Dear readers, I am reluctant to do this to you, but we must discuss the ‘indicative votes’ on various forms of Brexit (or no Brexit) which will be held in Parliament today. Amazingly, the future of our country rests on this gimcrack constitutional monstrosity.
After last Wednesday’s first round, out of eight proposals selected by Speaker Bercow, the motion which came closest to gaining a majority was one calling for the Government to negotiate ‘a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU’.
It was rejected by 272 votes to 264. So only five MPs need to switch in today’s second eliminating round for it to win a majority.
Sir Oliver Letwin — the inventor of this process, and who voted for this particular option — would attempt (with Bercow’s energetic assistance) to turn indicative votes into a binding motion, writes Dominic Lawson
If that happens, Sir Oliver Letwin — the inventor of this process, and who voted for this particular option — would attempt (with Bercow’s energetic assistance) to turn it into a binding motion, unless the Government agrees to adopt it.
The Government should do no such thing — and not just because the Conservative 2017 election manifesto pledged to leave the customs union.
It is not even the fact that those voting in the EU referendum were promised that Brexit meant being able to make our own trade deals: if it made any sense to break that promise, too, at least it could be explained and justified. But it is simply a terrible idea, on its own terms.
The most insistent argument advanced for it by its Labour supporters, such as Emily Thornberry yesterday, is that it represents a ‘soft Brexit’ which would ‘honour the 48 pc who voted Remain as well as the 52 pc who voted Leave’.
Are we to suppose that if Remain had won by 52 to 48 pc, politicians would have said that in order to ‘honour the 48 pc, we should negotiate to leave at least one EU institution’? Even if they had, we couldn’t have done so because there is no a la carte form of EU membership, as Brussels has so often pointed out.
The European Commission also insists that customs union decisions about trade can be made only by members of the EU. That is made clear in the very first article of the EU treaties on the customs union.
Brussels has already dismissed the idea that the UK could have a vote, let alone a veto, on customs union deals if we attached ourselves to its rules and arrangements as an ex-member of the EU, writes Dominic Lawson
The most insistent argument advanced for 'a customs union' by its Labour supporters, such as Emily Thornberry yesterday, is that it represents a ‘soft Brexit’ which would ‘honour the 48 pc who voted Remain as well as the 52 pc who voted Leave, writes Dominic Lawson
Brussels has already dismissed the idea that the UK could have a vote, let alone a veto, on customs union deals if we attached ourselves to its rules and arrangements as an ex-member of the EU. To be precise, its officials have described this as ‘a fantasy’.
Yet that is what Labour now say they would be able to negotiate.
Either they know this to be untrue (in which case they are lying to the public) or they don’t know (in which case they are too shatteringly ignorant to negotiate with the EU as a governing party).
One of their leading figures has told the truth: Labour’s International Trade spokesman, no less. In July 2017, Barry Gardiner wrote in the Guardian that if the UK remained in ‘a’ customs union with the EU-27, ‘several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set.
‘We would be unable to enter into any bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the EU, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the U.S. that was in the union’s best interests, but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the U.S.’.
Since February 2018, Gardiner has been mute on all these points — because that was when Labour switched their policy to backing ‘a’ customs union with the EU.
In July 2017, Barry Gardiner wrote in the Guardian that if the UK remained in ‘a’ customs union with the EU-27, ‘several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set, writes Dominc Lawson
Gardiner’s present silence is as eloquent as his earlier demolition of the proposal he is now obliged to support.
It was striking how the main proponents of this in the indicative vote debate last week — Ken Clarke, Sir Keir Starmer (the Labour shadow Brexit secretary) and Hilary Benn (Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee) all refused to take interventions from the only former Minister for Trade Policy present, Greg Hands.
So Hands, who is fluent in three European languages and understands these matters as well as anyone in the House, set out his argument yesterday on the website ConservativeHome. Among other devastating points, he explains how the UK’s diplomatic power rests partly on our ability to set, or help set, trading rules.
As he says: ‘If, in the future, the UK has neither its own trade policy nor any say over the EU’s, we have virtually zero leverage on anything to do with trade.’
He also notes why it’s no surprise that Brussels is enthusiastic about that. ‘At trade bargaining tables of the future, it would be able to offer up access to the UK’s 65 million consumers without the UK getting anything in return.’ As the saying goes: if you are not at the table in trade talks, you are the lunch.
Most absurd of all, a promise to cede this in permanence to the EU doesn’t, contrary to Labour’s claims, avoid the dreaded Irish backstop as set out in the Withdrawal Agreement.
EU negotiators have made it clear they will not even begin to negotiate future trade arrangements until the Withdrawal Agreement is passed by the Commons.
If MPs vote for permanent alignment with the customs union, with its tariffs weighing most disproportionately on our poorest consumers, they will be signing up to taxation without representation. In short, they would be betraying not just those who voted Leave, but the entire country, now and in the future.
The curious case of Heseltine's war...
The Stop-Brexit rally in Parliament Square thrilled to the oratory of Lord Heseltine, as he recalled his wartime experiences in aid of the argument that the UK should never be ‘alone’ in Europe, as we were in 1940.
He thundered: ‘I was there. I saw our Army evacuated, our cities bombed, our convoys sunk.
‘Churchill did everything in his power to end this isolation. Alone was never Churchill’s hope or wish: it was his fear.’
This might have led his more youthful listeners to believe Lord Heseltine was a participant in the British war effort in that fateful year of 1940. In fact, he was seven years old at the time.
The Stop-Brexit rally in Parliament Square thrilled to the oratory of Lord Heseltine, as he recalled his wartime experiences in aid of the argument that the UK should never be ‘alone’ in Europe, as we were in 1940, writes Dominic Lawson
I was older than that — eight — during the great debates in Parliament over the abolition of the death penalty, in 1965. I would never dream of making an argument about that on the basis that ‘I was there’ — as if I had been personally connected with this historic episode.
But then, I lack Heseltine’s nerve (and, of course, his oratorical gifts).
Heseltine’s aim was to link Churchill to the idea of Britain as part of a federal Europe. As he did in a 2017 radio interview, citing the great war leader’s Zurich speech of 1946 calling for a ‘kind of United States of Europe’.
But as the author of a new and magnificent Churchill biography, Andrew Roberts, wrote: ‘Churchill in that speech made it perfectly clear that he did not want Britain to be a member of the European project.’
Or, as Churchill told Parliament in 1952: ‘We are not members of the European Defence Community, nor do we intend to be merged in a Federal European system ... we are with them, but not of them.’
Heseltine should know that. He was there. Sort of.
photo link
https://textbacklinkexchanges.com/dominic-lawson-a-customs-union-wouldnt-give-us-a-place-at-the-trade-table/
News Photo DOMINIC LAWSON: A customs union wouldn’t give us a place at the trade table
Advertising
You don’t have to pack away your dress just because you’re the wrong side of 20. These body-beautiful stars reveal their secrets to staying in shape and prove you can smoulder in a two-piece, whatever your age. Read on and be bikini inspired!
Kim says: “I am no super-thin Hollywood actress. I am built for men who like women to look like women.”
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/01/00/11699882-6871357-image-a-1_1554074408839.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий