Resolution

Constituents often complain to me about “in–fighting”, “childish bickering” and “self-interest” of which they perceive our politics is largely composed.
Inevitably there is some of that, but much less than has historically been the case. Overwhelmingly however, political differences arise from principled and practical differences between politicians, who –whilst they may share the same objective, namely our national welfare, nevertheless disagree profoundly about how it is to be achieved.

Constituents demand that ‘heads be banged together’ so that parties work cooperatively in the national interest, but this is virtually impossible when there is little common ground about what course constitutes the national interest. It is of little use demanding unity among politicians when their disunity is mirrored among the voters that elected them.

That demand however, does at least acknowledge that there could be a sensible way forward with a positive outcome.   Which is at odds with the short dark days in which we traditionally wallow in gloom and doom. We reinforce this attitude by agreeing with one another about just  how dreadful things are.
Only the other day, whilst discussing a controversial planning application, a constituent assured me that there would be no need for the proposed houses as he was confident that our population is soon to be decimated by a pandemic!
This reminded me of my favourite book (to which I have previously drawn attention in this column) The Coffee Table Book of Doom.  Here is a flavour from the advertising blurb:
“…with the apocalypse at hand, don’t fret about dying uninformed. The Coffee Table Book of Doom is a “… superbly illustrated and erudite compendium of all the 27 doom-laden horsemen we need to worry about – personal doom, gender erosion, asteroid impact, pandemics, super storms, sexual ruin – and much more besides.”

There is, of course, still plenty to worry about, and no shortage on commentators to remind us.
Nevertheless, I believe there is an attitude problem at the centre of our public life which makes us particularly prone to fear and self-doubt.  One example will suffice: Accepting that the people had made their decision in the 2016 referendum, if our political leaders had seized on it as an opportunity to be grasped, rather than a problem to be managed, we might make a better fist of it by now.
Positive thinking can’t wish problems and difficulties away, but it certainly helps when confronting them.

-Not a bad thing to remember as a new year resolution.

The problem with holding a ‘surgery’ to which constituents can come and share their opinions and problems, is that the very word implies skills and knowledge that I do not possess.

Last week, a Lady came and told me that she couldn’t sleep at night.

I told her she had come to the wrong surgery.

She then elaborated by saying that her sleeplessness was because of worry about BREXIT.
I told her I still couldn’t provide a cure, but that I can’t sleep either, so at least we were able to commiserate with one another

Well, we could try counting elephants, because there is one thing that Parliament has got right this month:  Passing the Ivory Bill.

The decline in the elephant population, fuelled by poaching for ivory, shames our generation. The need for radical, robust action to protect one of the world’s most iconic and treasured species is beyond dispute. Ivory should no longer be a commodity for financial gain or a status symbol.

The legislation we have passed implements a ban on ivory sales which builds on work at home and overseas to tackle poaching and the illegal ivory trade. Our soldiers are training African park rangers in proven poacher interception techniques in key African countries, and our Border Force officers share their expertise in identifying smuggled ivory with counterparts worldwide to stop wildlife trafficking.

What we have been doing goes much further than the EU, which is a shame, because they have a president called ‘Tusk’ !

The great row about what the Leader of the Opposition did -or did not- whisper under his breath at Prime Minister’s Questions was unedifying, but also left me quite nervous.

I do not want to get into the politically correct territory of whether women are as capable of being as stupid as men. That argument can run and run.

What unnerved me was the enthusiasm with which colleagues preyed-in-aid the skills of lip-readers to work out exactly what he said.

I sometimes whisper things under my breath: They are my private thoughts, perhaps to be shared with a close neighbour only, that’s why I whisper them rather than stating them out loud for the record.

The notion that we should be watched by lip-readers to see what we are whispering, so that we can be hauled before the authorities (in this case Mr Speaker), is deeply worrying.

This is dangerous territory: we are on a slippery slope to the ‘thought crime’ of which George Orwell so eloquently warned in his novel 1984. We should make it compulsory New Year reading for all MPs

 

 

 

Rt Hon Sir Desmond Swayne TD MP

Read my blog at www.desmondswaynemp.com/blogs/

Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/desmondswayne

Visit my page at https://www.facebook.com/Desmond.Swayne

 

 

 

 

I thought it best to ‘come clean’ and reveal how I had voted in the motion of confidence in the Prime Minister, rather than to hide behind the secrecy of the ballot.
I knew it would not be a popular decision, and I did not find it easy. Indeed, I wrestled with it all day and delayed voting until five minutes before the ballot closed at eight o’clock.
I voted against.

Like so many of my constituents, I have the greatest admiration for the Prime Minister’s dogged determination, stamina, and sheer ‘guts’. No one can fault her in the effort and perseverance she has put into BREXIT. My heart was definitely for the PM.

My problem is that I do not trust her judgement.
I have already set out in this column my reservations about the Withdrawal Agreement that she has negotiated. Before we even begin to negotiate the main effort, our trade deal, it agrees to the financial settlement, and also agrees that we cannot walk away from the negotiation no matter how unsatisfactory is the deal on offer.
It is, in my estimate, a potential disaster, even before we consider the arrangements which treat Northern Ireland separately, and have which have so angered the Democratic Unionists.
I am confident that many of those who -spurred on by the Daily Mail- wrote to me demanding that I vote for the agreement, have not themselves studied it.

Whilst I was among the 117 who voted against the Prime Minister, I was not one of the 48 who sought the ballot in the first place, by writing to Sir Graham Brady as Chairman of the 1922 Committee. On the contrary, I urged colleagues not to write.
The ballot having been triggered however, I felt that it was better to go with my head rather that my heart.

In the end it came down to this: I believe that we are close to an election because the PM has no majority in Parliament, and can no longer rely on the Democratic Unionists to provide her with one (because they perceive that they have been treated in bad faith).
After my experience of the 2017 election campaign I just do not have the confidence to go into another one under the same leadership.
The PM did try and address this issue during the day on which the ballot was held, by announcing that she would not lead her party into the next election. This was persuasive, and I wavered. It became clear however, that she spoke specifically of the election scheduled for 2022. Whereas my fear is for an election that may happen in the next few weeks.

In spite of my doubts, and my vote, the Prime Minister won, and -as I said to critics who were unimpressed by the margin of her victory- she won by a more decisive margin than the LEAVE campaign in the referendum and whose victory we are making such an effort to implement.

She won, and we must make the best of it.

 

 

The surprising size of Dominic Grieve’s majority last night on his amendment to the programme motion on the handling of the ‘meaningful vote’ debate means that we are, in effect, in a ‘REMAIN’ Parliament.
In which case, there is a good chance that Hilary Benn’s amendment on Tuesday may be carried. This would mean that we would never actually reach a vote on the Government’s deal, it follows that those Tories planning to rebel and vote down the deal, will not get the opportunity to do so.

I have said in this column before that the basic problem is that the country voted for BREXIT but then elected a parliament without a majority to deliver it.

What would happen next?

Again, I’ve said in this column, that whatever the Commons then votes for is just an expression of opinion that does not bind the Government. The Withdrawal Act ensures that we leave on 29^th March and only ministers can bring forward legislation to alter that.

So, will the BREXIT Government hold its nerve against the demands of the REMAIN Parliament?
It’s just too soon to tell.

(Perhaps Parliament might be prorogued…but then we really would be in Charles II territory)

In this column last week I set out my analysis of the EU withdrawal agreement. I did not however, say how I intended to vote, notwithstanding the very critical assessment that I had given. Since when, a number of constituents have enquired about my voting intention, and I have read in two national newspapers that I intend to vote against the agreement, those reports didn’t come from me.

I refrain from declaring my voting intentions because, as I write, the parliamentary debate hasn’t started, let alone concluded. I regard it as my duty, as the representative of all my constituents, to do them the courtesy of listening to, and reflecting on, the whole of the parliamentary debate.
Despite hundreds of emails (many of them multiple correspondence from the same senders) I estimate that less than 1% of my constituents have expressed their opinion to me. I also represent the 99% who haven’t, and I owe it to them to hear all the debate before deciding.

Of course, I do not begin as a blank sheet, I bring to the debate my opinions and my prejudice.
Constituents can clearly see that from what I have published and in my written responses to them, but to announce now how I will vote, would be to close my mind to information, arguments and events that may yet follow.

Last week I was highly critical of the proposed withdrawal agreement, and that hasn’t changed.
I do have to consider however, if there might be even worse outcomes, and to assess their likelihood.
I need to consider the probability of leaving the EU on 29 March without an agreement, and to weigh-up the costs and benefits of such an outcome.
Equally I need to consider the risk of our not leaving the EU at all.

There are 5 days of parliamentary days set aside to debate the withdrawal agreement and there will be plenty for us to consider and argue about. To decide and announce my decision now, would be to write- off five days of parliamentary time. Indeed, there is no point in having parliamentary debate at all, if we simply declare our decisions beforehand.

Here is my assessment of the Withdrawal Agreement. I leave aside its accompanying Political Declaration which is still incomplete, and in any event is just a wish list with no greater legal status than my letter to Santa.

We will leave on 29 March and nothing will change whatsoever, we will remain subject to all EU law and jurisdiction, save that we will no longer have any role in the framing of the law and regulation by which we must abide. This will be for a two-year ‘transition’.
Having waited over 40 years to leave the EU, I can live with a couple more, even at risk of temporary new burdensome laws over which we have no control.

From the outset, the Agreement binds us into a financial payment over years costing some £40 Billion, the exact sum being determined by processes ultimately under EU control.
Set against annual payments  in perpetuity, were we to remain members, this is a bargain.

So far, so good?
Well, at least tolerable?

It is during the 2-year ‘transition’ that our future trading relationship will be negotiated. The difficulty is that even before the negotiation opens we have played our strongest card by already binding ourselves into the financial settlement.

Historically, EU trade negotiations have taken a long time. These ones have a further complicating factor: they must deliver a solution that obviates the need for a ‘hard’ border between Eire and Northern Ireland.
If that solution has not been agreed before the end of the transition then one of two things must occur:
Either the transition must be extended indefinitely with all its costs, restrictions and obligations.
Or, the UK must remain in the EU customs union, and additionally Northern Ireland will effectively remain within the EU internal market. In this scenario, the only way we could preserve the integrity of the UK and avoid border checks on goods going from the mainland to Northern Ireland, would be for ourselves to abide by the EU internal market regulations.

These arrangements might continue forever, because the withdrawal agreement hands a veto over ending them to the EU. It is extraordinary that we should place our future in the hands of the EU in such a binding way, with no other way out.
We are reliant entirely on their good faith, but they will have us exactly where they want us: unable to implement international trade agreements elsewhere; unable to develop competitive advantage; they will have free access to our markets; continuing to benefit from our financial contributions; and they will have us under their jurisdiction without any of our tiresome objections to new regulation, harmonisation  and integration.
What possible incentive will they have to release us from this trap into which we will have so willingly walked?
The terms of any future relationship would have to be so heavily one-sided in order to give them any inducement to do so.
We will have bound ourselves by international treaty law without escape.

 

 

Of the two great questions to-day, I am resolved on one and undecided on the other. I’ll take them in reverse order.

First on the proposed withdrawal agreement, I’ve had well over 200 emails in the last 24 hours, about half of them demanding that I reject it so that we can leave the EU with no agreement, and the other half demanding that I reject it so that we can remain in the EU.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that the same course of action will not deliver both outcomes.

My prejudice is with those who would leave without an agreement. Frankly, I’d prefer an agreement but I don’t much care for this one: It surrenders our chief bargaining card (money) before the key negotiations on our future relationship even begin; it leaves us in a potentially indeterminate transition beyond our control; and it treats Northern Ireland differently.

I have to weigh-up my dislike for this proposal however, against two risks identified by the PM: leaving the EU without agreement, or not leaving the EU at all.
On no agreement, before I can come to an assessment I will need to be much clearer as to the state of our preparations, and I will need to scrutinise in detail the position papers that the Government has released.
On the risk of no BREXIT, I asked the PM to-day how that might come about, her answer didn’t give me much to work with. The law and parliamentary procedure are clear: we leave on 29 March-whatever. We would nevertheless be in uncharted political territory with the Government, having lost its flagship measure, proceeding towards a no-deal Brexit, perhaps opposed by a determined majority in Parliament. Who knows what might happen next.

I am certain of one thing: this deal, however bad, is much better than staying in the EU. Whilst it constrains our economic autonomy it nevertheless gets us out of the super-state, freed from ‘ever closer union’, freed from common fisheries and common agriculture, and released from unrestricted freedom of movement.

I’ve read all 185 pages, before I come to a decision I need to read some of them more carefully, digest them, reflect on them, discuss them, and I won’t be hurried.

Now, to the other question of the day: will I be writing a letter the Chairman of the 1922 Committee asking for a no-confidence ballot?
No I won’t. My assessment is that the PM would win such a ballot, in the meantime it would add another uncertainty and distraction to our politics at a critical time.
If my assessment is wrong, and were such a ballot triggered, and the PM were to lose it, it would potentially add an even greater distraction and uncertainty, and I doubt that it would deliver us a different proposed deal to deliberate upon at this late stage.

I’d prefer to concentrate on resolving the first question, and that would also be assisted if I were to receive fewer emails, well –if you don’t ask…

The volume of email -and emotive nature of those emails- increases exponentially by the day and Jo Johnson hasn’t helped.
Gadzooks, I’ve even started getting piles of letters again, and all about BREXIT.
They fall into two categories: those outraged that we are leaving the EU and want to stop it, and those outraged that we haven’t already left yet and fearing a great betrayal.

I thought most people had busy lives: jobs, children to collect, feed and entertain, friends and relatives to visit and look after, Morris Minors to restore, or whatever; where on earth do they get the time to write so many letters & emails, or go to meetings and marches?
I have to -but then that’s part of my job.

How can we maintain a proper sense of proportion?
As the political temperature reaches boiling point here’s a coping strategy. It’s the one I use myself.
Go out into the garden and look directly overhead into the night sky (it helps if you’re in the New Forest unpolluted by street lights) and contemplate the Milky Way, our own galaxy, where our sun is just one of its 250 billion stars (and to get some perspective on what a billion actually is, consider that a billion minutes ago Jesus was still preaching in Galilee).
Just a week or so ago we discovered the oldest known star in a corner of the Milky Way, 13.5 billion years old, just a few hundred million years younger than the Creation itself. It is composed only of hydrogen, helium and traces of lithium:  The heavier elements didn’t appear until later –their manufacture required the enormous pressures created in the lives and deaths of generations of massive stars.
At the beginning of this month we discovered that the Milky Way had consumed another Galaxy some 10 billion years ago, so millions of stars are in our galaxy that weren’t even born here.
…and another thing, a year ago we discovered thin strings of gas between galaxies, doubling at a stroke the ordinary matter in the Universe. From our observations and calculations we always knew that it was there, but now we’ve found it. Which, still leaves the question however, of what has become of the other 85% of the Creation?
The Milky Way and other galaxies are not rotating in the way that we expect, and the only explanation is that there is an awful lot more stuff and energy out there that we just can’t see.

Contemplating all this might suggest our own complete insignificance in the scale of the Creation.
On the contrary, our bodies -composed of large molecules made from stardust that has taken generations of stars to create, are a measure of our importance to the Creator and his purpose.
Consider Ecclesiasticus 43:32:
“There are yet hid greater things than these be, for we have seen but a few of his works”

In any event, it puts BREXIT in perspective.