The Revoke A50 debate

My hope for the positive case for Remaining being stated within the Palace of Westminster at long last were dashed. Rather than a debate on the floor of the House which one would have expected from the record-breaking petition, it was relegated to Westminster Hall. The Petitions Committee did not help by lumping together all the currently-running petitions relating to Brexit. The debate was opened by Labour's Catherine McKinnell, very much a political animal, who spoke at length, concentrating on the People's Vote which was Labour's official party policy. The depressing screenplay of political point-scoring and re-run of Project Fear continued. The presence of six Conservative MPs, who made niggling interventions but not one speech, contributed to the negative atmosphere.

Gradually, the back-bench Conservatives departed, leaving the lone government junior minister to face the music. This was hardly an endorsement for democracy but did improve the tone of the debate.

One hour and twenty minutes in we had the first direct addressing of the meat of the petition. Martyn Day, SNP member for Linlithgow and Falkirk East, almost in passing stated the benefits to public services in Scotland of freedom of movement:
Access to the EU single market and freedom of movement are vital both to protect jobs and to meet Scotland’s need for key workers in public services such as health and social care.

Ten minutes later Ann Coffey (The Independent Group) MP for Stockport, put things in perspective, relating the 2016 referendum to the first in 1975:
Many people see the relationship in terms of Europe’s economic value to us; some see it as a way of putting to rest forever the terrible wars that divided Europe for centuries, while for others it is a bulwark against oppressive regimes and it is a protection of citizens’ rights. Yet others see membership of the EU as a threat to national sovereignty and identity.

In the 1975 referendum, the British people voted to stay in Europe, with 62.7% voting yes. The referendum split the country and the then Labour Cabinet, and did not settle the question: almost immediately afterwards, anti-marketeers began their campaign to overturn the result. In the 2016 referendum, the people voted to leave Europe by a smaller margin; in my constituency, 53.2% voted to remain, compared with 46.8% who voted to leave.

I conducted a survey of constituents shortly after that vote, and I have just conducted another poll to see how people feel two years on. I sent out surveys to 4,500 households; 71% replied that they now feel that the people should have the final say on the Brexit deal, while 72% said that remaining in the EU should be an option in another referendum. The young were much more pro-Europe than older people: 83% of 25 to 49-year-olds said that there should be an option to remain, compared with 50% of those aged 64-plus. Of those who voted to leave, approximately a fifth either would now vote to remain or are undecided, with those in the 25-to-49 age bracket being most likely to have changed their mind.

The issue of sovereignty and what it means to be British, which was so important in 1975, continued as a strong thread in the replies to my 2016 and 2018 surveys. The latest survey contained many opposing views. For example, on respondent said: “As a sovereign nation, I want the UK to remain in a community and work together to share information and provide mutual support”.

Conversely, another respondent said: “We want our country back, our sovereignty, our laws.”

I voted to stay in Europe in 1975, partly for economic reasons. The economy — as probably no one present will recall — was in a very bad state, but my overriding reason was that as a young person I saw belonging to Europe as a break from the past, with the possibility of a better future. As a child, I was brought up in the shadow of the war because of the traumatic experiences of my parents and grandparents. Peace in Europe was an overwhelming prize for our generation. I wanted us to be a nation that took our place alongside other countries and contributed to the responsibility that the international community has to resolve some very challenging issues, such as climate change and migration.

Clearly, it was always going to be difficult to get support for the deal that the Prime Minister has brought back. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any deal that could win overwhelming support, because we all want very different outcomes. It is not very satisfactory for any option to be the majority view of the House by a handful of votes, which is why I believe that having another vote by the public on whatever option the House supports, together with the option to remain, is the only way forward. I do not think that another public ​vote will settle the issue of what our relationship with Europe should be; communities and generations will continue to be divided.

I believe that the younger generation will, in time, have a more settled view of what its relationship with Europe should be. It is only when that happens that this issue will be resolved. The only long-term solution to the issue of identity is time. However, in a public vote, people would be voting this time on proper, detailed options for the way forward, with the full knowledge of what a deal with the EU would look like, and with the option of voting to remain in the EU if that appeared a better option. Perhaps that could put back into the debate a space for rational consideration, which would be welcomed by many members of the public.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, East Lothian) underlined the peace aims of the EEC.
People looked to countries across Europe that were devastated by war and said, “How can we make things better?” We came up with the idea of trying to share, and we liked it; it worked. The UK was instrumental in the creation of that organisation, then we sought to join. We were shunned, but we did not take that as a no; we went back and asked again. We did so because we saw that what was happening there was the right thing for the future. It was the right thing for young people then the way it is the right thing for them now. It was right for industry then, just as it is now.

Dr Sarah Wollaston (TIG, Totnes) explained how she moved from soft Leave to Remain as a result of chairing
the Health and Social Care Committee, I heard the evidence of harm week in, week out, and I came to the view that I was wrong. I was not afraid to say that. In fact, many colleagues said to me, “Don’t tell people that you’ve changed your mind. Just put a cross in a different box. It will be very bad for your political career if you change your mind.” It is astonishing that we have come to that—that parliamentarians are not honest and are not prepared to change their mind when they have looked at the evidence. We focus on the idea that this is all about a WTO Brexit and trade, but from chairing the Health and Social Care Committee it became obvious to me that there is clear evidence of harm to social care, science and research from unpicking a close relationship that has brought enormous benefits for more than four decades. I looked at the harm that Brexit would cause to science and research. There is no version of Brexit that will benefit science and research, improve the situation for our health and social care workforce, or do anything positive for NHS funding.

N.B. to the anonymous gentleman who suggested that if I liked the EU so much that I should pack my bags and leave, I should point out that thanks to his friends in government, that will not be possible. Even if I could afford it, my right to move freely outside England and Wales would be removed under practically any flavour of Brexit.