Jeremy Corbyn has made the fundamental pillar of Labour’s stance on Brexit to rule out ‘No Deal’ as a position of the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. After the Prime Minister’s catastrophic defeat in the House of Commons and after scraping home in the No Confidence debate, Theresa May finally extended an offer to opposition parties to meet with her to discuss the way forward. While all opposition parties oppose a ‘No Deal’ Brexit, Jeremy refused to meet with the Prime Minister until she was prepared to rule out No Deal.

Any trade unionist engaged in negotiations will tell you that in order to achieve reasonable concessions in any negotiation, you do not rule out the prospect of no deal at the very start. In a negotiation your opponents, whether they are an employer or a bloc of nations, need to be aware that you are prepared to walk away should expectations not be met. In ruling out the prospect of No Deal, a future Labour Government would risk losing all leverage. One cannot imagine the late Bob Crow or the General Secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, ruling out ‘No Deal’ when negotiating with employers.

An overwhelming majority of Labour constituencies voted to leave the European Union – around 70%. Estimates of up to 40% of Labour voters in 2017 supported Leave. 78% of the seats Labour has to take from the Tories to win the next general election voted Leave. 72% of Labour’s 25 most vulnerable seats voted Leave. For the Labour Party to ignore these crucial statistics at this critical time is politically ignorant and risks hurling Labour towards a no deal with the British people, namely that we will be out of power for another generation.

No Deal is not something to be scared of. Remainers have been very sophisticated in their presentation of No Deal as a total disaster for the British economy and people. It is a false proposition. Australia has No Deal with the European Union and, believe it or not the, people of that great country on the other side of the world are not living in caves and gnawing on bones to survive. A host of other countries with smaller economies than the United Kingdom have no deal and operate on variations of WTO terms. No Deal is a World Trade deal and the United Kingdom is best placed to take full advantage of those arrangements.

Traction seems to be building in the House of Commons behind the idea that the United Kingdom ought to remain in a Customs Union with the European Union. It makes no sense at all to leave the European Union and then abdicate the ability to determine our own trade policy by ceding that power and responsibility to the European Commission. Barry Gardiner, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, has previously said such a position would render the United Kingdom a “vassal state.” This, therefore, is surely not a policy Her Majesty’s Opposition should be advocating.

The clock is ticking on the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. With only a matter of weeks before 29th March, the country – while still supportive of Leave – is apprehensive about our Parliament’s inability to secure decent arrangements with the European Union. This is not because Brexit is somehow at fault or that public opinion is turning against the decision to Leave. The reason for our current impasse is because our elected representatives are not delivering on the will of the people. Members of Parliament should remember they are there to serve the people, not to rule the people.

The Labour Party Conference in September last year passed a motion pledging to keep all options on the table. There is a minority view within the Parliamentary Labour Party that we ought to hold another referendum. They are a minority, but a vocal one. Jeremy clearly does not want to hold another referendum, and key Labour figures such as Len McCluskey, and respected Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and John Mann have all opposed a second referendum. This is because while the metropolitan Labour membership overwhelmingly supports a second referendum, there is no majority for it in the country. Importantly, no demonstrable support exists for it in the 70% of Labour Leave constituencies and no support for it exists in those seats Labour needs to win. But the fundamental reason for not supporting another referendum is because it would totally break the remaining trust that exists between the electors and the elected.

The road ahead will be bumpy and any government, Labour or Conservative, will face challenges in the future. But all parties committed to leaving the European Union by accepting the outcome of the referendum. Labour needs to win back its traditional heartland support that has maintained the party since its inception. We will not do this by supporting a second referendum and we will not do this by accepting any terms offered to us by Brussels. The British people are for Brexit; let Labour be their champion by backing a World Trade Brexit.

The post Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to rule out No Deal and risks keeping Labour out of power for another generation appeared first on BrexitCentral.

A day before her defeat in the Commons on Tuesday evening, the Prime Minister had warned MPs that they must support her deal – or face doing catastrophic harm to voters’ faith in democracy if Brexit were stopped. The voters interviewed outside Parliament after the vote thought otherwise: they said that the MPs’ vote against the deal was right because ‘no one wanted it’. One man, a Leave voter, elaborated: ‘We voted to leave the EU, to leave’, he said. ‘We did not vote for a deal, for any deal, but just to leave, and we should leave’.

Both MPs and voters recognise that her deal would castrate Britain’s economy, bind the UK back into an EU customs union and divide Northern Ireland from the UK, making it a fief of the EU’s Single Market. Worst of all, it would deny the UK exactly the legal right a majority of voters chose to exercise in 2016 – the right to leave.

Yet despite opposition from the country and now from two-thirds of all MPs, including many from her own party, the Prime Minister made clear through her No. 10 spokesman that her withdrawal deal remains the only deal on the table, though she will now talk to MPs, she says, and listen to what they have to say. Few hold out any hope that she intends to do other than the EU’s bidding: it’s either her deal, as she has said time and again, or no Brexit.

A Remainer, like most of her Cabinet, she sees the referendum as a vote against immigration, not a vote for sovereignty or for the freedom to which people aspire. For her, as for most leaders clinging to power, the desire for freedom is neither a privilege to be defended nor a prize to be sought, but an obstacle to be overcome.

In the paternalistic world of power politics through which politicians duck, weave and dissimulate, the people are to be courted with bread and circuses: the equivalent today are immigration controls. The Prime Minister, like many MPs, does not see that when over 17 million people voted for Brexit, they did so to protect democracy from the overweening power of the EU, to preserve UK sovereignty and their freedom to decide their own laws.

Mrs May and her ministers do not seem to understand that democratic freedom matters, nor the corollary – that they must take account of their voters. Mrs May talks of democracy, but without an inkling of its potency for British people.

By their actions since Brexit, Britain’s political leaders have subverted the Leave vote, and damaged the arrangements under Britain’s constitution to protect peoples’ freedom against arbitrary rule. Despite being one of the world’s oldest and most iconic democracies – the strength of which derives partly from acceptance by governments of the electorate’s decision irrespective of their own wishes – things happened very differently since the referendum.

First, Parliament attempted to thwart Brexit. Then the Prime Minister deployed the autocratic systems of unaccountable powers to prepare a Withdrawal Agreement. That agreement was not the work of elected ministers – they were side-lined – but emerged from the backroom bartering of an unelected, unaccountable civil servant, the Prime Minister’s ‘court favourite’.

Ministers as well as MPs had been left in the dark about the deal with only an eleventh hour preview granted to some before the Cabinet meeting, at which those present were given little choice but to agree it there and then. Although two ministers resigned, others colluded to keep the deal alive.

The focus is now on the how House of Commons will respond to Mrs May’s next proposals. But already much has been done to prevent Parliament holding the executive to account. Some ministers have warned of the threat to the economy if the Prime Minister were to respect convention and stand aside for someone who would have the confidence of the country to execute the Brexit for which people voted. Other ministers have bombarded the airwaves and media with scare stories about no deal (that is to say, a WTO deal); bigwigs from the Cameron and Osborne Cabinet talk of the ‘duty’ to avoid ‘no deal’ and senior Tory Remainers have sought to block funds for ‘no deal’ preparations. And on top of all that come the Prime Minister’s threats that the country would enter the ‘unknown’ if there is no deal. This is the corroboration, if any were needed, of the anti-democratic impulses of Britain’s ruler today.

Instead, the UK could now offer the EU a UK-EU Free Trade Agreement which would solve concerns from all sides of Parliament at a single stroke, as David Collins, the International Trade lawyer, now proposes.

If the EU refuses? A ‘No Deal’ brings the freedom for a WTO deal that Canada and the US have both enjoyed, though Canada is now poised to strike a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. Both are Common Law countries with a long tradition of freedom under the law. They too, like Britain are amongst the world’s richest, G7, economies.

The post Democracy is in danger as our political leaders seek to subvert the Leave vote appeared first on BrexitCentral.

This week  I spoke to the MP for Dover and Deal, Charlie Elphicke, to discuss what Theresa May should do now after her Withdrawal Agreement suffered a crushing defeat in the House of Commons.

 

You can subscribe to our latest podcasts on iTunes and Soundcloud.

 

The post Podcast: What should Theresa May do now? appeared first on BrexitCentral.

The letter sent from Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk to Theresa May in the last 24 hours shows more clearly than anything else possibly could why the draft Withdrawal Agreement is fundamentally flawed: not only the lack of substance in the letter, which adds nothing new to the sum of human knowledge, but also the lack of any form of collegiate kindness or helpfulness to the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister addressed the 1922 Committee on 12th December, she assured colleagues that she would secure legally-binding wording to address concerns over the Northern Ireland backstop. Now we learn there will be no end date to the backstop or unilateral exit mechanism for the UK. So, yet again, the EU have let the Prime Minister down.

The lesson is clear: we need to vote down the Withdrawal Agreement by as large a majority as possible. Only then can we move on and either negotiate a new agreement (as David Davis argued at the weekend) or Leave without a deal on World Trade Organisation terms with a view to later negotiating a new relationship.

The Government and the Conservative Party must remain committed to delivering the result of the referendum, as repeated in our 2017 manifesto, which pledged to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market, accompanied by the declaration that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal. Otherwise, the credibility of our democracy will be thrown into chaos.

The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not respect the result of the referendum. The Government should be seeking to unlock the negotiations by returning to the Canada-style option offered by President Tusk, using the tried and trusted techniques and procedures so that rules of origin and customs checks are conducted away from the Northern Ireland border, to make unnecessary the hard border that everyone agrees must be avoided.

The backstop means we will be trapped under the thumb of the EU with no date to escape – and unable to strike trade deals. It means we would be trapped indefinitely as a satellite of the EU, obeying its laws without a say, unless the EU and its Member States gave permission for us to leave. The UK will be paying £39 billion – equivalent to £1,443 per household, or £60 million per constituency – and getting nothing in return. We will not take back control of our money, laws and trade. Remaining in the Customs Union is a breach of the 2017 Conservative Manifesto on which I and all my colleagues stood.

The backstop drives a regulatory barrier down the Irish Sea, severely damaging the Union and moving Great Britain and Northern Ireland further apart. This deal keeps the supremacy of the European Court over our own law and sells out the UK fishing industry, excluding them from any trade deal, and envisaging a deal where the Prime Minister trades away our fish in return for market access.

We remain effectively in the EU for an extendable ‘transition’ period, paying and accepting new laws over which we will have had no say. Unrestricted immigration of EU nationals will still be continuing for years after we leave. This commitment comes with no guarantee of a future trade agreement. Worryingly, this deal will deny the UK an independent trade policy while potentially keeping us out of existing EU trade policy. We would be cut off from the world with our trade and economy regulated from Brussels without any say.

So, let us be honest: the Withdrawal Agreement is a terrible deal – worse than Chequers, less popular than the Poll Tax and only one in five voters think it honours the referendum result. The only way to get a better deal for the UK is for Parliament to reject it and force the Government to renegotiate with the EU.

The post Juncker and Tusk’s letter to Theresa May changes nothing: we must vote down the draft Withdrawal Agreement appeared first on BrexitCentral.

The letter sent from Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk to Theresa May in the last 24 hours shows more clearly than anything else possibly could why the draft Withdrawal Agreement is fundamentally flawed: not only the lack of substance in the letter, which adds nothing new to the sum of human knowledge, but also the lack of any form of collegiate kindness or helpfulness to the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister addressed the 1922 Committee on 12th December, she assured colleagues that she would secure legally-binding wording to address concerns over the Northern Ireland backstop. Now we learn there will be no end date to the backstop or unilateral exit mechanism for the UK. So, yet again, the EU have let the Prime Minister down.

The lesson is clear: we need to vote down the Withdrawal Agreement by as large a majority as possible. Only then can we move on and either negotiate a new agreement (as David Davis argued at the weekend) or Leave without a deal on World Trade Organisation terms with a view to later negotiating a new relationship.

The Government and the Conservative Party must remain committed to delivering the result of the referendum, as repeated in our 2017 manifesto, which pledged to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market, accompanied by the declaration that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal. Otherwise, the credibility of our democracy will be thrown into chaos.

The draft Withdrawal Agreement does not respect the result of the referendum. The Government should be seeking to unlock the negotiations by returning to the Canada-style option offered by President Tusk, using the tried and trusted techniques and procedures so that rules of origin and customs checks are conducted away from the Northern Ireland border, to make unnecessary the hard border that everyone agrees must be avoided.

The backstop means we will be trapped under the thumb of the EU with no date to escape – and unable to strike trade deals. It means we would be trapped indefinitely as a satellite of the EU, obeying its laws without a say, unless the EU and its Member States gave permission for us to leave. The UK will be paying £39 billion – equivalent to £1,443 per household, or £60 million per constituency – and getting nothing in return. We will not take back control of our money, laws and trade. Remaining in the Customs Union is a breach of the 2017 Conservative Manifesto on which I and all my colleagues stood.

The backstop drives a regulatory barrier down the Irish Sea, severely damaging the Union and moving Great Britain and Northern Ireland further apart. This deal keeps the supremacy of the European Court over our own law and sells out the UK fishing industry, excluding them from any trade deal, and envisaging a deal where the Prime Minister trades away our fish in return for market access.

We remain effectively in the EU for an extendable ‘transition’ period, paying and accepting new laws over which we will have had no say. Unrestricted immigration of EU nationals will still be continuing for years after we leave. This commitment comes with no guarantee of a future trade agreement. Worryingly, this deal will deny the UK an independent trade policy while potentially keeping us out of existing EU trade policy. We would be cut off from the world with our trade and economy regulated from Brussels without any say.

So, let us be honest: the Withdrawal Agreement is a terrible deal – worse than Chequers, less popular than the Poll Tax and only one in five voters think it honours the referendum result. The only way to get a better deal for the UK is for Parliament to reject it and force the Government to renegotiate with the EU.

The post Juncker and Tusk’s letter to Theresa May changes nothing: we must vote down the draft Withdrawal Agreement appeared first on BrexitCentral.

In the current murky confusion that envelops us, there are signs of hope for Brexit-supporters to cling to.

It’s easy to imagine, after the victory of the Morgan/Cooper amendment to the Finance Bill on Tuesday evening, that leaving with No Deal is now ruled out. In fact there was little substance in the amendment and the majority of seven in its favour was below what its promoters had hoped for. It will have little effect on the most immediate challenge facing the Government: getting its Withdrawal Agreement through the House of Commons.

Barring surprises, within a matter of days, that Withdrawal Agreement will have suffered a major blow, rejected by the Commons with a large majority. But it will not be dead. It will remain on the table until late in March, an option that the UK can take up until pretty well the last minute.

And that possibility is not at all negligible. It is possible that the Conservative MPs who voted against it could crack, especially those who could be won over by a modest and largely cosmetic amendment that the Government might yet secure during February or even March. It is possible that sufficient Labour MPs, appalled as a No Deal exit nears, might reach out a saving hand to Theresa May in what they would see as the national interest. It is possible that the EU could give in, agreeing the wholesale removal of the Irish backstop from the text in exchange for the money on which they have so desperately counted. None of these seems likely, but they – or a combination of them – cannot be ruled out. Since she really does seem to believe in her deal, Mrs May will wish to keep it alive as an option right until 11pm on 29th March.

But she needs to do more than that. Within a short space of time following the defeat of the Withdrawal Agreement, she will face the House of Commons, as required by statute, and set out the Government’s plan. For Brexiteers, the content of her statement will be the most crucial development between now and our exit from the EU.

That is because, for all the talk of Parliament’s being in control and for all the effort put into calculating how some 640 or so volatile MPs might vote on various combinations of options, in this country the Government remains the linchpin of effective decision-making. Only the Government has executive power; only the Government has authority over the civil service; only the Government can make things happen. So what Mrs May says she thinks should happen must be a leading contender for what will in fact come to pass.

So what will she say? She could say she has no plan – that the only course she can recommend to Parliament is to keep voting on the Withdrawal Agreement until they decide that it is better than any alternative. She meanwhile will continue to seek improvements to the text from the stony Commission and Chancellor Merkel. But this would leave the Government very exposed to the charge of recklessness in the face of a more rapid and comprehensive Brexit than the nation has been prepared for.

Much more likely is that, while still talking up the Withdrawal Agreement, she will pivot to one of the only two remaining options. She herself has correctly identified these as No Deal and No Brexit. Of these, the work being put by the civil service and, behind the scenes, by Ministers into No Deal preparation indicates that her “fallback” will be the former. She will set out a twin-track plan of preparing more vigorously and publicly for No Deal while keeping talks on the Withdrawal Agreement going so that a further vote that might adopt it can still be held.

If she does not say that, Brexit-supporters should be very worried.

But this is surely a dead end. We have been assured that there is a solid majority against No Deal in the Commons. 200 MPs have written to the Prime Minister to tell her this. Tuesday evening’s vote showed 20 Conservative MPs willing to defy the whip to make just this point. But being against No Deal isn’t quite enough. Given that our exit on 29th March is enshrined in domestic statute and international law, there needs to be a majority, a bare majority, for an alternative. And the fact is that there is not.

What’s more, many MPs and the country at large are beginning to realise that a No Deal exit is probably now the most likely course – and that it can be managed. As the Government starts to lay the necessary Statutory Instruments and bring forward other No Deal legislation – always carefully saying that it is only a contingency measure, since the hope of having the Withdrawal Agreement improved has not been abandoned – MPs and businesses will start to adjust to the reality. Not all of them of course – not even a majority – but enough to take some of the pressure off the Government.

That process will be assisted by the tactics of the hard Remainers. Now that we have it from the European Court of Justice that it lies in the UK’s power to revoke Article 50, there is nothing to stop these people proposing a motion in the Commons that the Government should be “instructed” to do that. They don’t do so for the simple reason that such a motion would fail: that’s why they need to work through the device of a second referendum in order to give them at least a chance of attaining their goal.

I have set out previously the insuperable objections to conducting a second referendum at this stage on any basis that would give it even a shard of legitimacy. But the biggest obstacle to one is that it doesn’t command sufficient support in Parliament. And even the majority of those who would vote for it know that it is a flag to wave rather than an outcome to be wished for: once the rhetorical bloodbath started, no-one would thank Parliament for having unleashed this democratic catastrophe upon the country. MPs by and large know this.

So what is the determined Remainer to do? Blocked in all paths forward, they feel the ground tilting under them as they slide down the well greased funnel that leads to a No Deal Brexit, casting about manically for a handhold. Inevitably the expedients they reach for will rise up and ebb as each is first promoted by the Remainer press and then discarded as its unworkability becomes apparent.

This is what happened to “Norway” in November. What started as “Norway for Now” got huge publicity, then became “Norway then Canada” and finally “Norway forever” as its various weaknesses were exposed. “Norway” looked dead by Christmas. But the New Year brought its ghost back to life, with a new plan from Robert Halfon that looked remarkably like “Norway”. By the next day it had slipped back into obscurity.

 With Christmas out of the way and the clock ticking, the second referendum shows signs of similarly fading, especially as the Labour Party leadership appears unmoved by the many calls from its members to change tack and support one.

Now we have frantic Tory Remainers banding together with Opposition parties to make tax collection awkward if a No Deal Brexit goes ahead – or to cut Ministers’ salaries. They are bitterly determined and they reckon they have many cards still up their sleeve.

There should be no doubt that these manoeuvres, if done with full Opposition support, will threaten to bring the Government down. A Government that can’t effectively carry its flagship policy through has little purpose. The likelihood of a General Election would rise significantly.

That in itself will help to solidify the moderate Tory vote and make a No Deal exit more acceptable, however reluctantly. There can be little criticism of the Labour Party for seeking a General Election: it’s in the Opposition’s job description. But are there really enough Tory MPs sufficiently enraged by Brexit to want to assist them to their goal? I can imagine a few. But I can also imagine a few occupants of the Opposition benches who might cancel them out.

There will be lots of other ways in which Remainers may seek to frustrate a No Deal Brexit in the Commons (and no doubt the Speaker will continue to assist them). They could seek to amend the swathe of Statutory Instruments now sitting in Whitehall waiting to be laid. They could try to block or amend the primary legislation the Government might need to be ready for leaving on 29th March without a deal.

But Labour has to be careful here. It’s one thing to vote so as to stop a No Deal Brexit. It’s quite another to mess up preparations for a No Deal Brexit so as to make it chaotic when it happens. It will not be a good look to be seen preventing the Government from building lorry parks or ensuring the supply of medicines. And those still hoping for a last-minute significant concession from the EU on the Withdrawal Agreement will see it as undermining the chance of that.

So it’s apparent what Brexit-supporters must be working for:

  • first, to secure the largest possible vote against the Withdrawal Agreement, to make its return to the Commons less and less likely
  • next, to contrive that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet fully embrace No Deal as the fallback plan and prepare for it vigorously – this may see a few long-serving Cabinet Ministers resign, which will be sad, but will only balance the several losses at the other end of the plank
  • third, to help accustom MPs and the country at large to the prospect of a No Deal Brexit – and it’s good to see the cross-party GO WTO campaign just launched to this end
  • and finally, to hope that the Government’s Whips really can count and that the wilder Tory Remainers currently canvassing dangerous expedients are confined to an irreducible handful

And at some point in this timeline, or shortly after it, a General Election cannot be ruled out. Secure your postal vote now!

Most important of all is to keep one’s nerve. A No deal Brexit was never the ideal outcome. A good, sensible and fair Withdrawal Agreement was always desirable. But it was refused by the European Commission and the result accepted by the Government is intolerable. So No Deal it is and fortunately that’s the course we are set on by statute.

The post It’s time for Brexiteers to hold their nerve appeared first on BrexitCentral.

The Government suffered a defeat on the floor of the House of Commons last night (by seven votes) as 20 Conservative MPs defied a three-line whip and supported Yvette Cooper’s amendment to the Finance Bill seeking to prevent the Government from implementing the no-deal provisions of Clause 89 of the Bill without the explicit consent of Parliament for such an outcome.

On the face of it this might sound alarming – and some media coverage last night certainly felt sensationalist as we heard of a “significant defeat” and a “Brexit crisis”. But in reality, Clause 89 of the Finance Bill concerns minor and technical changes to tax law post-Brexit and the amendment was about anti-No Deal MPs making their presence felt rather than really amending the law of the land.

As Brexiteer Tory MP Sir Bernard Jenkin explains:

“This amendment is only to restrict the use of powers in the Finance Bill to make ‘minor amendments to certain taxes, not including VAT or customs or excise duties, in consequence of EU withdrawal’. The proposers of this amendment are attempting to sabotage other government business because they know Parliament has already set the Brexit date in law for 29th March, with or without a Withdrawal Agreement, and they cannot change that. All this would require is for the government to use other legislative means to make any necessary tax changes. It’s not a big deal.”

His colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg told me last night that the move was “pointless and tokenistic”, while Downing Street labelled it as nothing more than an “inconvenience”.

303 MPs voted for the amendment (305 if you include the two tellers), including 20 Conservative rebels and the full complement of SNP, Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs as well as the vast majority of Labour MPs.

Meanwhile, 296 MPs voted against the amendment (298 including two tellers), including most Tory MPs, all 11 MPs from Northern Ireland who have taken their seats (10 DUP and 1 Independent) and 3 Labour rebels.

Below are full lists of which MPs voted for the amendment, those who did not vote at all (although NB it is impossible to know whether they deliberately abstained, were away from Westminster on parliamentary business elsewhere or were ill etc.) and of course the full list of those who voted against the amendment.

THE 305 MPs WHO BACKED THE COOPER ANTI-NO DEAL AMENDMENT

 

Conservative

  1. Heidi Allen
  2. Guto Bebb
  3. Richard Benyon
  4. Nick Boles
  5. Kenneth Clarke
  6. Jonathan Djanogly
  7. Michael Fallon
  8. George Freeman
  9. Justine Greening
  10. Dominic Grieve
  11. Sam Gyimah
  12. Phillip Lee
  13. Oliver Letwin
  14. Nicky Morgan
  15. Bob Neill
  16. Antoinette Sandbach
  17. Nicholas Soames
  18. Anna Soubry
  19. Edward Vaizey
  20. Sarah Wollaston

Green

  1. Caroline Lucas

Independent

  1. Ivan Lewis
  2. Stephen Lloyd
  3. Jared O’Mara

Labour

  1. Diane Abbott
  2. Debbie Abrahams
  3. Rushanara Ali
  4. Rosena Allin-Khan
  5. Mike Amesbury
  6. Tonia Antoniazzi
  7. Jonathan Ashworth
  8. Adrian Bailey
  9. Margaret Beckett
  10. Hilary Benn
  11. Luciana Berger
  12. Clive Betts
  13. Roberta Blackman-Woods
  14. Paul Blomfield
  15. Tracy Brabin
  16. Ben Bradshaw
  17. Kevin Brennan
  18. Lyn Brown
  19. Nick Brown
  20. Chris Bryant
  21. Karen Buck
  22. Richard Burden
  23. Richard Burgon
  24. Dawn Butler
  25. Liam Byrne
  26. Ruth Cadbury
  27. Alan Campbell
  28. Dan Carden
  29. Sarah Champion
  30. Jenny Chapman
  31. Bambos Charalambous
  32. Ann Clwyd
  33. Vernon Coaker
  34. Ann Coffey
  35. Julie Cooper
  36. Rosie Cooper
  37. Yvette Cooper
  38. Jeremy Corbyn
  39. Neil Coyle
  40. Mary Creagh
  41. Stella Creasy
  42. Judith Cummings
  43. Alex Cunningham
  44. Jim Cunningham
  45. Janet Daby
  46. Nic Dakin
  47. Wayne David
  48. Geraint Davies
  49. Marsha De Cordova
  50. Gloria de Piero
  51. Thangam Debbonaire (Teller)
  52. Emma Dent Coad
  53. Tan Dhesi
  54. Annaliese Dodds
  55. Stephen Doughty
  56. Peter Dowd
  57. David Drew
  58. Jack Dromey
  59. Rosie Duffield
  60. Angela Eagle
  61. Maria Eagle
  62. Clive Efford
  63. Julie Elliott
  64. Louise Ellman
  65. Chris Elmore
  66. Bill Esterson
  67. Christopher Evans
  68. Paul Farrelly
  69. Jim Fitzpatrick
  70. Colleen Fletcher (Teller)
  71. Yvonne Fovargue
  72. Vicky Foxcroft
  73. James Frith
  74. Gill Furniss
  75. Hugh Gaffney
  76. Mike Gapes
  77. Barry Gardiner
  78. Ruth George
  79. Preet Gill
  80. Mary Glindon
  81. Roger Godsiff
  82. Helen Goodman
  83. Kate Green
  84. Lilian Greenwood
  85. Margaret Greenwood
  86. Nia Griffith
  87. John Grogan
  88. Andrew Gwynne
  89. Louise Haigh
  90. Fabian Hamilton
  91. David Hanson
  92. Emma Hardy
  93. Harriet Harman
  94. Carolyn Harris
  95. Helen Hayes
  96. Sue Hayman
  97. John Healey
  98. Mark Hendrick
  99. Stephen Hepburn
  100. Mike Hill
  101. Meg Hillier
  102. Sharon Hodgson
  103. Kate Hollern
  104. Rupa Huq
  105. Imran Hussain
  106. Diana Johnson
  107. Darren Jones
  108. Gerald Jones
  109. Helen Jones
  110. Kevan Jones
  111. Sarah Jones
  112. Susan Elan Jones
  113. Michael Kane
  114. Barbara Keeley
  115. Elizabeth Kendall
  116. Afzal Khan
  117. Gerard Killen
  118. Stephen Kinnock
  119. Peter Kyle
  120. Lesley Laird
  121. David Lammy
  122. Ian Lavery
  123. Karen Lee
  124. Christopher Leslie
  125. Emma Lewell-Buck
  126. Clive Lewis
  127. Tony Lloyd
  128. Rebecca Long-Bailey
  129. Ian Lucas
  130. Justin Madders
  131. Khalid Mahmood
  132. Shabana Mahmood
  133. Seema Malhotra
  134. Gordon Marsden
  135. Sandy Martin
  136. Rachael Maskell
  137. Chris Matheson
  138. Steve McCabe
  139. Kerry McCarthy
  140. Siobhain McDonagh
  141. Andy McDonald
  142. John McDonnell
  143. Pat McFadden
  144. Conor McGinn
  145. Alison McGovern
  146. Liz McInnes
  147. Catherine McKinnell
  148. Jim McMahon
  149. Anna McMorrin
  150. Ian Mearns
  151. Ed Miliband
  152. Jessica Morden
  153. Stephen Morgan
  154. Grahame Morris
  155. Ian Murray
  156. Alex Norris
  157. Melanie Onn
  158. Chi Onwurah
  159. Kate Osamor
  160. Albert Owen
  161. Stephanie Peacock
  162. Teresa Pearce
  163. Matthew Pennycook
  164. Toby Perkins
  165. Jess Phillips
  166. Bridget Phillipson
  167. Laura Pidcock
  168. Jo Platt
  169. Luke Pollard
  170. Stephen Pound
  171. Lucy Powell
  172. Yasmin Qureshi
  173. Faisal Rashid
  174. Angela Rayner
  175. Steve Reed
  176. Christina Rees
  177. Ellie Reeves
  178. Rachel Reeves
  179. Emma Reynolds
  180. Jonathan Reynolds
  181. Marie Rimmer
  182. Matt Rodda
  183. Danielle Rowley
  184. Chris Ruane
  185. Lloyd Russell-Moyle
  186. Joan Ryan
  187. Virendra Sharma
  188. Barry Sheerman
  189. Paula Sherriff
  190. Gavin Shuker
  191. Andy Slaughter
  192. Ruth Smeeth
  193. Angela Smith
  194. Cat Smith
  195. Eleanor Smith
  196. Jeff Smith
  197. Laura Smith
  198. Nick Smith
  199. Owen Smith
  200. Karin Smyth
  201. Gareth Snell
  202. Alex Sobel
  203. John Spellar
  204. Keir Starmer
  205. Jo Stevens
  206. Wes Streeting
  207. Paul Sweeney
  208. Mark Tami
  209. Gareth Thomas
  210. Nick Thomas-Symonds
  211. Emily Thornberry
  212. Stephen Timms
  213. Jon Trickett
  214. Anna Turley
  215. Karl Turner
  216. Derek Twigg
  217. Stephen Twigg
  218. Liz Twist
  219. Chuka Umunna
  220. Valerie Vaz
  221. Thelma Walker
  222. Tom Watson
  223. Catherine West
  224. Matt Western
  225. Alan Whitehead
  226. Martin Whitfield
  227. Paul Williams
  228. Chris Williamson
  229. Phil Wilson
  230. Mohammad Yasin
  231. Daniel Zeichner

Liberal Democrat

  1. Tom Brake
  2. Vince Cable
  3. Alistair Carmichael
  4. Ed Davey
  5. Tim Farron
  6. Wera Hobhouse
  7. Christine Jardine
  8. Norman Lamb
  9. Layla Moran
  10. Jamie Stone
  11. Jo Swinson

Plaid Cymru

  1. Jonathan Edwards
  2. Ben Lake
  3. Liz Saville Roberts
  4. Hywel Williams

SNP

  1. Hannah Bardell
  2. Mhairi Black
  3. Ian Blackford
  4. Kirsty Blackman
  5. Deidre Brock
  6. Alan Brown
  7. Lisa Cameron
  8. Doug Chapman
  9. Joanna Cherry
  10. Ronnie Cowan
  11. Angela Crawley
  12. Martyn Day
  13. Martin Docherty-Hughes
  14. Marion Fellows
  15. Stephen Gethins
  16. Patricia Gibson
  17. Patrick Grady
  18. Peter Grant
  19. Neil Gray
  20. Drew Hendry
  21. Stewart Hosie
  22. Chris Law
  23. David Linden
  24. Angus MacNeil
  25. Stewart McDonald
  26. Stuart McDonald
  27. John McNally
  28. Carol Monaghan
  29. Gavin Newlands
  30. Brendan O’Hara
  31. Tommy Sheppard
  32. Chris Stephens
  33. Alison Thewliss
  34. Philippa Whitford
  35. Pete Wishart

THE 34 MPs WHO DID NOT VOTE IN THE DIVISION*=========

 

Conservative

  1. Christopher Chope
  2. Liam Fox
  3. Luke Hall
  4. Damian Hinds
  5. George Hollingbery
  6. Jeremy Lefroy
  7. Theresa May
  8. Rebecca Pow
  9. Will Quince
  10. Henry Smith
  11. Caroline Spelman

Independent

  1. Frank Field
  2. Kelvin Hopkins
  3. Fiona Onasanya
  4. John Woodcock

Labour

  1. Ian Austin
  2. Kevin Barron
  3. David Crausby
  4. Jon Cruddas
  5. John Cryer
  6. Caroline Flint
  7. Paul Flynn
  8. Margaret Hodge
  9. Dan Jarvis
  10. Graham Jones
  11. Holly Lynch
  12. John Mann
  13. Madeleine Moon
  14. Lisa Nandy
  15. Geoffrey Robinson
  16. Naz Shah
  17. Tulip Siddiq
  18. Dennis Skinner
  19. Keith Vaz

*Not including the Speaker, John Bercow, and his three deputies (Lindsay Hoyle, Eleanor Laing and Rosie Winterton) who, by convention, do not vote in Commons divisions and the Sinn Fein MPs who have not taken their seats. Also excluded are 2 further MPs who have been chairing proceedings of the Committee Stage, namely Nadine Dorries (Con) and George Howarth (Lab). NB: Absence from the division may be for a number of reasons, such as being ill, on maternity leave or on parliamentary business elsewhere, as well as a deliberate abstention.

THE 298 MPs WHO OPPOSED THE COOPER ANTI-NO DEAL AMENDMENT

 

Conservative

  1. Nigel Adams
  2. Bim Afolami
  3. Adam Afriyie
  4. Peter Aldous
  5. Lucy Allan
  6. David Amess
  7. Stuart Andrew
  8. Edward Argar
  9. Victoria Atkins
  10. Richard Bacon
  11. Kemi Badenoch
  12. Steve Baker
  13. Harriett Baldwin
  14. Steve Barclay
  15. John Baron
  16. Henry Bellingham
  17. Paul Beresford
  18. Jake Berry
  19. Bob Blackman
  20. Crispin Blunt
  21. Peter Bone
  22. Peter Bottomley
  23. Andrew Bowie
  24. Ben Bradley
  25. Karen Bradley
  26. Graham Brady
  27. Suella Braverman
  28. Jack Brereton
  29. Andrew Bridgen
  30. Steve Brine
  31. James Brokenshire
  32. Fiona Bruce
  33. Robert Buckland
  34. Alex Burghart
  35. Conor Burns
  36. Alistair Burt
  37. Alun Cairns
  38. James Cartlidge
  39. William Cash
  40. Maria Caulfield
  41. Alex Chalk
  42. Rehman Chishti
  43. Jo Churchill
  44. Greg Clark
  45. Colin Clark
  46. Simon Clarke
  47. James Cleverly
  48. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
  49. Thérèse Coffey
  50. Damian Collins
  51. Alberto Costa
  52. Robert Courts
  53. Geoffrey Cox
  54. Stephen Crabb
  55. Tracey Crouch
  56. Chris Davies
  57. David Davies
  58. Glyn Davies
  59. Mims Davies
  60. Philip Davies
  61. David Davis
  62. Caroline Dinenage
  63. Leo Docherty
  64. Michelle Donelan
  65. Steve Double
  66. Oliver Dowden
  67. Jackie Doyle-Price
  68. Richard Drax
  69. James Duddridge
  70. David Duguid
  71. Alan Duncan
  72. Iain Duncan Smith
  73. Philip Dunne
  74. Michael Ellis
  75. Tobias Ellwood
  76. Charlie Elphicke
  77. George Eustice
  78. Nigel Evans
  79. David Evennett
  80. Michael Fabricant
  81. Mark Field
  82. Vicky Ford
  83. Kevin Foster
  84. Mark Francois
  85. Lucy Frazer
  86. Mike Freer
  87. Marcus Fysh
  88. Roger Gale
  89. Mark Garnier
  90. David Gauke
  91. Nusrat Ghani
  92. Nick Gibb
  93. Cheryl Gillan
  94. John Glen
  95. Zac Goldsmith
  96. Robert Goodwill
  97. Michael Gove
  98. Luke Graham
  99. Richard Graham
  100. Bill Grant
  101. Helen Grant
  102. James Gray
  103. Chris Grayling
  104. Chris Green
  105. Damian Green
  106. Andrew Griffiths
  107. Kirstene Hair
  108. Robert Halfon
  109. Philip Hammond
  110. Stephen Hammond
  111. Matt Hancock
  112. Greg Hands
  113. Mark Harper
  114. Richard Harrington
  115. Rebecca Harris
  116. Trudy Harrison
  117. Simon Hart
  118. John Hayes
  119. Oliver Heald
  120. James Heappey
  121. Chris Heaton-Harris
  122. Peter Heaton-Jones
  123. Gordon Henderson
  124. Nick Herbert
  125. Simon Hoare
  126. Kevin Hollinrake
  127. Philip Hollobone
  128. Adam Holloway
  129. John Howell
  130. Nigel Huddleston
  131. Eddie Hughes
  132. Jeremy Hunt
  133. Nick Hurd
  134. Alister Jack
  135. Margot James
  136. Sajid Javid
  137. Ranil Jayawardena
  138. Bernard Jenkin
  139. Andrea Jenkyns
  140. Robert Jenrick
  141. Boris Johnson
  142. Caroline Johnson
  143. Gareth Johnson
  144. Jo Johnson
  145. Andrew Jones
  146. David Jones
  147. Marcus Jones
  148. Daniel Kawczynski
  149. Gillian Keegan
  150. Seema Kennedy
  151. Stephen Kerr
  152. Sir Greg Knight
  153. Julian Knight
  154. Kwasi Kwarteng
  155. John Lamont
  156. Mark Lancaster
  157. Pauline Latham
  158. Andrea Leadsom
  159. Edward Leigh
  160. Andrew Lewer
  161. Brandon Lewis
  162. Julian Lewis
  163. Ian Liddell-Grainger
  164. David Lidington
  165. Julia Lopez
  166. Jack Lopresti
  167. Jonathan Lord
  168. Tim Loughton
  169. Craig Mackinlay
  170. Rachel Maclean
  171. Anne Main
  172. Alan Mak
  173. Kit Malthouse
  174. Scott Mann
  175. Paul Masterson
  176. Paul Maynard
  177. Patrick McLoughlin
  178. Stephen McPartland
  179. Esther McVey
  180. Mark Menzies
  181. Johnny Mercer
  182. Huw Merriman
  183. Stephen Metcalfe
  184. Maria Miller
  185. Amanda Milling
  186. Nigel Mills
  187. Anne Milton
  188. Andrew Mitchell
  189. Damien Moore
  190. Penny Mordaunt
  191. Anne Marie Morris
  192. David Morris
  193. James Morris
  194. Wendy Morton (Teller)
  195. David Mundell
  196. Sheryll Murray
  197. Andrew Murrison
  198. Sarah Newton
  199. Caroline Nokes
  200. Jesse Norman
  201. Neil O’Brien
  202. Matthew Offord
  203. Guy Opperman
  204. Neil Parish
  205. Priti Patel
  206. Owen Paterson
  207. Mark Pawsey
  208. Mike Penning
  209. John Penrose
  210. Andrew Percy
  211. Claire Perry
  212. Chris Philp
  213. Christopher Pincher
  214. Daniel Poulter
  215. Victoria Prentis
  216. Mark Prisk
  217. Mark Pritchard
  218. Tom Pursglove
  219. Jeremy Quin
  220. Dominic Raab
  221. John Redwood
  222. Jacob Rees-Mogg
  223. Laurence Robertson
  224. Mary Robinson
  225. Andrew Rosindell
  226. Douglas Ross
  227. Lee Rowley
  228. Amber Rudd
  229. David Rutley
  230. Paul Scully
  231. Bob Seely
  232. Andrew Selous
  233. Grant Shapps
  234. Alok Sharma
  235. Alec Shelbrooke
  236. Keith Simpson
  237. Chris Skidmore
  238. Chloe Smith
  239. Julian Smith
  240. Royston Smith
  241. Mark Spencer
  242. Andrew Stephenson
  243. John Stevenson
  244. Bob Stewart
  245. Iain Stewart (Teller)
  246. Rory Stewart
  247. Gary Streeter
  248. Mel Stride
  249. Graham Stuart
  250. Julian Sturdy
  251. Rishi Sunak
  252. Desmond Swayne
  253. Hugo Swire
  254. Robert Syms
  255. Derek Thomas
  256. Ross Thomson
  257. Maggie Throup
  258. Kelly Tolhurst
  259. Justin Tomlinson
  260. Michael Tomlinson
  261. Craig Tracey
  262. David Tredinnick
  263. Anne-Marie Trevelyan
  264. Elizabeth Truss
  265. Thomas Tugendhat
  266. Shailesh Vara
  267. Martin Vickers
  268. Theresa Villiers
  269. Charles Walker
  270. Robin Walker
  271. Ben Wallace
  272. David Warburton
  273. Matt Warman
  274. Giles Watling
  275. Helen Whately
  276. Heather Wheeler
  277. Craig Whittaker
  278. John Whittingdale
  279. Bill Wiggin
  280. Gavin Williamson
  281. Mike Wood
  282. William Wragg
  283. Jeremy Wright
  284. Nadhim Zahawi

DUP

  1. Gregory Campbell
  2. Nigel Dodds
  3. Jeffrey Donaldson
  4. Paul Girvan
  5. Emma Little Pengelly
  6. Ian Paisley
  7. Gavin Robinson
  8. Jim Shannon
  9. David Simpson
  10. Sammy Wilson

Independent

  1. Sylvia Hermon

Labour

  1. Ronnie Campbell
  2. Kate Hoey
  3. Graham Stringer

The post Anti-No Dealers defeat Government on Finance Bill amendment – How every MP voted appeared first on BrexitCentral.

As Canterbury does not have its own Conservative MP, I have been asked by local Conservative members, activists and supporters to set out their views, as expressed to me, in the hope that Conservative MPs will read this before voting on the draft Brexit deal.

As a marginal seat in the heart of Kent, the Canterbury constituency is on the political ‘frontline’ for both Brexit and the next general election. Conservatives here fear the deal proposed offers a bleak prospect for both party and country. They hope you will weigh an alternative.

The majority of our Conservative members, activists and supporters voted Leave in 2016. They were not motivated by bigotry. Our constituency welcomes 7 million tourists every year, we are proud to host 40,000 students from around the world and our local businesses trade globally. Conservatives have an optimistic and outward looking worldview. The vote for Brexit was born of a desire to enhance sovereignty, create opportunity and embrace the future.

Conservative supporters who called for Brexit voted in good faith. They deserve recognition that they knew what they voting for. In Kent, people know that disruption needs mitigation. We have seen steps proposed in Operation Brock applied many times before. We marked agreements like the Treaty of Canterbury (regarding the Channel Tunnel) that facilitated trade before the European Union and will continue to have force regardless of Brexit. And now, we see neighbours across the Channel, like Holland, introducing new laws for an amicable ‘no-deal’ outcome. Evidently, those neighbours believe that is a sensible option.

I am sure most constituency Chairs like me have received a huge number of messages from those who oppose the draft Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration. Our supporters fear it springs from the same well as last year’s general election campaign. Indeed, when voters are told that declining this deal means no deal or no Brexit, they tend to reply: “fine, either is better”.

Our activists and voters cannot be taken for granted. Many worry this deal betrays them. Given the dreaded spectre of Jeremy Corbyn’s narrow-minded hate and broad-brush prejudice, the biggest risk we all face is not leaving the EU without a deal. It is that if we let down our supporters on this issue, they will not help us fight another. On 15th January, please vote against this deal.

The post If Tory MPs ignore the party membership and back the Brexit deal, they risk losing the activists on whom they rely appeared first on BrexitCentral.

According to TS Eliot, April is the cruellest month. In 2019 January, February and March are going to run it pretty close. The outcome is as unpredictable as Trump’s mental processes. Unlike the pundittieri I’ve got neither crystal balls nor a God-given ability to predict the future. Fortunately, also unlike them, I’m not driven by a hard instinct and can admit errors. So let me make a few guesses.

The pundits themselves, their house journal The Guardian and their think-tanks in Treasury and the Bank will go into a euro-enthusiastic frenzy, predicting immediate disaster if we Leave, or a dragged-out version of it if we accept Theresa May’s application for colonial status. They’ll hold out the prospect of eternal bliss, prosperity and rallying the world against Trump, Putin and even Kim Jong Un if we stay.

Theresa will beg for a pretty (but unbankable) promise from the EU not to be too beastly and, if she can get it, permission for small dogs to enter the EU without a photographic passport taken by a French photographer. Her task now is to persuade enough Brexiteers that hers is the best deal any human being could possibly get while claiming that the EU may eventually be released from the tagged probation if we behave nicely. She hopes that this will get enough people to vote for her Brexit Postponement Bill.

The Labour Party will continue to fall apart. Corbyn will claim that cochons will fly under a Labour government. Meanwhile the bulk of his party will shuffle off to the soft option of a People’s Vote which will both allow them to creep back into Europe and ensure that Corbyn won’t be able to implement any of his radical plans.

The rampant Remainers will continue their collusion with Brussels. The Tony Blair Foundation will provide winter clothing for more parliamentary flag-wavers. The master propagandists, Campbell and Adonis, will promote a Remainer People’s Vote while prophesying doom, disaster and bubonic plague if we crash, crawl, eject or stagger out.

As for the great British public, they won’t revolt like the gilets jaunes. Stoicism is the British rebellion, not riots. Yet they are becoming fed up and alienated as they realise that their political leaders are not only incapable of delivering what the people voted for, but totally incompetent – having done little except blame the people for their vote while allowing clever EU bastards to humiliate them.

In short, it’s totally unpredictable but certain to be a mess. However, I can say what should happen.

If Theresa’s sell out doesn’t get through Parliament, there can’t be another referendum because there’s nothing to vote on. Remainers will generate a frenzy of fear about a no-deal departure, though that can come only if the Government gives up. So the Government must resume negotiations with new proposals.

The EU has constantly claimed that they want positive proposals from Britain. Make them. Make them stronger. Demand an extension of the two years to negotiate them. The EU will bluster and try to refuse it on the grounds that they’ve made their best offer. They haven’t. The Government can’t get it through Parliament. So it lapses.

The EU have already indicated that they’ll allow an extension to conduct a referendum. That’s impossible until we have a deal Parliament can accept. Which puts the ball back in their court. If they won’t offer one, they damage themselves when their economy is already doing badly. In the face of the world trend to freer trade and facing failure with the euro, they won’t dare to humiliate us.

Fudges end every argument in the EU. If they can’t manage one now, the responsibility for a no-deal departure is theirs. Forcing it will rally the British public to it and the necessary concomitant measures to support industry and expand the economy. It’s certainly better than limping into humiliation because the Government has no guts and Remainers have reduced a proud nation to gibbering with fear at the prospect of quitting a leaking hulk to join a prospering world.

The post If the EU can’t offer May a fudge now, the responsibility for a no-deal departure is theirs appeared first on BrexitCentral.

Brendan Chilton is co-author with Lord Lilley of 30 Truths about leaving on WTO terms: Why WTO offers a safer haven than the Backstop, which is published today by Global Britain and Labour Leave. 

The tone of the language we so often hear and the words we frequently read associated with trading on World Trade Organisation terms is negative and promotes images of chaos and disorder. All of this is based on deliberate fear.

Phrases such as ‘crashing out on WTO terms’ and ‘no-deal Brexit’ and ‘being forced to revert to the WTO option’ conjure up an image of a future in which the United Kingdom loses out and becomes an economic basket case. The terms are frequently and loudly spouted by those campaigning for a second referendum and are supported by biased voices within the media. Their objective is to determine that the United Kingdom must Remain in some shape or form entangled within the European Union even after the democratic decision of the people to Leave is implemented.

The reality of the situation, however, is that a United Kingdom operating under World Trade Organisation rules will be one of the greatest liberating experiences to achieved by this country in modern times. The United Kingdom always was a global free-trading nation – and now it will be once again, participating in every corner of the world. Far from being a perilous course, World Trade terms are a golden opportunity to reignite the industrial and commercial might of this country and it is a course that the Labour Party should completely support.

The Labour Party is not primarily a liberation movement. It is not primarily a social movement or a movement for emancipation. The Labour Party’s primary and fundamental nature and purpose can be understood by examining the title and description of the party – Labour. The Labour Party has been, is, and always will be a party of labour. Of work.

Its root and brain are an element of economy and its purpose is the representation of labour within the political institutions and a democratic framework of the nation state. Its motivation is the betterment of the lot of labour within the country and the world. Its purpose is to protect the advancement of labour and secure more for labour. This is achieved through an economy that is wealth-generating.

At its heart, Labour is a party of industry and commerce and, yes, of finance too. In the modern world, those factors are units of the economy not restricted solely to Europe but are the norm the world over. Labour’s standard should therefore be world trade and not an obsession with a Single Market serving the most developed, most privileged, most advanced part of the world shielded and protected by a great wall called a Customs Union.

The language of the Labour Party must turn from fear and concern to optimism and hope: the optimism that once again Labour can truly be the party of labour by embracing trading terms outlined under the World Trade Organisation to revitalise sectors of our economy, to embrace new markets, spread the protections and securities our workers enjoy to the rest of the world and ensure a wealth-generating economy improves the lives of people in this country and others.

Labour’s radical economic programme outlined in the 2017 manifesto is one that would restore industry, spread commerce and excite finance. In order for the manifesto to be delivered in the most productive way that manufactures growth, the Labour Party cannot support the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister and it cannot support an ongoing relationship with the European Union that grants economic jurisdiction to Brussels. The next Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer must be in a position to exercise all the levers of the state and tools as his disposal to ensure our economic programme can deliver for the many in this country and inspire others across the world in a true act of solidarity.

It is right that the Labour leadership is resisting calls for a second referendum on our membership of the European Union. It is now very unlikely that a second referendum will take place and this is, in part, due to the battle against one being fought by the leadership of the Labour Party. Now victory on that front is in sight, it is the time for the leadership to focus its attention on the next battle in this great struggle for the revival of our economy and the prospects of this nation in the long term.

The Labour leadership now needs to fully embrace with heart and hand a Brexit that enables the United Kingdom to be free from the shackles of Brussels and which allows our country to walk onto the platform of World Trade. By doing this, Labour will set the course for the future, it will demonstrate its ambition and ideals and will ensure that the next Labour government can embark upon a radical national economic agenda that transforms this country from a nation secluded in Europe to a nation manufactured and secured in global trade in the modern world.

The post Trading on WTO rules will be a liberation for the UK – and the Labour leadership needs to embrace it appeared first on BrexitCentral.




Recommended news

© 2019 Brexit and Ireland - All Rights Reserved. Individual site feeds info belong to individual site holders.

Follow us: