Dear Mr Crabb
Thank
you for your email stating your intention to oppose a non-deal Brexit.
Considering the catastrophic nature of such an event I am please that
you intend to insure that it does not happen. It is a shame that such
vast sums of money are being poured into preparations for such an
outcome, especially when it is considered how much better the sums could
be spent on areas of real need. I am sure you are only too aware of
such needs in your own constituency, which rates as one of the poorest
regions in Europe.
I understand your belief that you must
support the process of trying to leave the EU because of the way in
which a relative majority of your constituents voted, however, it was
not an absolute majority of your electorate, which itself must be
something of a democratic problem. The dictum that from nothing nothing
can be assumed, must apply to the opinion of all of those who did not
vote, including whether they were indifferent to the result. Nationally
the swing vote was only somewhere in the order of 680,000, far too fine a
margin to place such confidence in proceeding either way. This is
exactly why mature democracies insist on super-majorities. It is true
that a huge number of people voted in favour of leaving, but it is also
true that an almost equally huge number voted in favour of remaining.
Subsequent
revelations about the referendum must lead to some doubt as to the
validity of the result. There is a considerable body of legal opinion
that had it been anything other than an advisory referendum it would
have been declared void in the light of the discovered misconduct and
the associated crimes committed. When that is compounded by very real
questions, as yet unanswered, about the scope and extent of foreign
interference, including the source of much of the funding, then the only
reasonable conclusion is that it cannot be a safe basis on which to
proceed.
There is also the question of the inbuilt bias
caused by narrowing of the electorate to exclude significant groups who
are profoundly affected by the outcome. It can also be questioned
whether the chosen date did not also bias the result. The late June date
undoubtedly suppressed the student vote.
Consideration
also need to be given to the demographic distribution of the vote. It is
deeply ironic, and sad, that by the time the process of leaving is
finally accomplished, the population will be composed of a majority who
voted to remain. This has to be a little crazy.
Given the
unsatisfactory nature of the referendum I hope that you will feel that
you need to reconsider your support for leaving, especially in the event
of the rejection by Parliament of Mrs May's deal.
In
that event you might consider supporting the so-called Norway plus
proposal. That might have a broad spectrum of support, as it could
garner support from both those who are not massively committed either
way, the so-called soft-Brexit supporter, and the so-called sceptical or
soft-remainers. It could be tolerated - although, I suspect, not loved -
by both groups, and would better reflect the 52-48 spit recorded by the
referendum. Such a proposal would require that we have full membership
of both the Single Market and of the Customs Union. This can only be to
the economic, social and cultural good of the country. I have yet to
encounter any argument that convincingly suggests otherwise. You must
already be aware that we are teetering on the edge of a Brexit fuelled
recession. The amount of business lost to this country is already many
times greater than the cost of EU membership for the next half-century.
Already business are closing or relocating out of the UK, investment is
leaving, as are key personnel. The success of a policy can be judged by
observing the flows and those flows are all against Brexit. That is a
remarkable achievement for any government. Norway plus should at least
staunch those flows and stabilise Britain's future.
Norway
plus would also have the great advantage of requiring the continuation
of the four free movements: goods, capital, services and people. Those
four are essential components of ensuring the vitality of our economy
and of our society. Freedom of movement of people is especially vital to
so many individuals, businesses, organisations and institutions. It is
the fluidity that it confers which allows for the optimisation of
opportunities. It is such a mistake to see it in in terms of migration.
It is much more fruitful to see it in terms of the fluidity to follow
opportunities, to form networks and interconnections, and to expand
prospects. Closing down the freedom of movement is one of the most
damaging proposal possible. It is the jewel in the crown of the Single
Market. Its loss will necessarily entail economic, social and cultural
diminution.
I cannot understand how you can support the loss
of rights of your constituents. It is indefensible that you would
support the greatest loss of rights in modern times. I object very
strongly to my EU rights being stripped from me. You have yet to reply
to me explaining how I might benefit from this and how you can defend
doing this to me and your other constituents.
In the
event of the government's proposed deal being rejected you are going to
have to be part of the process of finding a solution. That is a duty you
must discharge honourably. It may require of you to act courageously
and imaginatively. The defeat of the government's proposed deal would
mean that you have discharged your perceived duty to support the process
as far as it can go, and now must be at liberty to say to your
constituents the truth - that leaving cannot be done without real harm.
Yours
 |
No comments:
Post a Comment