Barry spoke at HowTheLightGetsIn festival in Hay-on-Wye, in a debate entitled Has Brexit Broken British Politics: Britain in Uncharted Territory.
Barry visits Nottingham as part of Labour plans to reduce energy bills by installing solar panels on nearly two million homes
On Thursday, I visited Nottingham to see Labour’s Green Industrial Revolution in practice.
Fuel poverty is one of Nottingham’s foremost challenges. For many families, energy bills can be more than 10% of their income so bringing the costs down can have a hugely positive impact on these households.
I met with Nottingham City Council who have an in-house team who install solar panels onto commercial buildings such as leisure centres, as well as homes, reducing people’s energy bills to just £300 a year. Over 4,600 council houses have had solar systems installed to date, saving tenants over £0.5 million per year on their electricity bills. In this way, I saw how solar panels are able to help tackle climate change at the same time as keeping more money in people’s wallet.
My visit coincided with an announcement of new policies from Labour to tackle climate change. Labour’s plans will fit solar panels on a million social homes and those of low-income households to tackle fuel poverty, provide them with free energy and save an average of £117 a year on their bills, which could rise to £270 for retired households.
Any unused electricity generated by the programme will be used by the national grid, which Labour will take into public ownership, raising an additional £66m per year for local authorities.
Labour will enable the installation of solar panels on an additional 750,000 homes through a programme of interest free loans, grants and changes to regulations.
Labour estimates its policy will create 16,900 jobs and save 7.1 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to taking 4 million cars off the UK’s roads.
My latest letter to constituents on Brexit
This is the third letter that was sent out to all constituents that have previously contacted me on the subject of Brexit. This letter was written on 07 May 2019, with the previous letters being written on 05 December 2018 & 31 January 2019.
Dear Constituent,
For many of you this letter will be the third you have received from me on the subject of Brexit in as many months. The situation has been changing at such a dramatic speed that I thought it appropriate to wait until matters became more settled and slightly clearer before I wrote to you again. As ever, I want to re-assure you that this is the same letter I send out to all my constituents who contact me, whether supporting Leave or Remain.
You can find my previous letters to constituents on my website, as well as the speech I made in the House of Commons. (https://www.barrygardiner.com/policy/2019/01/31/barrys-letter-to-constituents-on-brexit/)
Just prior to my previous letter, you will recall that the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal suffered the largest defeat in history for any sitting Government (by 432 votes to 202, a majority of 230 votes!)
Following the first meaningful vote defeat, the Prime Minister said she would work on three changes: being more flexible, open and inclusive with Parliament; embedding protections on workers’ rights and the environment; and working to identify how to ensure no hard border in Northern Ireland in a way that has the support of Parliament and the EU.
I was encouraged by the Prime Minister’s words as she had identified three of the main reasons why her own deal was not fit for purpose. However, I soon realised that my optimism was misplaced as the Prime Minister once again ignored her own promises and reneged on all three of the changes she told the House she would make. I made it clear in my first letter that at every stage of the Brexit process, the Prime Minister has tried to exclude Parliament:
The Labour Party argued that the Prime Minister could not trigger Article 50 without a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruled we were correct.
The Labour Party argued that parliament had the right to see the “detailed impact assessments” the government said they had prepared. The government refused; but were eventually forced by a parliamentary procedure to publish what turned out to be very sketchy documents indeed.
The Labour Party argued that parliament should have the right to “a meaningful vote on the final deal “. Again, the government said no; but were forced to concede this.
The Labour Party argued that parliament had the right to see the financial modelling the government had prepared for the different Brexit scenarios. Again, the government said “No”; and when they were once more forced to concede it became clear that they had not even modelled the actual agreement Theresa May had concluded with the EU, but only her Chequers Proposals.
The Labour Party argued that parliament had the right to see the full legal opinion prepared by the Attorney General about the Prime Minister’s Agreement with the EU. The Government was later found in contempt of Parliament for denying the full legal opinion.
The Labour Party argued that Parliament had the right to see the legal advice regarding the Northern Ireland Backstop arrangements. Initially, the government refused but Labour finally forced the government to publish it. We learnt that not only did it confirm that the UK would be locked in the backstop in perpetuity with no unilateral ability to get out, it also established that “GB is essentially treated as a third country by NI for goods passing from GB to NI”. This went against the whole constitutional unity of the United Kingdom and would have seen different rules and regulations applying in different parts of our country.
Despite her historic defeat on the first meaningful vote in January, The Prime Minister then continually refused to shift her damaging red lines in further talks with Jeremy Corbyn.
MPs voted on the motion on 29 January 2019 where an amendment requiring the Government to replace the Northern Ireland backstop with “alternative arrangements” was passed by 318 votes to 310. The Prime Minister then went back to Brussels to try to negotiate a different backstop arrangement. The EU not unreasonably asked what she meant by “alternative arrangement” and pointed out that this new position from the UK simply meant ‘we don’t like the deal and want something else’ without specifying what that something else was. They maintained that the Withdrawal Agreement could not be re-opened but did approve two additional joint documents to clarify the nature of the backstop. Unfortunately, these additional documents did nothing to allay the fears that were highlighted in the government’s own legal advice on the backstop.
The Prime Minister’s deal is deeply flawed – it will not protect jobs, workplace rights or environmental standards, nor ensure frictionless trade for British businesses. I therefore voted again to reject the Prime Minister’s deal, as did the majority of Parliament as it was defeated by 391 votes against to 242 votes for, a majority of 149.
Following the second meaningful vote defeat, MPs approved Government motions on 13 and 14 March 2019 ruling out a No Deal exit from the EU and approving a request for an extension of Article 50, respectively. It is important to note that these votes were NOT binding on the government. However, following a subsequent request by the Prime Minister, the European Council approved an extension of Article 50 to 12 April and more recently a longer extension has been agreed to 31st October 2019. I believe that the Prime Minister’s handling of this has been appalling. Theresa May deliberately ran down the clock and in the end was forced into asking for an extension to avoid a damaging no deal by Parliament. Leaving the EU without a deal would be catastrophic and the Government cannot plunge our country into chaos because of its own failure to negotiate a good deal. Our country has been left in limbo, with businesses and workers facing deep uncertainty.
After a third attempt to get her Withdrawal Agreement through parliament failed on 29th March (344 votes against to 286 for), I am pleased that the Prime Minister reached out to the Labour Party and asked Jeremy Corbyn to help her find a way forward. We have a responsibility to find an approach that can command the confidence of Parliament and bring our country back together. What is clear is that if these talks are to be successful, the Government will have to compromise on their red lines. Labour MPs have already shown their willingness to compromise through the series of indicative votes where labour MPs voted on average for 5 of the 8 proposals (Conservatives, Lib Dems and TIG MPs voted on average for just 2 of the 8).
Our manifesto in 2017 promised to accept the referendum result but with the proviso that we could not accept a No Deal, and we could not accept a deal that would damage our economy or just in time supply chain on which so many jobs depend. That is why any alternative plan must capture the benefits of a customs union and protect workplace rights and environmental standards and keep a close regulatory alignment with the single market. Our party conference last September united members around the unanimous composite motion that said if it proved impossible to negotiate a good deal along those lines, then Labour would call for a General Election and failing that, all options would remain on the table including a second public vote. Last week our National Executive Committee met and confirmed that position unambiguously. This means that, should the current talks with the government fail to arrive at an acceptable compromise and assuming the Prime Minister refuses to go to the country in a General Election, then Labour will insist upon a public vote on Theresa May’s deal.
I know that many people are ‘sick of Brexit’ and angry about the impact it is having on jobs and businesses. I share these frustrations. As many of you will know, my personal preference is to Remain in the EU. However, I will do all I can to respect the referendum result and deliver a deal which, whilst leaving the EU, does not undermine your jobs and prospects.
Yours sincerely,
Barry Gardiner
Member of Parliament for Brent North
Free TV licences for over-75s
My Nan loved getting something for free!
Her bus pass was a total joy and her free TV licence was too. She was proud that she’d worked all her life and paid her taxes. She felt that these were her little bit of recognition.
But the BBC’s consultation on the future of TV Licences and who should pay for them recently closed in February — and soon that universal benefit for the over 75s could come to an end. I certainly believe that this is one of the best and simplest ways of helping our elders to feel rewarded and valued. Unfortunately as part of the last BBC Charter Review, the government devolved responsibility for the free TV licence, and the cost, to the BBC.
New research from the House of Commons Library shows that if free TV licences are scrapped altogether, this will cost over-75s in Brent North a total of £967,715 a year – almost £1million.
But perhaps the sneakiest proposal of all is to link the free licences with pension credit. I say “sneakiest” because so many do not take up their right to pension credit. In my Brent North constituency the cost to our oldest citizens would be £629,090 a year because more than 40 per cent of households entitled to pension credit have not claimed it.
I want to urge local families to speak to their relatives and friends who are pensioners and encourage them to claim the money that is rightfully theirs.
To check if eligible or make a claim call 0800 99 1234 or ask Citizens Advice to request a paper application on your behalf.
Barry writes in the Independent: “I’m declaring a climate emergency – but will my fellow MPs admit it?”
Barry has written a piece in the Independent today, ahead of a historic vote where Labour will ask Parliament to declare an environment and climate emergency in a bid to become the first country in the world to declare one.
His article can be read here or below:
A sixteen-year-old Swedish schoolgirl, Greta Thunberg, gave British politicians a lesson in clarity and truth this week. Our greenhouse gas emissions are not falling fast enough to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. Our wildlife is vanishing before your eyes, with species levels nosediving towards extinction. “This ongoing irresponsible behaviour”, she scolded, “will no doubt be remembered in history as one of the greatest failures of humankind.”
She’s right. We are in the midst of a planetary crisis. But we are acting as if the scientific evidence does not matter. We talk about what is politically possible when we should only be talking of what is scientifically required. At the other end of the age spectrum, in his recent BBC documentary David Attenborough explained to millions of viewers that we are facing irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies.
It is because of this immense scale of disaster we face that next Wednesday, Labour will ask parliament to announce an environmental and climate emergency.
If MPs pass Labour’s motion, we will become the first parliament in the world to have recognised this sobering truth. This would be the boldest demonstration yet of Britain’s commitment towards taking environmental breakdown and climate chaos with the seriousness and urgency that scientists have shown it needs.
And doing so would inspire countries everywhere to follow suit and recognise the scale of the problem we are dealing with. That is what happened when the Labour government was the first to legislate for emissions reductions targets in the ground-breaking Climate Change Act in 2008: it became a model for the rest of the world.
It is also fitting that the UK should take such a lead, because we were the first to usher in the era of coal power with the industrial revolution, making us one of the largest global contributors to climate change. In fact, since 1750, the UK has produced 77 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, making us the 5th largest polluter of all time. So, the least we can do is to take responsibility for our part in creating the problem.
Government ministers say that there is no point in declaring an emergency. They say it is actions that matter. But if you do not accept that there is an emergency you will not act as if there is one.
Under Labour’s plans for a Green Industrial Revolution, ending the emergency will also make economic sense. Our existing plans to invest in new solar and wind energy, and to retrofit existing homes, will create at least 400,000 jobs across the country – with the potential for many more. We are global leaders in technologies like renewable wind power and we must not allow those workers in the old oil and gas industries to lose out when the world moves away from fossil fuels to the clean energy of the future. That is why Labour is so committed to a just transition that will move people gradually into high-quality, well-paid clean jobs. People will only embrace the radical transformation we need it if they see it is working for them as well as for future generations.
But if we are to have a policy to achieve net zero domestically, then we must not undermine it with what we do overseas. It shows an utter lack of the coordinated thinking we need that this Tory government is currently spending 99.4% of our export finance for energy on supporting fossil fuel projects overseas.
Research published this week shows that all of the forecast $4.9 trillion of global investment in new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting warming to our Paris commitment of 1.5°C. The government cannot continue investing in fossil fuels overseas – a policy so egregious that even the former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called on the UK to change course, “in the interests of the whole world”.
We only have one world. But we are consuming its resources and polluting it so badly and so fast that we are in danger of bringing about our own extinction. We must act not as politics allows but as the science demands. There is no plan B and no Planet B. Labour believes the British people have the common sense and the vision to show the world a way out of this crisis.
But as with any problem, the first step is in recognising it for what it is. That’s why Parliament must declare an environmental and climate emergency.
Barry makes his voice heard for our planet at this year’s Earth Hour
Barry has added his voice for Earth Hour, the world’s largest annual event to protect the planet, and joined a movement to safeguard nature and set it on the path to recovery.
Barry made a pledge for the environment; joining over 100 MPs who showed their support for Earth Hour in Parliament this week, ahead of the global lights out event on Saturday 30th March at 8:30pm.
MPs pledged their #VoiceForThePlanet to send the message that it is unacceptable to sit back and watch the destruction of nature, and to help inspire their constituents to make their voice heard this Earth Hour, by choosing to change something in everyday life that will help protect our planet.
Earth Hour gives a voice to people everywhere who want to raise awareness of some of the biggest environmental challenges we are facing.
Barry celebrates the Green Heart Heroes working to create a future where the UK no longer contributes to climate change
Barry joined over 40 of his parliamentary colleagues on the 11 March in the Palace of Westminster to celebrate the efforts of those tackling climate change up and down the country, for The Climate Coalition’s Green Heart Hero Awards.
Barry gave the Overseas Inspiration Award to Christian Aid’s Breaking the Barriers programme which uses sustainable energy products and technologies across Africa and Latin America to increase rural women’s jobs and income, improve working and living conditions, promote gender equality, and strengthen women’s social status.
The awards ceremony follows on from the fifth year of the Coalition’s Show The Love campaign, which sees people from all walks of life – faith groups, sports clubs, businesses, schoolchildren – come together to Show the Love for all that they want to protect from climate change.
The Climate Coalition is made up of more than 130 organisations representing over 15 million people, ranging from aid agencies such as CAFOD and Christian Aid to groups such as the Women’s Institute, WWF, RSPB, and the National Trust.
Barry’s Letter to Constituents on Brexit
Dear Constituent
This is the second letter I have written to constituents on this subject. The situation has been changing so much and so quickly that it is difficult to set things down without them being overtaken by events. But I want to assure you that I write the same letter to all my constituents. I do not change what I say according to the differing views – both leave and remain – that my constituents set out to me!
For those of you who have seen my first letter sent out in December, this is by way of an update and you can see my latest speech in the House of Commons on January 14th here.
To those of you who have not seen my first letter it can be viewed here, so that you are able to see the progression of events and indeed of my own thinking.
You will recall that the debate on Brexit was scheduled to conclude with a “meaningful vote” on the 11th of December. However, on the previous day the Prime Minister announced to the House of Commons that she would defer the vote, saying: “if we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin. We will therefore defer the vote scheduled for tomorrow, and will not seek to divide the House at this time.” and she promised to secure further assurances from the EU to enable the deal to secure a majority in the House of Commons.
One of the key issues that parliament was concerned about was the nature of the Northern Ireland Backstop arrangements and the Labour Party had asked to see the legal advice upon which the government had agreed the Northern Ireland Protocol. Initially the government refused but, when the debate resumed as parliament came back after the Christmas recess, Labour finally forced the government to publish.
When it did the advice was devastating. Not only did it confirm that the UK would be locked in the backstop in perpetuity with no unilateral ability to get out, it also established that “GB is essentially treated as a third country by NI for goods passing from GB to NI”. This went against the whole constitutional unity of the United Kingdom and would have seen different rules and regulations applying in different parts of our country.
It was clear that the backstop was unacceptable; but also that the Prime Minister had failed to secure the new and legally binding assurances she had promised that might have enabled some MPs to support her deal. In fact on the 15th of January her deal ultimately recorded the largest defeat for a government in parliamentary history: 432 votes Against – to just 202 votes In Favour – a margin of defeat by 230 votes.
What became clear is that the Prime Minister’s deal had actually managed to unite MPs of both Remain and Leave persuasions against key aspects of her deal and that instead of finding a way forward she was now “running down the clock” against the March 29th deadline. In effect the Prime Minister was now holding a gun to parliament’s head and saying that if we did not support her deal then the country would crash out of the EU onto the worst possible option of no agreement at all.
You will recall that the Prime Minister used to say that ‘No Deal was better than a Bad Deal’. And in any normal negotiation that is true. (You walk into a shop and if you fail to secure a deal and buy something then you walk back out and nothing has changed.) Unfortunately Brexit is not like that. The triggering of Article 50 means that if you fail to secure a deal within 2 years then you are forced to leave without any deal and all the existing legislation and trade agreements that you concluded as a member of the EU cease to apply. There is no status quo to move back to.
Avoiding a No Deal which would be disastrous for our economy has been my and the Labour Party’s focus in setting out our plans to secure a good deal that delivers on the referendum result without damaging jobs, rights at work, environmental standards or our constitutional arrangements under the Good Friday Agreement.
When the Prime Minister lost the vote on the 15th of January she was obliged to report back within three days about how she intended to proceed and parliament then had seven days to table amendments to what she proposed. I am writing to you the day after that series of amendments.
Labour’s amendment set out the need to avoid No Deal by allowing sufficient time for parliament to vote on options such as
a new deal based on a customs union, guarantees on workplace rights, standards and protections and a close regulatory alignment with the single market.
A public vote on any deal that secured a majority in the commons
It was defeated.
Another Labour amendment proposed by Yvette Cooper would have created more time for parliament to conclude a deal or to have a second referendum, by extending Article 50. This was also defeated.
A third amendment was put forward by the former Conservative Attorney General, Dominic Grieve. This would have created six designated days when parliament (rather than government) could introduce legislation in an attempt to break the impasse and come up with a compromise deal. All these amendments were supported by the Labour Party. But all were defeated.
A cross party amendment in the name of Caroline Spellman and Jack Dromey was agreed to. This simply said that parliament rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a deal. However, this was not a binding vote it was only an expression of parliament’s will and therefore had political rather than legislative force.
Parliament also agreed an amendment put forward by the Conservative chair of their backbench group (known as the 1922 Committee). This required that the backstop be replaced by “alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border” but would support the deal if this were the case.
Unfortunately this did not specify what those “alternative arrangements” are. We already knew parliament did not like the backstop; but to say we require alternative arrangements is simply to say we want something else without specifying what!
In effect Theresa May is now going back to Brussels without changing her own red lines and asking them to resolve her problem of the backstop to maintain the unity of the Conservative Party; when what she should be doing is changing her red lines and asking the right wing of her own party to compromise to preserve the unity of the country. Once again she is putting party before country.
There is one ray of hope. Last night when parliament expressed its opposition to a No Deal, the Prime Minister acknowledged and accepted that vote in her speech afterwards. This means that today Jeremy Corbyn will begin negotiations with the Prime Minister about a positive way forward.
I hope that she will have listened carefully to the comments from the EU and realise that she cannot change the deal without changing her red lines. I hope she will listen to Labour’s positive suggestions about how such a compromise could come about and how it could secure a majority in the House of Commons.
We set out in our manifesto two years ago what we believed were the essential elements of a positive future deal: that the country accepted the referendum result, that we negotiated a deal that would capture the benefits of a customs union and protect workplace rights and environmental standards and keep a close regulatory alignment with the single market.
If the Prime Minister agrees we may yet find a pathway through this present mess.
Above all I believe parliament needs to concentrate on the real issues that people are facing now: the lack of affordable housing, cuts to public services, violent crime, police cuts, zero hours contracts, the lack of social care for the elderly and the lack of adequate school funding. The tragedy of the botched Brexit negotiations is that government attention has not been focused on these domestic problems. On all of these I am doing my utmost to continue to represent for Brent North alongside my duties on Brexit and International Trade.
Barry’s Position on Brexit
Below I have set out my position on the Brexit negotiations. This is the letter hat I sent to constituents who contacted me from all sides of the Brexit divide. This letter was written on 03/12/18 and consequently due to the ever-changing nature of the current political scene some remarks may seem out-of-date at the time of reading. I thought you may find this helpful when campaigning.
As you will imagine many constituents like yourself have written to me, some urging me to support a No Deal position, some urging me to try and ensure that we do not leave the EU at all. From both sides I have been asked not to support the botched agreement the Prime Minister has currently reached with the EU.
There are vital considerations of principle as well as practical issues of parliamentary arithmetic that mean the political situation is changing constantly. So I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity to set out the position I hold on this most difficult of constitutional issues.
Our country was, and continues to be, deeply divided by the referendum. It is foolish therefore for any politician to think they can please all their constituents equally – except in being open and straightforward in setting out their views — and for that reason I want to assure you that this letter is the self-same letter that I send to everyone who writes to me on Brexit. I do not write one thing to leavers and another to remainers!
First my starting point:
I voted to remain in the EU and I campaigned to remain. You may recall that I held a public meeting here in Brent North before the referendum to discuss Brexit with my constituents and the result in Brent was that 60% of voters voted like me to Remain in the EU.
Nationally that of course was not the case. The ‘Leave’ vote won the referendum by 17,410,742 to 16,141,241 or 52% to 48%.
I was disappointed by the result, but I am a democrat and I accept that in all parties we said that we would abide by the result.
To my mind then at that point, the decision as to whether we leave the EU was settled. What was not settled was the manner in which we leave and the nature of the future relationship which we might have with the EU.
Leaving the EU means that our country is no longer bound by the two core functional treaties that lay out how the EU operates. These are the Rome Treaty (TFEU 1957) and the Maastricht Treaty (TEU1992). Outside of these treaties we have no representation on the EU Council, we cannot elect members of the European Parliament and we are not able to appoint anyone to the European Commission. In short we are no longer subject to either its responsibilities or privileges.
Over the past two and a half years since the referendum, Theresa May has tried to exclude parliament from the process of leaving the EU. In the Labour Party we have consistently argued that parliament must be properly consulted and fully involved:
We argued that the Prime Minister could not trigger Article 50 without a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruled we were correct.
We argued that parliament had the right to see the “detailed impact assessments” the government said they had prepared. The government refused; but were eventually forced by a parliamentary procedure to publish what turned out to be very sketchy documents indeed.
We argued that parliament should have the right to “a meaningful vote on the final deal “. Again the government said no; but were forced to concede this.
We argued that parliament had the right to see the financial modelling the government had prepared for the different Brexit scenarios. Again the government said “No”; and when they were once more forced to concede it became clear that they had not even modelled the actual agreement Theresa May had concluded with the EU, but only her Chequers Proposals.
We argued that parliament had the right to see the full legal opinion prepared by the Attorney General about the Prime Minister’s Agreement with the EU. At the time of writing this letter the government is still refusing to allow parliament this information and the Speaker of the House of Commons has approved a special debate holding the government in contempt of parliament. Ironic; given that Brexit was supposed to be about the sovereignty of parliament!
The pattern is clear: Theresa May has tried to exclude our sovereign parliament from the process at every stage. It is hardly surprising then, that when she finally brings her deal back to the House of Commons it is a deal that Members of Parliament on all sides now believe is not in the best interests of the country.
In fact her “deal” is not actually a single deal at all. It is a package where there is one deal with binding commitments by the UK on the things the EU demanded we settle before we leave; and another proposed deal which only contains a wish list with no binding commitments by the EU on all the things the U.K. would like in terms of our future political, trading and security relationship. Both these — the withdrawal Agreement and the Future Political Framework — are packaged up with a transition period during which the real final deal will be negotiated. That is why many people have called this a “blind Brexit”; because we are unable to see what we will get before we leave the EU on March 29th 2019 and when we have no further leverage.
This blind Brexit gives us no assurance on the continuation of the European Arrest Warrant which enables us to detain and repatriate criminals. It fails to set out what relationship we would have with Europol or whether we could even use the SIS2 criminal database which currently our police and border forces access 500 million times a year to keep our country safe.
Crucially, the blind Brexit fails to set out how we avoid a hard border in Ireland. The government says that currently the technology to avoid a hard border does not exist, but in a staggering act of faith, says that it will be possible to achieve by December 2020 when the transition period comes to an end.
But if the future political, trade and security relationship is not agreed by that time — and this deadline is famously what President Macron said he would leverage to obtain access and quota to our fisheries — the UK is faced with a stark and unpalatable choice: either to extend the transition period for which the EU could charge us billions of Euros or to enter into the backstop arrangement.
The backstop locks the UK into a position where all our trade agreements with other countries could be determined to our disadvantage by the EU. It is a “trade Purgatory” where we would be in a customs arrangement like the one Turkey currently has with the EU : where it has no say and must open up Turkish markets to any third country with whom the EU concludes an agreement, but has none of the benefits the EU secures for itself. The backstop is a limbo from which the UK could not unilaterally escape without the EU’s agreement. It also allows for the divergence of regulations between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK which could undermine the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.
Some people would prefer to have what is referred to as a “no deal Brexit”. I believe leaving the EU without a deal would be the worst possible outcome. The government’s own estimate says that a ‘No Deal’ would result in a reduction of 9.3% of GDP compared with remaining in the EU. All the issues which the Future Political Framework document currently expresses a vague hope will be addressed are suddenly crystallised as a negative:
No security cooperation.
No reciprocal deal on citizens’ rights, including those British citizens currently living, working and studying in EU countries.
An end to the frictionless and tariff-free trade with the EU that our manufacturers rely on. (44% of our exports are to EU countries and 50% of our imports come from the EU.)
No cooperation on projects like Erasmus, The European Emissions Trading Scheme, or the European Medicines Agency
No agreement on how to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the consequential violation of the Good Friday Agreement.
The Prime Minister is nonetheless presenting her agreement as a binary choice between her deal and no deal. She urges MPs to vote for a deal they firmly believe is not in the country’s best interest by threatening them that if they don’t, the consequences of no deal would be even worse. This is not an argument. It is blackmail.
Most important of all; it is a false choice. There is an agreement that could command a majority in the House of Commons. It respects the key reasons why many people voted to leave (money, borders and laws) and it also ensures that we continue to have frictionless trade that protects our manufacturing industries’ just-in-time supply chains. But it demands compromise on all sides.
Labour’s approach has been that with a country so divided we must try to honour the result of the referendum to leave the EU, but to do so in a way that protects our jobs, our rights, standards and economy. To this end we set out six tests. These were not arbitrary targets plucked out of thin air. They were actually promises made by Theresa May and her Brexit Ministers. In effect, we said: “OK! You say you can achieve that – well we will hold you to your promise.”
Not one of those promises has been delivered in the agreement she is putting before parliament. That is why Jeremy Corbyn offered to work with Theresa May to secure a deal that would solve the issue of the border in Northern Ireland and protect UK manufacturing by creating a new permanent Customs Union with the EU in which the UK would have a say on any future Trade Agreements that we negotiated with third party countries. It is an agreement that would protect our individual rights and standards and ensure that we could not become part of a deregulated race to the bottom. Indeed many Conservative MPs supported amendments to the Trade Bill and the Customs Bill calling for a new Customs Union. This shows that there is genuine cross party support for Labour’s proposal. I believe this offers a genuine prospect that something better can be achieved.
I have long argued that the choice facing Parliament cannot simply be between a bad deal or no deal. I do not believe the Government has the right to subject our country to chaos because of its own negotiating incompetence over the past two and half years.
Therefore, I hope that if her deal is voted down by Parliament, she might reach out and accept the proposal Jeremy has made create a cross party majority and seek on that basis to renegotiate a better deal with the EU. This is a critical point in our history and businesses need certainty and stability. Our country is desperately divided. It seems to me that the supporters of both an uncompromising No Deal or an uncompromising Remain view must all challenge their own position with the question: “Why do half of my fellow citizens disagree with me?”
The task ahead for parliament is to find an agreement that the majority of MPs can accept. The problem with Theresa May’s Deal is that it has been constrained not by what is best for the UK, but by the red lines she herself put in place in order to keep Tory backbench MPs supporting her. I will continue to press the Prime Minister to put the national interest first and to work with the Labour Party, as Jeremy has offered, to achieve a workable compromise.
But we must be clear: the chief constitutional role of any Prime Minister is to command a majority in the House of Commons. If Theresa May cannot or, through her own stubbornness, will not compromise enough to do that, then I believe there should be a general election to try to get a government that can achieve a majority in the House of Commons and renegotiate that better deal for our country.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act makes an early General Election difficult to achieve. The only other way is for Conservative MPs to vote with Labour to pass a vote of no confidence in their own government. They clearly fear that the public would not support them in a General Election and so this is also highly unlikely.
For this reason Labour has ruled nothing off the table, including a so-called “people’s vote”.
Whilst I recognise that there is significant public support for a second referendum, I do not actually favour this response.
I consider it would create an even greater sense of disillusion with our democratic system than currently exists.
I believe it is only likely to deepen the divisions that exist in our country.
I am concerned that if there were a reversal of the original result, but on a lower turnout, there would be genuine doubt about the legitimacy of overturning the original decision to leave on a lower poll.
However, I accept it may be the only way to resolve the appalling constitutional mess that two years of disastrous failure by this government has created.
Thank you once again for writing to me and for sharing your views. I am acutely aware that my views could not possibly please all of my constituents. I can only hope to have reassured you that I have given Brexit the most serious consideration, that my judgement has not been guided by dogma and that I will try with integrity to do what I genuinely believe is in the best interests of our country.
Yours sincerely,
Barry
The Government Must Commit To Doing More To Save Our Oceans
Barry has written an article for the Huffington Post calling on the government to take an ambitious stance on protecting our oceans, which will be essential if we are to properly tackle climate change.
Crustacean excrement is doing more to stop climate change than our own Government.
It might not sound plausible, nor particularly pleasant – but the reason is quite simple. The Antarctic Ocean is home to swarms of krill that collectively weigh almost 400 million tonnes. After feeding, these creatures release tiny, carbon-rich droppings that sink into the ocean’s depths. This all adds up; about 23 million tonnes of carbon gets locked away each year. Meanwhile, the UK cut emissions by just half that last year!
There are countless other ways oceans help combat climate change. But climate change in return presents a serious threat to our oceans, and it’s high time we helped the oceans to help us.
As we pump greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide, making the seawater acidic and hostile for shellfish and corals. As the oceans get hotter, corals also become heat-stressed and expel the algae that live on their skeletons, resulting in coral bleaching events that can wipe out entire reefs. This destroys the habitat that supports a quarter of all marine life. Global warming of 2°C may see coral reefs decline by 99%.
Thanks to David Attenborough and Blue Planet 2, we’ve become aware of the damage to our oceans from plastic pollution. We now know to use textile shopping bags instead of plastic, reuse coffee-cups and refuse polystyrene ones, and avoid plastic straws when ordering a drink at the bar. The Government are finally recognising the need to conserve oceans. That is a good thing.
But stopping some damage is not enough. We must commit to a positive programme of ocean recovery to combat the effects of climate breakdown, and boost our oceans’ capacity to tackle climate change. Stocks of species – like Antarctic krill – that store vast quantities of carbon within the deep, need space to recover. We need a comprehensive network of marine protected areas, including reserves that totally exclude exploitation. Action to protect the marine environment is as vital as action on renewable energy. And we need it now. This month’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report couldn’t have made it clearer: in just 12 years it could be too late to avert climate catastrophe.
The scale of the challenge demands more of our oceans to be covered by properly-enforced marine sanctuaries. Currently, 3.5% of the world’s oceans are ‘designated’ as such, but only 1.6% are actually fully protected from fishing and other harmful uses. Labour supports proposals to create marine protected areas spanning 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. However, no country can do this on its own. It demands international cooperation to save the High Seas: those international waters beyond any country’s jurisdiction that cover a bigger area than all the land continents combined. Because no one owns them, because everyone currently has an equal right to exploit them, it will take a new international treaty to create marine reserves there. We need a Global Oceans Treaty to save the high seas from exploitation through activities such as over-fishing and deep-sea mining.
Negotiating this is proving difficult. Countries like Russia, Australia and the US are dragging their anchors. We saw how fiercely some countries oppose ocean conservation just last week, when Russia, Norway and China blocked proposals to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Antarctic. The UK must show leadership if we are to avoid the current trajectory: our oceans acidified, coral reefs bleached, fish stocks depleted and the marine ecosystem unable to help slow dangerous climate change.
We should be a leading voice on the global stage to rally others behind the 30% target. This month’s UN biodiversity convention in Egypt is a key opportunity to do that. Brexit deals may be at the forefront of environment secretary Michael Gove’s mind, but deprioritising ocean conservation at this moment would send a terrible signal to the world about what post-Brexit Britain stands for.
The UK must also ensure that these zones don’t end up as ‘paper parks’. The science is clear. The better managed a marine reserve is, the more resilient it becomes. We can’t afford to repeat what’s happened in our marine sanctuaries – lines on a map that do little to safeguard wildlife, where overfishing, drilling and dredging continues.
This summer, the Government promised a new international oceans strategy. To be credible, it should set out exactly how the UK will deliver our share of the 30% target. Moreover, it needs to be compatible with our international obligations to limit global warming to 1.5°C, with concrete promises that protected areas will be well-enforced and off-limits to all commercial activities.
Labour know that global influence comes from domestic credibility. Our Climate Change Act was world-leading when passed with near unanimous support in Parliament a decade ago. Now it’s the model used by governments worldwide and was the template for the Paris Agreement.
The time has come for the UK to lead again. The Global Oceans Treaty and the Government’s international oceans strategy are a golden moment for us to do just that. If this Government takes its eye off the prize and fails to negotiate a robust new treaty, then — as with the Brexit negotiations — generations to come will never forgive them.