Readers following the tortuous path of Brexit will be aware, not only of the votes in the House of Commons on Wednesday night, March 13, but also of the failure of our own MP, Amber Rudd, to support the government motion that a ‘no-deal’ exit from the EU should remain ‘on the table’, by abstaining from the vote.
She has made her views known in the past on the possibility of a no-deal exit and was acting consistent with these. However, as a senior government minister, she would normally be expected to support the government or, if she felt that she could not do so, then to resign.
In the event, and along with several ministerial colleagues, she has done neither of these things, but has issued an explanation to her constituents (the majority of whom voted to leave in the referendum), as follows:
Last night I abstained on the main motion in the House of Commons which asked whether we should leave the European Union on March 29 without a deal.
To do so would, in my view, do generational damage to our economy and security. It is a mistake to leave the EU without a deal, but it is right to prepare to do so just in case so we can mitigate any damage as best as we can.
With regard to this vote, we had been told it would be free one, so MPs could vote with their consciences, and that the Prime Minister would support not leaving the European Union on March 29 without a deal.
I had voted against the earlier Spelman amendment during the day which its own author tried to withdraw, believing the main Government motion was more powerful. That amendment asked us to rule out no-deal Brexit at any time.
However that amendment did pass, albeit very narrowly, and the main motion then became the only opportunity to vote to prevent no deal at the end of this month which is completely consistent with government policy.
What is also government policy is to leave with a good deal and that is what we have.
Next time I can vote to leave the European Union, I will do so once again.
This will be the third time I have voted to leave.
The fall out now means that unless Parliament backs a deal, we will be forced to have an extension granted to us by the European Union to avoid crashing out with No Deal.
Something that was totally avoidable.
This is because if Brexit is unfortunately delayed after today’s votes, it is because many of my colleagues in the Commons have refused to join those of us who have consistently voted for the Prime Minister’s good deal, which will deliver the best possible exit from the European Union.
I wanted March 29 to be a day of new beginnings when we could start to focus on maximising the prospects for the UK outside the European Union. I have consistently voted and acted to support the Prime Minister’s plan to leave the European Union.
However, we are once more trying to find a way to leave the European Union consistent with our commitment to maintain a strong relationship with Europe.
I continue to support that.
I continue to support the PM in delivering an agreement.
Amber Rudd
Source: Amber Rudd’s parliamentary office
Image Credits: Amber Rudd's office .
Ms Rudd may be a fine constituency MP, but I am surprised that she considers the “Withdrawal Agreement” a reasonable basis for exit from the EU. I do not; I think it is an extraordinary and unnecessary surrender. It is long and complex and I hope I have been fair in picking out parts of it that I think might be causes for alarm – for both “Remainers” AND “Leavers”. ARTICLE 7 says that the UK remains a member state of the EU but without the right to appoint representatives or make votes or representations in its deliberations, or to veto any of them. ARTICLE 132 (amended) says that the transition period may last for a total of four years, but it is not clear what the position would be at that time, and the period is in the hands of the 27 other EU states. ARTICLE 129 says that we will be bound by all international agreements made by the EU during that period – though we have no say in their formulation. ARTICLE 130 says that we will be consulted on fishing rights (to our waters) but we do not have any power to affect EU decisions on this matter. ARTICLE 127 limits the UK’s support for agriculture to 2019 levels even though support to other EU states may rise. ARTICLE 93 says that the EU would have control of (UK) state aid to UK industry for four years after the end of the transition period, which means that they control UK industrial strategy even though the UK is their competitor. And within PROTOCOL on page 302 it says that the UK and the EU will establish ambitious customs arrangements based on the single customs territory.
Well said Robert….I coudn’t agree more. This Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement is a travesty and hopefully it will be voted down this afternoon. But no matter, those of us who voted for our freedom from the grip of the European Union will return to fight again. We must never give up….