I watched quite a lot of the Brexit debate today. In the latter part backbenchers either seemed to want to celebrate their contribution to bringing about Brexit or say how awful it was. In fact I switched off after Dame Cheryl Gillan's contribution as in terms of both content and delivery she seemed to be auditioning for a role as a minor royal in the next series of the Crown. I did catch Caroline Lucas and then the closing speeches.
I suppose if there was a take home message for me it is that, as Hilary Benn said, the agenda now shifts to determining our relationship with the EU which I suspect will be in a state of constant flux and renegotiation like that of Switzerland.
Boris Johnson managed to get away with his usual range of invalid points. He made a comparison with the time the Uruguay Round negotiations took, but those involved most of the world. We would be free of state aid rules which is not how I understood the agreement given that the UK will have to set up a new state aid review body. We could make our own regulatory rules. But supposing, say, we approved a pesticide banned in the EU. Crops produced with it could then face tariffs or even a complete ban. He mentioned again that the EU original transition offer on fishing had been 14 years, but that soon reduced to eight which is why 5.5 years was halfway between Britain's three and the EU's eight.
He called for an end to rancour and recrimination, but that overlooks the way in which social media makes everything binary. His best point was at the end when he referred to the UK as a half hearted, sometimes obstructive member of the EU. We have, indeed, been an awkward partner. However, T Singh Daesi made one of a number of effective interventions when he referred to a 'burnt oven ready deal'.
Keir Starmer was caught between a rock and a hard place and indeed one Opposition Whip has resigned. He just about managed to hold on to his argument that a thin deal is better than a no deal and that voting against was a self-indulgent luxury given that there would be a vote in favour. His speech as a whole made some good points on details, such as the fact that there would be non-tariff barriers to trade, but was not very impressive in big picture terms. Indeed, he often looked grim faced, flustered and exasperated, particularly when the honourable member for Carmarthen (independent) kept interrupting him. His vision was of an 'outward looking, optimistic and rules-based country.'
Ian Blackford managed to pontificate for 25 minutes in his usual self-satisfied and pompous manner. At one time he seemed to be yearning for the Auld Alliance. He did, however, argue with some force that Scotland would lose a 'precious part of what we are' by leaving the EU. He did manage to score a few points against Michael Gove on fisheries. Having invoked the spirit of Winnie Ewing as Madame Ecosse, he predicted that the empty seat at the top table at Europe would not remain empty for long. It is, of course, a possible scenario.
Theresa May's stock is very low these days but I thought she made an effective short speech. She pointed out to those voting against that there was a better deal on the table in 2019. She was disappointed by a deal on goods which had little or nothing to say on services which account for 80 per cent of the economy. [Of course, many of these are not traded, but financial services are]. Services would have to be negotiated on a member state basis, those for the Czech Republic, for example, requiring a residence requirement. She also referred to something called the Partnership Council which I admit that I know nothing about and must investigate further. [Apparently it is the body that settles trade disputes between the UK and the EU, but much will depend on how this works in practice as with the WTO disputes settlement mechanism]. She warned that sovereignty does not mean isolationism or exceptionalism. We live in an interconnected world.
Ian Duncan-Smith insisted that he was not anti-European and loved Europe (just as Ian Blackford said that he loved England and the English). What this means, of course, is that he and others have no objection to enjoying French cuisine, but don't want to work alongside France in a systematic rather than ad hoc fashion.
Caroline Lucas admitted that she and others had voted against a softer form of Brexit, but referred once again to the need for a confirmatory referendum. I was never as confident as the hard core remainers that a second referendum would have delivered a different result. I never liked the idea of a second vote to get the right answer and would have probably abstained. The Brexiteers have had the better strategies and tactics, if only in terms of unrelenting pursuit of their objective.
Michael Gove declared in conclusion that 'We have kept faith with the people.' He then proceeded to make a number of partisan points against Starmer and the SNP.
Both the second and third readings passed by 521 votes to 73. My MP, Matt Western, was going to vote in favour which I think was the right decision.
2 comments:
As a binational living in the EU, I am relieved that the UK has left the Union although I am extremely sorry for the well-educated section of the British public who understand the damage at several levels that the settlement will cause. The country has been an awkward partner and obstructive (accept in the case of the introduction of the single market) to any moves towards real integration which, after all, was the aim of the Treaty of Rome. The partners of the UK tried to accommodate successive UK governments by agreeing to opt outs and special arrangements but they failed in the long run to keep the country within the fold. I found repellant the specious arguments of the Brexiters, based mainly as they were on ignorance, prejudice and wishful thinking. I also find wearisome the repetition of those who said yes to EU membership but the EU must be reformed without making concrete practical proposals. It will be reformed albeit slowly.
I agree with Wyn in that supporting a bad deal because it is better than no deal. Any thought of eturning to the status quo ante is pie in the sky. Unfortunately with this deal, I see trouble ahead.
Thanks for this comment, I am in agreement with most of it, certainly I see trouble ahead. Personally I would have preferred more movement in direction of a two tier EU which was provided for in the Treaty of Amsterdam and also reflected in UK opt outs. This would have allowed the advocates of greater integration to move ahead, leaving others to proceed at a slower pace. On the question of reform, I suppose I am somewhat influenced by being an analyst of a CAP. It has changed, but it still takes up too much of the budget and is a dysfunctional policy in many respects, e.g., in terms of a mismatch between objectives and policy instruments. I argued this case in West European Politics on the basis of a collaboration with a colleague at Science Po. The latest farm to fork proposals are a step in the right direction.
Post a Comment