7^th December 2018

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for your Letter to the Nation, dated 24^th November, which I have read with interest.  I have no doubt that negotiating a Brexit deal has been an onerous task.  Sadly, however, I believe that the deal you have negotiated is not in the interests of the UK.

Over the course of the referendum campaign (at the end of which I voted Leave), I came to realise that there was no compromise that could satisfy a significant majority of the UK as any attempt at compromise would result in the worst of both worlds rather than the best of both worlds.  Retaining frictionless trade or a completely open Irish border must mean remaining bound by a portion, at least, of EU regulations.  Conversely, freeing ourselves completely from the jurisdiction of the EU must mean that trade with the EU will become more difficult (with a consequent short to medium term negative economic impact) and the reality of a border on the island of Ireland.

Furthermore, I realised that the status quo (with our multiple opt-outs) was already an attempt at compromise.  Although – given the pain our relationship with the EU seemed to be causing – this clearly wasn’t working, it was clear to me that any other attempt at compromise would be worse than this status quo because it would mean being subject to EU rules and regulations despite no longer having any influence over them.  Your deal is such an attempt at compromise:  surrendering control rather than taking back control.

In particular the Northern Ireland backstop is a critical issue.  Because the issues around the Irish border will be very difficult to solve, the backstop may well become permanent.  Although no one may be anticipating it being used for long, if at all, the whole history of Northern Ireland is of a solution regarded by many at the time as being temporary (partition) becoming to all intents and purposes permanent.  It seems, therefore, entirely possible that the Irish question could push the EU and the UK into the backstop and then keep them there indefinitely, however much this is against the will of both parties.

I very much share your desire that “we put aside the labels of ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ for good and we come together again as one people”.  However, I firmly believe that the best that your deal could achieve is to paper over the cracks for a few years, leaving the fundamental disagreements to fester.  For the country to have come this far and to have suffered so much pain and division on this issue and not resolve it once and for all would be a failure of leadership on a grand scale.  I have never seen any advantage in rerunning the 2016 referendum.  However, I now wonder whether the only way to settle the issue of EU membership is to have a different referendum.  This is because the 2016 referendum asked the wrong question.

In his Bloomberg speech, David Cameron, pledged to give the British people “an in-out referendum”.  Unfortunately, the 2016 referendum did not fulfil this pledge.  Given the opt-outs we currently have, the ‘Remain’ option was not a conclusive vote for ‘In’.  Whilst in voting ‘Leave’ I may have meant, in David Cameron’s words, “come out altogether”, given the wide range of views expressed by different campaigners, the ‘Leave’ option was not a conclusive vote for ‘Out’.

The only way to finally resolve the EU question would be to hold a genuine in-out referendum so that we can choose either to fully commit ourselves to EU membership (Economic and Monetary Union, Schengen and all) or to fully leave the EU in the knowledge that this will make trading with the EU more difficult (but by no means impossible) and will mean a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (the hardness of which can only be negotiated with the EU once it is clear that leaving means coming out altogether).  Although both options have costs and benefits, they are the only two options that are sustainable in the long term because they would fully commit us to a clearly defined path.

It has been reported (Brexit deal: Theresa May gives herself two weeks to win over MPs, The Guardian, 26^th November 2018) that you have called on MPs to “consider the interests of their constituents” when deciding how to vote on the deal.  I am therefore copying this letter to my MP.  Since I am responding to a public letter, I am also copying this letter to my blog.

Yours sincerely,

[My illegible signature.]

cc:       Mr Luke Hall, MP for Thornbury & Yate