Arguments for and against Brexit as Parliament debates UK/EU deal

With less than a week to go before the House of Commons completes a 5-day debate which culminates with a crunch vote on 11 December about the divorce deal between the UK and the EU, this Belfast South constituent finally submitted to his conscience to express concerns in writing on December 5 to his Member of Parliament.

Our MP Emma Little Pengelly has three significant qualities.  The first is that she is the only woman member of the ten Democratic Unionists elected to Westminster, having won the seat in last year’s snap General Election in June.  She is also the party’s second youngest MP and a qualified barrister.

As the Brexit debate has dominated public discourse for three or more years, especially since the referendum in June 2016, ordinary citizens have become increasingly involved in what is dubbed the UK’s gravest national issue in generations.  

One reason for the most recent upsurge of voter interest has been the exhortation of the Prime Minister herself.  All of this is happening in a frequent atmosphere of turmoil in and out of Parliament.  That includes resignations of Government Ministers and warnings of economic disaster from financial institutions. 

Add to the mix the oxymoron of the Brexit pledge to take back control of the UK’s borders and the objective to keep the UK’s only land border with the EU “seamless.”  And in Northern Ireland, there is the spectacle of business leaders supporting a deal which is anathema to the DUP, despite its “confidence and supply” contract with the Conservative Government.

This exchange of views gives a flavour of the arguments for and against the UK’s membership of the European Union.

Dear Mrs Pengelly

Following the Prime Minister's open letter of 24 November and HM Government’s social media post today explaining the benefits of Brexit for Northern Ireland, I wish to brief you before you vote next week on the deal it has signed with the EU.

My concern is that you aren’t representing your constituents’ express wishes.  A prima facie case suggests that your party doesn't have a mandate for its actions.

After the referendum, our then First Minister acknowledged the party's inability to command majority support in Northern Ireland saying plaintively that “We always knew this would happen as four of the five regional parties campaigned to Remain.”

South Belfast voted by a 69.5% majority to remain in the EU.

I have never discovered what empirical evidence your party based its case that Northern Ireland would fare better outside the EU.  In the lead-up to the referendum the evidence presented from institutions, business, science and education about the consequences of withdrawal was explicit. 

Subsequent accounts of the telling of lies about NHS funding and the disavowal of evidence besmirched the Leave case.  The quip that the country was sick of experts undermined the integrity of the UK mandate to leave.  And now a criminal investigation is in hand about alleged illegality regarding funding of its campaign.

Bearing in mind the OFMDFM guide for policy-making (the red book) which says that Government policy must be based on evidence, I would appreciate your direction as to the datasets, analysis and sources being used as the basis for your party policy. This has become more relevant since it signed a binding policy support agreement with the Conservative Government.

I'm sure you take pride in the party’s influential role in being a confidence and supply ally loyal to the Conservative Government and of the enormous pay-back for "all of the people of Northern Ireland" from hard-pressed UK taxpayers.  You must be proud of your party's promotion from provincial politics to being pivotal in decision-making at a national level.

That said, your party's expensive (if controversial) advertisement in "Metro" failed to persuade its target audience of Londoners to vote Leave.  And that incursion was well before the party held the reins of power.

If you support of the party's hostility to the UK/EU deal, I would be grateful if you could advise me of the precise basis for your opposition.  On what new evidence are you basing this reaction?

You are aware of the substantial support from across the Northern Ireland economy, its business and farming leaders in favour of the UK/EU deal.  They know it is a compromise, a prospect offering some certainty as opposed to the alternative of crashing out without a deal.  They hear the EU emphasising that it's the best and only deal.

Many of those business people are your constituents.

You are aware of the recent statistical evidence and analysis from HM Treasury and also from the Bank of England, both of which warn of adverse impacts from Brexit. Do you think that this evidence provides an overwhelming case for ending the Brexit project?

The key message from your party is clear, namely that you are especially terrified about the impact of the Government deal on the "precious union" of Northern Ireland and the UK.  If you “ditch the backstop” what is your alternative for the UK/EU land border?

You will be aware of comments by John Major about a second referendum on independence being undeniable to Scotland if we leave the EU.  You also know of the Scottish First Minister's recent comments articulating reasons for Scotland to remain in the EU customs union and single market.

Her case has echoes of what business leaders in Northern Ireland want now and voted for two years ago.

To some, you are eschewing regional loyalty thereby endangering your mandate together with the very union that you claim to be protecting.

Do you ally yourself with remarks that have been uttered to belittle the business and farming leaders who support the deal? 

Does name-calling of conscientious Northern Irish job providers and telling off the PM for time-wasting show respect for public discourse? 

Does the DUP have special advisors with expertise and who know more than the Treasury or the Bank of England economists?

If your party collides with the Conservative Party leadership, your electors could suggest other policy issues which might command their approval more so than does your pro-Brexit stance.

These include querying the logic of supporting a party which is implementing loathed policies that do not act in the interests of your electorate.  Examples are Universal Credit and the bedroom tax.  Where is the Northern Irish support for arms sales to Saudi Arabia and responsibility for the UK’s role in the humanitarian disaster in the Yemen?

Does it serve the people of Northern Ireland for your party to prop up a Government which promotes an uncaring agenda?

Particular problems for your party relate to trust and to credibility. 

The handling of UK taxpayers money in projects like the Social Investment Scheme and in the Renewable Heating Initiative do not inspire public confidence in your party's administration and prudence with public funding. 

Trust may be a factor motivating business sector to endorse the PM's pragmatism rather than your party's adversarial line.

You are king-makers at Westminster advocating a divorce from the EU; at the same time you share "accountability” (if not “responsibility") for the paralysis of devolution domestically, almost like another divorce due to irreconcilable differences.  Negative behaviour disenchants electors. 

Unthinkable thoughts about dire consequences re-emerging from a hard border have been voiced in the former scenario; with the prospect of an unviable political unit emerging from the latter’s continuance.  Neither will win votes, together they present massive dangers.

One positive at least is that your team takes its Parliamentary seats, even if it is not advocating the Northern Ireland mandate on Brexit.

Much is made of the inconsistency in your party's protestations on regulatory alignment with the UK. 

Apart from its denial of social legislation enjoyed by our kith and kin in the rest of these islands, there is also the example of European citizenship.  Ireland is processing many applications to welcome eligible British citizens with EU passports issued in Dublin (one of your party colleagues being a supporter of this facility). 

Although your party is determined to achieve its goal of taking Northern Ireland (and Scotland) out of the EU against our express will, you cannot and will not deny us our cherished European citizenship and rights. 

This constituency is pleased to have a woman representative in Westminster.  As the party’s only female MP, you are in a unique position of beneficial influence.  Being the biggest party in Northern Ireland you have a special responsibility to represent the best interests of your constituents.  As a party whose very name heralds its credentials, the clue being in its first titular adjective, its actions cannot be allowed to belie that function.

I worry when politicians appear to ignore their electorate, when they disregard evidence without alternative data or analysis, and when they lack care and caution in public discourse. 

Should the Democratic Unionists vote en bloc for a divorce from Europe that produces detrimental outcomes for Northern Ireland and our islands, you will not easily be forgiven.

I beg you to reflect on the express will of your electors as your personal guide about how to vote next week and in all consequent Brexit matters.

Within ninety minutes, this prompt and friendly response landed in my inbox.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your email and for your detailed arguments in relation to the issue of Brexit. 

I understand the concern about the current position the UK finds itself in.  I can assure you, members from all parties across the House of Commons and across the UK are concerned about the Withdrawal Agreement and believe it to be a bad deal for the UK.

There are a number of specific issues, in particular around the proposed backstop.  I do not believe the backstop is necessary.  Indeed, I believe this issue could have been resolved by including a firm commitment from both the UK and the EU not to have a hard border.  This commitment could be in the treaty and therefore becomes a legally enforceable.  This would put the onus on both parties to find ways to ensure the border has not need to be a hard border.

As the backstop is at the moment, unlike the current position with the EU, there would be no legal way the UK could remove itself from it.  I do not see any reason why the EU would accept any other proposals to go into the substantive final agreement on trade when they have this one in their back pocket.  Why would they? 

On the broader issue of why that is important – the UK is the 5^th largest economy in the world.  NI makes up just 3% of that.  Severing NI from the UK in economic terms, fracturing the UK single market is economic lunacy.  The entire UK economy is driven from the South East of England (and although we will of course want to pull our weight and grow our economy, realistically the UK economy will always be driven from the South East of England and the City of London).  This driver supports us when times are good, and provides a buffer in the difficult times.  If we are separated from that then what is our economic future?  Do you seriously think the ROI will be on the global stage trying to ensure our economy strives and we get jobs and investment? Of course not, and understandably so as they will be seeking jobs and investment for the Republic of Ireland as is their duty. 

The arguments for Brexit were simple – the UK wanted to make its own laws, strike its own trade deals, control its own borders and did not share the “ever closer union” agenda of the leadership of the European Union.  Those things remain worthy, but of course the EU will make life as difficult as possible (they would do as they don’t want other countries to leave…).  There were some good things about the EU of course, I could see that – but the reality is that the EU had the opportunity to address British concerns when David Cameron asked them to but they over-negotiated and refused to address those concerns.  I honestly believe if they had given David Cameron something he could have sold to show the issues were being addressed then the referendum would have went a different way (the irony is, of course, that the EU is now having to reform due to Brexit and concerns about anyone else leaving).

It is also worth pointing out that all of the UK’s growth trading markets were outside of the EU.  The Eurozone is tottering on the brink of another crisis, and they know it.  All of this does not make for a healthy EU future in the short to medium term (never mind issues of the rise of the right across the EU). 

Lastly,  I believe I am representing my constituents to the best of my ability by trying to ensure a good and sensible deal as we Brexit, this Withdrawal Agreement is appalling and must be rejected.  That is a view shared by leavers and remainers across the house.  However, it is also worth pointing out that if all MPs voted the way their constituency voted then this would mean an overwhelming majority for leave in the house (70% of conservative seats voted leave, 60% of Labour seats and the majority of DUP seats).  This would not progress an agenda of “remain” very far.

All of these issues are challenging.  I appreciate the time you took to communicate your views to me.  Please do be assured I will do all I can to get the best possible deal for all in NI.

Kind Regards,

Emma Little Pengelly MP

At this point, the constituent is content to have had concerns recorded and welcomes the polite and firm acknowledgement.   

Whereas issues remain, it would be inappropriate to react to the elected Member’s reply here and now; there may be another occasion to respond.

©Michael McSorley 2018