that flight would be grounded. EU ports are also ready for a no-deal scenario. I also support a no-deal outcome in the absence of a deal because we are able to implement a no-deal transition under WTO rules, whereby tariffs remain at zero whilst a free trade agreement is implemented.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards,

Suella Braverman MP

Member of Parliament for Fareham

Writing to my MP about Brexit - Letter #2

Background

This part of an on-going blog theme my attempts to influence my local MP: Suella Braverman on the subject of the UK leaving the EU.

Suella's response to my Letter #1

Dear Keith

Thank you for your recent email about Brexit. Due to the hundreds of emails that I continue to receive on this and many other matters, I am unable to respond to individual emails, but I hope that my response will address any queries, concerns or observations that you have raised.

Over the last two months, I have held two public meetings on Brexit which were attended by over 300 people and I have received thousands of emails and letters from local residents, all of which have been very helpful in forming my views.

It is clear that we are in a constitutional crisis and the political implications are serious. Things are unpredictable and I know that many people are worried and frustrated by recent events. The fact that we did not leave the EU on the 29th March as promised is particularly disappointing for me and millions of voters. I therefore voted against the extension of Article 50, but it was nevertheless passed by a majority of MPs.

Last Friday, the Prime Minister brought back the Withdrawal Agreement for a third vote, although this time it did not include the Political Declaration on the Future Relationship. Once again I voted against it as I did on the previous two occasions for the following reasons:

1. The Withdrawal Agreement is not Brexit. It could trap the UK into a Customs Union indefinitely as confirmed by the Attorney General’s legal advice. The UK would also have to follow many Single Market rules indefinitely and the European Court of Justice would continue to have the last word on legal matters, with the UK still subject to EU treaties and rules with no say over them at all. We would also have to pay £39bn for no guarantee of a Free Trade Agreement in return. A customs and regulatory border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be created by the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, otherwise known as the Backstop.
2. Nothing has changed to the Withdrawal Agreement since November: I resigned my Ministerial job because of the unacceptable terms of the deal. Nothing has changed to the deal since then.
3. The DUP did not support the deal: Our partners in government, to whom we owe our majority and ability to govern, were rightly concerned that the terms of the Backstop would ultimately lead to a break up of the UK.

For a third time, the deal failed to command a majority in Parliament.

In addition to the third vote, a group of backbenchers - with the help of the Speaker - passed a motion to take control of the Order Paper and the Parliamentary timetable, enabling them to set the agenda of motions and votes in the House of Commons. This is unprecedented and highly damaging to our constitutional order. When the motion for this was tabled, I voted against, but it was nonetheless passed. As a result, we carried out a series of ‘indicative votes’ on Thursday and Monday. These were non-binding votes on alternative Brexit options. The way I voted was as follows:

1. AGAINST a Customs Union
2. AGAINST a Second Referendum / People's Vote
3. AGAINST a ‘Norway option’ (Membership of the Single Market which would include the free movement of people)
4. AGAINST an Extension to Article 50
5. FOR ‘No-Deal’
6. FOR the ‘Malthouse Compromise’ (a managed ‘No Deal’)

None of these options commanded a majority of in the House of Commons, although it is worth noting that the only thing that has commanded a majority so far was the Brady Amendment which accepted the deal on the condition that the Government replaced the Northern Ireland Backstop with alternative arrangements. These arrangements could include a trade agreement as set out in the Malthouse Compromise.

What will happen next?
It is impossible to predict the outcome with any certainty. However, it looks possible that there might be a fourth vote on the deal later this week. As it is highly likely that nothing will have changed to the deal, I am still minded to vote against it. The solution to this impasse is for the Prime Minister to lead the government and country to a managed no-deal Brexit on the 12th April. No-deal preparations are highly advanced on the UK side and are finalised on the EU’s part. Doing this also enables us to deliver Brexit now and honour the result of the EU Referendum.

However, whether this happens is very much the choice of the Prime Minister and not something which I have no control. If Theresa May does not choose to do that, then she can seek a longer extension to Article 50 (duration and terms unknown). Whilst she will seek a vote from the Commons for it (and I will always vote against any extension), there is a possibility that it may command a majority. All of these options depend on the EU agreeing to them. There is an emergency EU Summit on the 10th April when their position will become clear.

As someone who made promises to the public during the referendum in 2016 about what Brexit meant, i.e. leaving the Customs Union and Single Market and ECJ jurisdiction, the free movement of poeple and EU rules, I am unable to support a deal that does not even come close to these promises. I was also re-elected in 2017 on identical manifesto pledges, including that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’. Therefore, it is very difficult to see how I can break those promises and vote for the deal if it remains unchanged. I am also mindful of the DUP's position which is important to the stability of government. I am aware of the other possibilities - but a long extension and a refusal to lead us out on a no-deal basis will be out of my hands and ultimately the choice of the Prime Minister. I have indeed met with the Prime Minister and made my views on the deal very clear.

I hope this clarifies my position, and if you would like to stay up to date with my news and events, please sign up to my newsletter below.

Kind regards,

Suella Braverman MP

Member of Parliament for Fareham

Letter #2

Mrs Braverman

Regrettably, your response fails to address my concerns or provide significant information beyond your website, which I took the time to read before writing to you the first time. I understand and largely agree with your reservations about any deal or compromise that leaves the UK bound to the EU without influence over the direction of the EU. In particular, there are two elements of your position that I can not see the justification for, in the interest to keeping the time taken to respond to me minimal can you please answer the following two questions:

1. Given the wide scope of options for leaving the EU and the simplistic nature of the 1st referendum, a confirmatory referendum seems only reasonable given the significant impact that any option could potentially have on the UK. Why do you vote against a 2nd referendum?
2.  Please explain why you believe leaving the EU without a deal can be justified. I would like to understand the evidence for the potential gains and why that is acceptable compared to the risks.

Keith