We're having an election in December because parliament is in deadlock, three times Theresa May tried to get her withdrawal agreement through parliament and three times she suffered the largest parliamentary defeat in our history. She then became the first Prime Minister to lose a finance bill since 1978, and was found in contempt of Parliament after refusing to release official legal advice on the new EU treaty. After extending Article 50 not once but three times and suffering the worst defeat for a Conservative Prime Minister in over 185 years, at the European parliamentary election, she at last resigned.
Much needed structural changes were made to the government when Boris Johnson became Prime Minister. Within the first one hundred days of taking office and with no parliamentary majority, Boris Johnson achieved what was thought to be impossible. He convinced the European Union to re-open Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement and make changes that weren't just cosmetic but fundamental but the PM's Achilles' heel persisted, Parliament approved the agreement for second reading but voted down the governments time table to meet the October deal line in the Cooper-Letwin amendment. Instead, the Benn act required the Prime Minister to ask for yet another extension.
The modified Withdrawal Agreement that Boris Johnson negotiated is a significant improvement over Theresa May's, it replaces the vassal state customs union in her treaty, with a protocol to keep Northern Ireland inside the European single market and inside the UK custom's territory. So that the whole of the United Kingdom will be part of any trade deals it negotiates but moreover, customs checks will be done away from the border and the crossing between north and south will remain as frictionless as possible. With a commitment to investing in technological solutions to streamline new customs procedures and future arrangements. It also includes a democratic mechanism for Northern Ireland to leave the single market, every four years.
What's more Johnson has removed the "common rule book" from Theresa May's withdrawal agreement and dynamic alignment with EU regulations, or any suggestion of a "level playing field" from the political declaration. There's no shadowing of EU state aid rules but a commitment to not distort competition. It also reduces our transition period under Article 126 to a year, to end on December 31st, and even repatriates the right of the UK to respond however it chooses to an invitation by the EU to participate in joint military action.
Johnson's withdrawal agreement is far from perfect, we don't have representation during the time limited transition period, which could involve potentially damaging regulations being imposed on fisheries or financial services. Though the role of the ECJ has been greatly reduced, it still features in the withdrawal agreement under Article 174 which refers to the ECJ for decisions by an arbitration panel over interpretation of EU law regarding citizens rights, and it's suggested in the political declaration that this wouldn't end with the transition period. If it kicked into the long run it could, in effect commit us to an obligation to follow "reinterpretations" in these areas of EU law, by the ECJ.
After three years of dither and delay, we have the opportunity to #GetBrexitDone but leaving the European Union was never an end in itself. It's a means to giving people more control over the decisions that affect their lives, it means that we can finally end the cruel export of live animals, cut VAT on fuel and feminine hygiene products, cut tariffs on food, clothing and foot wear, sign free trade deals with the US, Japan, and China, reform the Human Rights Act, and create free ports to encourage investment and job creation.
Compare with the other parties at this election, the Labour Party want to renegotiate Theresa May's withdrawal agreement by adding a customs union. Surreal, given that Jeremy Corbyn opposed EU membership, then supported it, opposed membership of the customs union, now agrees with it. Voted down Theresa May's withdrawal agreement because he opposed the political declaration, but then when she removed it for a third vote, voted against that as well. Then Corbyn said he opposed the agreement because it included a backstop, instead of a customs partnership. Johnson replaced the backstop with the Northern Ireland protocol but that still isn’t good enough because — get this — Corbyn a life long republican “doesn’t want a border down the Irish Sea”.
Corbyn also accused May of ripping up workers rights, after she agreed a dynamic alignment on competition and state aid with the EU, and non-regression rules on environmental, social and labor laws. Now he says Johnson’s lack thereof is his “proof” of the same problem. If that wasn't bad enough, Corbyn says after negotiating this new withdrawal agreement he'll put it to a second referendum against remaining in the EU, with no "leave" option on the ballot paper, won't even campaign for his own deal and for the "privilege" of paving his way to power, he's willing to agree a supply-and-demand agreement with the SNP and a second Scottish independence referendum.
In contrast, the Liberal Democrats under a majority government want to revoke Article 50 and stop Brexit altogether, and in opposition would support a second referendum. Although it would be corrosive and damaging to our political institutions to ignore the largest democratic mandate this country has ever had, no one can deny that their position is consistent and honest to their electorate. Completely opposed, the Brexit Party wants to leave the EU on WTO terms unless a Canada-style free trade agreement can be negotiated within the next six months.
Several other issues matter at this election, like the strength of our economy, spending and tax, the Conservatives plan to introduce a triple lock on VAT, National Insurance (as well as lifting the threshold hold on NI) and on income tax. The Brexit Party plan to cut business rates and lift the threshold for corporation tax to £10,000. Labour's proposals will involve cutting marriage tax allowance, taxing dividends at the same level as income, and abolishing the £2000 tax-free dividend allowance. As well as other economically damaging policies, ending zero-hours contracts, expropriating shares and private property, or further raising the minimum wage.
Add to that, that Labour plan to spend an eye watering amount of money, up to £82.9 billion and yet their own costings are clearly suspect. They don't take into account capital flight, their own proposal to introduce a four day week, or the fact that reducing corporation tax raised revenue. Moreover, they simply omit the the £58 billion pledge for WASPI women, a £400 billion national transformation fund, or their own nationalisation scheme estimated to cost £196 billion by the CBI. Most likely, this will be raised by issuing bonds, but servicing the interest on that debt will become a burden on the shoulders of future generations, not to mention the damage Labour would do to pensions, our credit rating or our investment.
Comments
Post a Comment