Memo to Dominic Cummings 23/01/2020

A General Comment

Introduction

Very interesting analysis on your Blog to which I hope there will be a “constructive” discussion. 

You have set out an agenda for a debate which in my view is long overdue which you should follow through.

The Conservative Party could be in government for over a decade and although your ideas might take time they should be explored and if agreed implemented. There will be considerable resistance.

A Global Great Britain

Aspirations

We need effective policies to encourage, provide and allow citizens of the UK to fulfil their aspirations to gain prosperity and advance themselves in all Regions of the UK. This means the forging of an ambitious, prosperous economy where achievement opportunities can be provided for all. All government legislation, government guidance or Ministerial statements should be tested to ensure that this is its objective.

<><><>

COMMENT

The Dominic Cummings Blog – setting out a reforming Debate

+ additional suggestions

1. You are reported to be saying reduce the size of the Cabinet to an efficient confidential policy machine. You know the old saying a small committee gets stuff done.
2. Ministers should not be appointed by cronyism (or otherwise) but on well proved experience
3. One third of any government MP’s are now on the government payroll disturbing the process of effectively bringing the executive to account. 
4. The number of non Cabinet Ministers should be reviewed.
5. The number of MP’s in the UK should be reduced (The United States only has 435 members in Congress and 100 in the Senate). The HoC has 650 MPs. The function and job description of MPs and their offices needs to be defined possibly with more funding so that MP’s can operate not just by responding to their constituents but all the electorate. (If you know that your MP does not agree with your opinion why can’t you lobby another MP). Fundamental to this is for MPs not to get bogged down in subjects / issues that are really under the remit of local Councillors. (See later Point 10 > reform of Local Government).  It appears MPs seem to get involved in issues that come under the remit of local Councillors whereas they should concentrate on scrutinising legislation, debating both national, domestic and international issues. They should be examining government policy, taking external briefings and making comments on behalf of their constituents. Highly professional input.
6. The role of Select Committees (in both the HoC and HoL) to be examined with more scrutinising powers. Here part of their remit could be to take time to meet in the Regions of the UK to allow more participation of the population to make serious direct representation to our legislators
7. Should MP’s have had external experience before being able to become a candidate. The number of candidates who go direct from University to an internship, then assistant to an MP, special adviser, then candidate in some ways demonstrates one of the reasons why the HoC has become such a mess. The cost of becoming an MP is prohibitive to some potential good candidates 
8. HoL in its current form should be abolished. The Institution has got out of all proportion and therefore its size, function and powers should be totally reviewed. (It currently has about 850 members. This could be reduced to no more than 100 appointed / elected for a mandate of say 7 years, renewable). Whether elected or continue to be appointed is a question to be posed. The idea of moving the HoL out of London could be an opportunity to test which Peers will then attend but the practicalities of the functioning of both the HoL and the HoC might just be to difficult to organise. A better system would, as mentioned above, for HoL Select Committees to meet in the Regions of the UK.
9. The creation of the Supreme Court was on a whim of the Blair government. Its function, composition and powers should be revisited. There is no oversight. Indeed should it exist at all or should it’s  powers be incorporated  back into the HoL (in which case the composition of the HoL (as mentioned above) would need to be reviewed). The concept that Parliament is sovereign, and therefore the will of the people must be heard. Political decisions should not be taken by Judges and if they do the government should be in a position to challenge/ reverse them by democratic legislative means
10. Local government needs to be reviewed. An open debate is required setting out the pros and cons with an effective plan and costing in relation to any reform
11. Should there be more devolution to the the Regions in England.  A debate worth having
12. The layers of local government changed with consolidation of powers and activities analysed. For instance would local government function better if the County and District Councils were abolished and Unitary Councils established in their place (remember Northamptonshire). Essential that local government decisions are made as close to the electorate as possible in order for credible accountability. Should these Unitary Council have consolidated responsibilities coordinating everything under an elected Mayoral regime. 
13. Should every town have an elected Mayor
14. Should the layer of management in any Council be vested in an elected Mayor with a much slimmed down Council membership whose function would be to bring the Mayor to account. We need to examine how best to get policy decisions implemented. We need to have greater accountability vested in a Mayoral system. (Currently there are to many “passing the buck” opportunities by Councillors with the potential for one Party blaming another).
15. Should the current practice of “twin hatters” be outlawed. This is where a person can be a member of County and District Councils (Borough /  Town Councillors) at the same time. By this habit we take quite a number of Councillors off the street and duplicate the decision process. Have these “twin hatter” Councillors got the time to read their briefs and make well informed and reasoned decisions for each Council where they sit.
16. Parish Council involvement should be restricted to a consultative role. To much personal and localised issues can impede decision making. (In addition many of these Parish councils don’t have democratic  legitimacy as they are not directly elected and therefore not really accountable). This does not devalue the role of the Parish Council as their advice can be considerable but it must not be intrusive on local residents.
17. Government notices and announcements should be coherent and have been well vetted before publication. Final announcements should leave no room for misunderstandings. Their objective should be quite clear. No bureaucracy 
18. I mention in Appendix C the housing crisis that exists in the UK (England in particular) where the government wants to see 300,000 new houses built every year for the foreseeable future yet government announcements are left open to various interpretations. Bureaucracy still rules. Should this guidance be enshrined in legislation
19. The National Planning Policy Framework https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework–2   (Setting up Local Plans that set out explicit conditions for the Granting / Refusal of Building permission over a fairly long period giving little flexibility to continue to examine the economic and social aspects of building for growth in the Area. Should government change the procedure by introducing direct legislation on housing policy and dealing with planning application. Would this give more certainty to those wishing to build houses
20. Guidance given by the Chief Inspector in respect of planning Appeals, (in some cases this not in line with the government objective to build 300,000 houses each year). The argument of local sustainability and the principle of “presumption in favour” in some cases ignored if building applications are opposed by Parish Councils
21. These are to mention just a few issues that give powers over planning decisions to Council staff, Local Authority and Parish Councillors. Fear by some that the electorate will punish Councillors if they approve the building of modern homes. 
22. The whole planning regime needs to be revisited and done so under the direction of those who have the practical information and know how of building houses. This should not be left to the existing bureaucratic system of government, major large house building firms and local government officials but involve actual small builders in different parts of the country. (As a self builder myself I have seen how bureaucracy can hamper the building process and have a major economic impact on the end result)
23. Look for instance at the latest government publication of 19/12/2019 for the National Design Guide –  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-design-guide – has this 70 page document really been written with anything but a bureaucratic aim in mind. This document does nothing to assist the small builder and for many architects who are working with their clients to build houses. It adds to their misery and cost. The many will not complain but fall into compliance as they haven’t got the time to make the challenge
24. An overall strategy to comply with the government’s policy on climate change

<><><>

APPENDIX A

A New Future Relationship with the EU

We enter a new decade with the UK Leaving the EU on 31/01/2020 (now at last supported by the HoC brought about by the General Election result and the passing of the current Withdrawal legislation) The UK needs to deliver a strong, effective and robust strategy to negotiate the future relationship with the EU. One that covers every aspect of that relationship with the EU and at the same time provides the vehicle for the UK to foster new and continued relationships with Third countries. These negotiations to take place simultaneously with EU negotiations not waiting until 2021

We must NOT allow/ agree the EU to control with whom and on what terms we enter into a FTA with Third Countries. That would dishonour our national sovereignty. 

We need to pursue a Global Great Britain ethos and take our expertise to the world.

We need to demonstrate on a global basis that the UK is a sovereign state and open for business

All the project fear that has been fostered over the last few years has started to evaporate with this new administration under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Not just in government but also through the potential actions of regulatory and administrative reform that must be undertaken. However there will remain those who will try to extend the implementation period with the EU beyond 31/12/2020 if not directly but by covert innuendo 

Extension of the “Implementation Period” beyond 31/12/2020 must not be allowed to happen. Already the EU Commission and certain elements in the EU Member States and the European Parliament are indicating that the end of the 2020 deadline cannot be met. If they have their way we will be trapped in the Withdrawal Agreement process for a long time. This must not be allowed to happen. 

There are suggestions that the UK could have sanctions / fines put on by the EU if we diverge from the “level playing field” so demanded by the EU. An unacceptable proposal.

The 2016 Referendum set out a mandate to Leave the EU and the 2019 General Election confirmed that strategic position. The Conservative Government under Boris Johnson has achieved a major step forward in line with what the electorate want.

It is essential that we move on from BREXIT to a deeper relationship not just with the EU but with Third countries to achieve what is best for a

 GLOBAL GREAT BRITAIN 

A Policy for the Future Relationship between the UK and the EU

The government should not wait for the EU Commission to set the agenda and policy documentation for these future negotiations, all of which will be governed by Union Law.  We should present a draft FTA together with our position on the issues set out in the Political Declaration. This should be delivered to the EU as soon as possible attaching an agenda / timetable for negotiations to proceed. This should be a strategic plan following what we want not what the EU wants to dictate.

Already the EU have stated the future negotiations will not start until March – why is that – the UK government must refuse to accept that programme. Negotiations can start immediately we leave the EU on 31/01/2020

The government should immediately activate trade negotiations with Third countries ( of which the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, China and many others must follow an expedited negotiating timetable)

The government must not be on the back foot and push ahead with a strategic plan that has no misinterpretation.

The comments by the Commission President and Chief negotiator appear to be thinking that the UK will be disadvantaged yet they fail to understand that the EU member states import a good deal more into the UK than we export to them. There are other markets, other suppliers of goods which the UK can call on to supply our market. The UK is the 5th largest world economy

The way in which the civil servants negotiated with the EU since 2016 has demonstrated a lack of understanding how to deal with the EU Institutions and their members. There is a different legal culture in compliance with Union Law. Everything is in writing and has a legal meaning that can be used in the courts and tribunals that may adjudicate on interpretations.

The UK will have to adopt a different approach when negotiating a future FTA and related issues with the EU. Taking the initiative to have a clear strategy that covers every issue that will bring about a fair relationship between the UK and the EU but one that does not restrict and hamper setting up other relationships on a global theme 

We should avoid drawing up anything that is similar to the 585 page Withdrawal Agreement (International Treaty) with footnotes setting out EU Directives that we have to comply with under Union Law adjudicated by the ECJ and can be used against us. Minutes of meetings, announcements , speeches and guidance (that can be used in any court or tribunal) need to be accurate and vigilantly scrutinised.

It is essential that nobody negotiating with the EU goes off track from the overall negotiating objective and for there to be an oversight mechanism. This to apply to Ministers and civil servants alike as the EU Commission can be quite plausible. 

The EU legal services scrutinise everything. 

In the UK this could be delivered by an overview Committee of Appointed Non Executive Directors (responsible to the Cabinet Office) where the appointees, with knowledge of the EU system, would undertake a detailed examination on an advisory collegial basis to aid government.

The government need a Strategic Plan to set out the details of a comprehensive FTA and set the agenda to negotiate other issues set out in the Political Declaration

This should be presented to the EU as soon as possible  (ideally before or on 01/02/2020) certainly concluded by 31/12/2020

The UK must set the Agenda for these negotiations and NOT follow the policies set by the European Commission

The EU must understand that our Prime Minister and his government have a mandate and the UK is not going to be ambushed by bureaucratic filibuster to delay our primary aim to conclude these future negotiations between the UK and the EU on 31/12/2020 

The right of the UK to walk away from these negotiations if filibuster is employed by the EU must remain on the table. The innuendo threat by the EU that a conclusion cannot be obtained must be refuted. The 2016 Referendum was clear, we leave the EU (all its Institutions) we leave the EU Internal Market, the EU Customs Union, potential divergence from the current  EU standards and rules for goods and services together with ECJ jurisdiction.

A future that ensures that our trade in goods and services is not held back or hampered

The future is bright for the UK making its own rules outside the EU

<><><>

APPENDIX B

Financial Services

(An important and essential Industry to the UK and one that some member states and the EU Commission would like to frustrate)

One direct example worthy of mention is that of financial services where the UK dominates the “hub” for this sector not just in Europe but also participates at a global level. A new Governor of the Bank of England to give more inspiration and encouragement through potential regulatory changes not just to the industry but to send out a global message. The UK will continue to be open for business

Let us be clear certain EU member states ( national member state politicians, those in the European Parliament and officials in the European Commission ) have wanted to see the UK hub demolished. The debates in Brussels that I have seen and participated in have tried to envelop bureaucratic rules that ties hands – the level playing field – as against an innovative, progressive look to the future. The government must resist any resemblance of Brussels control of regulatory and primary legislation over financial services and foster the continued modern position of the UK. (We should recall that the City of London trades in trillions of dollars every day – as well as the pound sterling and other currencies. We need to ensure that no EU regulatory intervention hampers that situation in an ever evolving market). The City prospers if it is allowed to innovate in global markets and under UK regulatory guidance that will happen

Our common law regime is the envy of the world

Our robust currency backed by government guarantee

<><><>

APPENDIX C

Housing for all to have a sense of well-being – A Domestic Issue Time for Less Talk

One of the social and economic issues confronting society is housing, whether to buy or rent. This tests whether society can fulfil its aspirations. The need for government to address what is termed as a “housing crisis”. Do we have the policies that mean more houses, of all sizes, can be built without hassle. Are there effective lending policies to allow not just the first purchase of a property but the continuing ability to move “up” the property ladder. Should the main High Street retail banks be involved (using their capital at reasonable interest rates – not acting as a conduit for government sponsored funding), 

Should retail banks offer a long term package that has a social as well as an economic chain to their approach to lending. Building Society mortgages were to a certain extent hassle free and less intrusive and that image should be gained once again. Perhaps Institutions known as “Credit Unions” should be given power to initiate housing loans (for first time house purchase as well as small localised loans). Should the role of Credit Unions be examined.

Should small builders have access to funding (by the main banking fraternity) to be able to buy land and build new houses as a part of the plan to build 300,000 new house each year.

If Great Britain is once again going to be the country of the home owner there has to be a positive strategy

• To build more houses
• To provide for the purchase of these properties through financing that is fair and not intrusive
• To provide assistance through a number of financial and social packages, sometimes government sponsored
• To encourage individuals to buy their home by fiscal incentives
• To provide a stimulus for the builder to buy land and build houses

If we accept that not everybody wishes to own a property or does not have the financial capacity to do so then we have to take steps to ensure that the tenants are not abused. We hear that some properties are not fit to be lived in and in Great Britain this situation should be eradicated

Should there be greater control, or at least a means of redress, where rented housing has to be up to standard. Perhaps a compulsory independent certificate of use could be introduced (not an expensive process but as a part of other current inspections). 

The need for the government’s plans to build 300,000 new houses (properties) every year for the foreseeable future coupled with breaking the bureaucratic stranglehold that Local Authorities are potentially imposing through Local Plans, protection of the Green Belt, and in some cases costly unnecessary archaeology demands – (if the Victorian age had to comply with archaeological tests building for the industrial revolution would never have been taken place). The current government aim for 300,000 houses every year is not backed up by practical economic packages to assist in that objective. In addition we need to provide modern, inspired eco friendly housing that can go down in history.

We need a strategy for building houses that doesn’t just satisfy a social and economic role but provides quality of life for those living in them, whether home ownership or rented. Brown field sites should be used but in addition we should not rule out some expansion into Green Belt and Areas Beyond the Green Belt if residents quality of life can be enhanced and residents want to live there.

The building of houses is a form of national asset – in my view more so than the study of heritage sites. 

We must face forward not backwards, live for the future. Demonstrate our place in history.

The continued need to train professionals in the building industry on all technical activity from design, architecture, tradesmen, management and builders. The need for an economic plan to encourage investment in the building industry that includes investment in how Construction products and materials are made available – ideally not relying on imported products. Most of these investments are on a long term basis where government can give the signals that promotes long term planning. I am not certain that what I see coming from government  encourages that to occur. There is still uncertainty.

By building houses we create jobs for those building houses, more training positions are created. This also applies to the secondary level involved in house building – infrastructure, transport and other public services, the third level such as decorators, carpet and furniture suppliers and many more. These people in turn don’t save their earnings under the bed but – in the majority of cases they spend their funds locally. This in turn creates jobs in the fourth level – high street retailers, leisure facilities and restaurants etc. Again jobs are created. The area becomes more prosperous and attracts new house holders and business opportunities.

Every local Council should have a policy to encourage people to live in their Area, to obtain inward investment and innovative industries which in turn, one with the other, develops better amenities, public services, transport (rail, air flight and buses) and offers more market choice.

The same money spins round making our society more prosperous (perhaps not more wealthy). 

A feeling of wellbeing can be achieved

The concept needs to be addressed and the bureaucratic and NIMBY attitudes eradicated.

• There are a number of thoughts about dealing with planning applications. In some cases local parish councils are to close to the application and this can create an intrusive position. Their role should only be consultative
• District Councillors need to read all Planning applications and if they feel concerned by a vocal minority thinking that they may loose their seats they should stand aside
• County Councillors have no input to planning applications yet infrastructure, highways and education falls under their remit. The Unitary Council system might resolve that situation
• Then we have Local Plans that offer no flexibility. We need to build for the future – not yesterday.

• Put all this negative system together and we have a bureaucratic nightmare. This particularly is of concern for the small / medium sized builder and the applicant who may find themselves in a prolonged costly battle

Building a house can be a nightmare with hassle and long delays resulting in costs going up. There appears no understanding that bureaucratic delays could result in building new houses being delayed and costs involved for the developer and builder resulting in the cost of the houses having to be increased.

We need a streamlined and positive strategy in order to build the 300,000 houses every year as sought by government

The building process and the cycle for planning needs to be fully recognised and planning applications following the positive principle of sustainable development and the principle of “presumption in favour”

All new buildings should be aimed at looking to the future, eco friendly and providing quality of life. Greater understanding of the modular process understood by LPA’s working on the principle – “would you build a jumbo jet in a field, no in a hanger. So why not houses”.

Do we need a Housing Minister with the sole remit to build the 300,000 houses each year backed up by a Housing Commissioner and team to bring together and deliver that objective

<><><>

APPENDIX D

HS2 – A National Asset

Once upon a time I worked in Manchester (and lived in Macclesfield Cheshire). I would commute from Macclesfield to London perhaps once per week. The train service was good and I was able to be in the London Office for a meeting by 10am

On moving to London I would commute by car from my home, as I had parking facilities. When I went by train I was invariably late. I spent a considerable amount of time in the HoC. Times have changed for the London commuter

On going to Brussels as a Member of the European Economic and Social Committee the only way I could get into my London office and then commute to Brussels was to travel by car to a London airport and then to fly.

But then Eurostar came along and the 5 hour journey became a tolerable experience leaving from Waterloo

However once Eurostar became “high speed” and departing from St Pancras the journey, even on a daily commute, became a pleasure.

The point is that

• Throughout the above it was possible to work uninterrupted. WiFi access became available
• Able to read legislation which I was scrutinising
• Relax in modest comfort

Eurostar is a high speed venture and has become a national asset. (OK half owned by the French).

As we move to a more global outlook, aimed at creating a more prosperous UK and attracting inward investment, not just for the area around London, but joining up the four nations of the UK mainland. (Northern Ireland needs a different infrastructure programme). This involves rail, bus, air and road infrastructure. We need to demonstrate not just to our own population but also to those wishing to invest and visit the UK that we have a programme for efficient, speedy and cost effective transport infrastructure.

The HS2 project appears to have stalled in some ways and I might conclude that there have been those who from the start have not been in favour of the high speed idea.

HS2 and the continuation of the line to Manchester and Leeds – then eventually to Liverpool and into Scotland. In addition eventually a high speed modern service East to West and into North Wales and a future project into the South West of England, East Anglia and South Wales.

We need to accept that our current rail infrastructure is at full capacity for rail passengers and cargo transport too

In addition local conventional rail services can be joined up with high speed destinations and must evolve at the same time

Such ventures will demonstrate to the global community that the UK is open for business. Our transport services are well developed

By uncertainty and delay the budget will by default keep going up. We should move ahead but in a determined way to (sorry about this) – “GET HIGH SPEED RAIL DONE”

Those who are not enthusiastic about HS2 need to take into account the perception of a high speed asset in a modern Global United Kingdom. (Remember that EU member states like Germany, France and Italy already have high speed rail and they will be competitive towards the inward investment we are hoping to get

<><><>

APPENDIX E

Past Mistakes – (In the last 3 years)

Debates in the HoC on the Withdrawal Agreement In 2019

Instead of going through the 585 pages of the Withdrawal Agreement MP’s concentrated on the process of Leaving the EU not the detail as set out in the Agreement. My conclusion was that most had not even bothered to read any of the Articles of the Agreement. Many did not understand its implications and still don’t.

Some (perhaps) had read briefs composed by young inexperienced interns / assistants who had never set foot in the mechanisms of the European Union, certainly not the EU Institutions. They themselves neither.

They didn’t figure out that the WA was written by the EU Commission (including all the footnotes listing out EU Directives that the UK would have to comply with). It was composed under Union Law therefore under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. It was fully vetted by the EU legal services

If they had read the Agreement they would quickly have come to Article 4 that basically spelt out that the UK would have to comply and align with all EU legislation (and new proposals) during the implementation period and thereafter if the future relationship between the UK and the EU was not agreed. That included compliance with ECJ rulings. (I am still not certain that even if after 31/12/2020 if there is no agreement then under International Law whether that Article 4 will apply or not). What is certain is that if the EU does filibuster the UK government must be prepared to say no to any extension and potentially walk away.

In my view MP’s did not undertake the job they were employed to do. Read everything (every word), probe the intention / interpretation and bring to the attention of their colleagues and constituents the implications of all Articles in the Withdrawal Agreement. Remember under Union Law every word, whether in a Treaty, Declaration, Meeting records – even speeches – can be used in  the European Court. 

The civil service, certainly at senior levels, appeared intent on remaining in the European Union and as such not giving independent advice how to achieve the mandate given by the 2016 Referendum. That objective to Leave the EU was being ignored, many had gone native. This was particularly obvious by the actions of some former senior civil servants who sit in the HoL

The General Election on 12/12/2019 demonstrated that the electorate had seen through this dysfunctional collaboration between “Remain” MPs and civil servants. That the HoC was not fit for purpose.

In 2020 our HoC needs to do its job. MP’s need to factually express themselves and read all legislation in order for the electorate to establish TRUST. This is expected.

We should get real that the electorate in the UK are well aware of what they want and how to get it. They have access to a level of debate even beyond the reach of government. Statements cannot in the future be made that can be challenged by the electorate. Government Ministers and MP’s will be challenged if they try and hoodwink us all. No disingenuous explanations, in other words tell it has it is.

All the above could be elaborated on but frankly my past efforts to make a submission on the Brexit debate resulted in not even an acknowledgement of receipt.

<><><>

APPENDIX F

Web sights and Blogs setting out Policy Initiatives

www.eustrategy.wordpress.com

An analysis in October 2016 on what should be considered in the negotiations with the EU. This included submissions to the HoC European Affairs Select Committee and the HoL. My opening comments and strategy in this documents have proved to be right

www.wilfredaspinallblog.wordpress.com

A commentary building up to the General Election

www.brexitstrategy.wordpress.com

An overall strategic pathway

http://www.dominiccummings.com

The Blog created by Dominic Cummings to highlight potential reforms in the management of government

<><><>

LOL – Laugh out Loud some might say but your initiative for a debate is well timed but there will be absolute RESISTANCE 

<><><>

APPENDIX G

Nothing has Changed 

You are completely right that the civil service looks after its own. I see from your remarks that nothing has changed. 

I remember sitting as a member of the Whitley Council NHS Professions Allied to Medicine when negotiating with the trade unions over a pay claim. As a non paid member spending a morning sorting out our negotiating stance and once agreed asking the civil servant (secretariat) to inform the trade unions we were ready. The civil servant was away for quite some time and on his return I asked him why he had been so long

His response was that he had told the trade union delegation we would make an offer that we knew they would reject. We would recess and make another offer …..  and so on. He had in effect wasted a whole morning of our time and relayed to the trade unions our negotiating stance. My statement to all this is not for printing. (When I suggested to the Chairman – himself a senior civil servant – Deputy Secretary – that our secretariat should be replaced I was told that was not going to happen and not for me to comment on).

Any negotiation undertaken by civil servants needs to have the oversight of Ministers who in turn must be well equipped to make effective judgements. 

Alternatively the role should be taken up by (lay) Non Executive Departmental Directors all with some external and practical experience

<><><>

Sitting in front of a SoS presenting a Policy argument that he stated he could agree to. The SoS asked his Senior civil servant to comment (what followed was like an episode from Yes Minister with the civil servant doing his best to deflect the issue). Running out of the SoS’s time we subsequently met with the same senior civil servant who commented – let’s be clear the SoS had not read his brief, the answer is No. Communication with the SoS blocked

<><><>

I was appointed to the Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes Special Health Authority (where there were serious political issues). As an example for the basis of this paper all teaching hospital senior medical appointments from senior registrar upwards had to be made by an interviewing Panel on which a member of the SHA took the Chair. I would say that most times that I sat on the Panel I found my name at the end of the table and a senior Professor in the Chair – but not for long. I would be the Chairman of the Panel and a fair interview then took place and those not successful would be seen (reluctantly) by the medical members of the panel to explain why they didn’t get the job. 

Was the process intended to be a stitch up organised by a “sherry party” the night before.

I should stress that during my 10 year appointment to membership of the SHA it was an exhilarating experience as against being a member of a Local District Health Authority or Regional Health Authority where bureaucracy was in existence

<><><>

I was appointed to the European Economic and Social Committee by Margaret Thatcher and at one point she whispered in my ear – probe everything make a nuisance of yourself. She had lost confidence in the UK nominated Commissioners and MEP’s who she considered had gone native. I must say that never did I find my hard probing bring about any animosity from Commission officials.

I was given full access to Cabinet and other departmental Briefings in order that a dialogue could take place with civil servants when presenting controversial arguments and amendments to EU proposals. (At the beginning of my mandate I was not admitted into a Group – being defined as a Thatcher Man – which meant certain forces in the Committee thought they could silence me. No speaking time during Plenary Sessions as the Groups nominated speakers. On this they failed and often I got more speaking time than individuals nominated by the Groups).

I never went native – a tale for another time.

Breaking the mould for the appointment of Members was resisted by civil servants but it was achieved. On my second mandate a former GLC member for Finchley was appointed. The first 4 year mandate was to say the least very interesting.

Well that era of involvement must be over unless we allow ourselves to succumb to EU doctrine under Union Law

<><><>

I could go on.

Wilfred Aspinall

22 January 2020

<><><>

APPENDIX H

So what right have I got to be saying this. 19 years experience on the corridors of the HoC and (at some point concurrently) over 30 years experience in the corridors of the EU, (Member of the European Economic and Social Committee, my Brussels office Staff monitoring the European Commission and European Parliament for external clients. Hon Chair of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction.

Background

• Assistant General Secretary of the NatWest Staff Association (a registered trade union under TULRA 1971 representing 33,000 members). Previously a staff member of the Bank
• General Secretary of the Confederation of Bank Staff Associations (a registered trade union under TULRA 1971 representing 94,000 members). The largest trade union in banking at that time
• Executive Director of the Managerial Professional and Staff Liaison Group – MPG representing 1.5m members bringing together professional trade unions registered under TULRA 1971 but not members of the TUC

• Member European Economic and Social Committee
• Member Hammersmith and Queen Charlottes Special Health Authority
• Member North Hertfordshire Health Authority
• Member North West Thames Regional Health Authority 

• Director Aspinall Associates Brussels. Monitoring, with a team based in Brussels, EU legislation and advising clients such as Eversheds (for their Financial Services Forum) and Schroders the City Investment Firm
• Hon Chair of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction

Wilfred Aspinall

22 January 2020

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the EU Commission giving a lecture at the LSE stated that the UK will be a third country to the EU after we leave the EU on 31 December 2020 and implied that it is the UK that will be disadvantaged.

We should be clear the EU is not a state and the 27 EU states will be third countries to the UK. We should be aware that more imports come into the UK from EU member states than the UK exports to those states.

The UK is the 5th world economy

It is essential to both the UK and EU member states that the future relationship between the UK and EU is conducted in a mutually responsible fashion, including a non tariff – mutual recognition – Free Trade Agreement and is concluded by 31/12/2020.

Negotiations start on the basis that we currently have zero tariff trade and legislation is aligned between the UK and the 27 EU member states. By mutual consent the standards, which have been created under the Internal Market regime in the EU, it should be possible to initiate a constructive dialogue to ensure that those standards are maintained.

The UK has been a prominent actor in creating the Internal Market regime of standards. Often our actions have stipulated that higher standards be created. Therefore this business of creating a “level playing field” is but a red herring. If the UK changes any standards because they are but bureaucratic the EU can follow suit.

I am sure that the UK will not put environmental, health and safety and consumer protection at risk.

As far as other economic and social issues, including security and defence – exchange of information on immigration, scientific and education activity, police and law and order, these are and other issues can be negotiated and evolve on the basis of collaboration measures.

Any suggestion that foreign policy can be linked coming under EU policy and EU diplomatic services cannot continue except by intergovernmental designation. The UK has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and is the second largest contributor to NATO

It is hoped that the UK government will have learnt its lesson following the preparation of the EU Withdrawal Agreement and not allow the EU to come forward with draft documentation, under Union Law, but draft out what we want in a Free Trade Agreement and in the Treaty Agreement for the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

This final Agreement should be simple, preferably drawn up under UK Common Law

BREXIT PLEDGE BY MPs

WE MUST VOTE TO GET BREXIT DONE

Boris Johnson says every Conservative candidate in this election has pledged to support his current “deal” with the EU.

But is that far enough

Whatever the complexity of a new HoC, and indeed a new government,  will we have learned anything from the last three and a half years. The General Election may not resolve anything because yesterday’s MPs might be tomorrow’s. We the Electorate need to be able to trust MPs to do what the electorate mandated them to do in the 2016 Referendum and what they PLEDGE to do in the future.

Therefore we need a serious PLEDGE from them to deliver BREXIT

We can then move on to the pressing economic and social issues that need to be addressed. Issues that are complex and which will determine how the UK will operate outside the European Union and what it’s role will be as a Global player

With this in mind we need MPs to commit to a public position that goes beyond the Withdrawal Agreement and takes us to a final relationship with the EU by 31 December 2020.

The EU needs to understand that is our binding strategic position and commitment to the Electorate.

Any Pledge must go beyond the General Election and cover the future relationship with the EU. Negotiations for the future relationship between the UK and the EU during the transition period should follow the guide set out in the current Political Declaration (but not exhaustive to that Declaration) which will establish a Free Trade Agreement that provides a non tariff, mutual recognition of standards and regulations on goods and services. This must be finalised and implemented by 31 December 2020

Other Sovereign State issues will have to be negotiated but most of these can be established on the basis of cooperative resolution running alongside a Free Trade Agreement.

Knowing how the EU Commission operates in these situations they will try and get the UK to extend the negotiations beyond 31 December 2020. Legal issues will be raised under Union Law which the UK government will have to resolutely side step (the UK will come under our own “Common Law” regime otherwise we continue to contribute to the EU Budget and comply with all EU legislation under the continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The reaction from the Prime Minister, if they have learned anything, is that the deadline for a future relationship between the UK and the EU must be 31 December 2020 – this is an absolute final date at the end of the transition period and we must hold to that. We must hold him to that promise together with ALL Conservative MPs

There should be no impediments to this negotiation with the UK’s objective to be a full sovereign state honouring the mandate given by the Electorate in the 2016 Referendum. An ability to enter into FTAs with Third countries on terms negotiated between the UK and those countries. Not governed by any EU rules nor overseen by the EU Commission or the European Court of Justice. A FTA that allows trade to flourish between the UK and the EU member states in a mutually based Agreement

Boris Johnson has made public statements, one in a video, which should be restated in the Conservative 2019 General Election Manifesto and in the individual Manifesto of Conservative candidates but it must extend to cover more than the current Withdrawal Agreement

This is the PLEDGE we need to hear from Conservative candidates including those who voted Remain in 2016

• I will honour the result of the 2016 Referendum to LEAVE the EU on 31 January 2020

• I will support and vote in favour of the current Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the EU by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in order to start the second phase when it is laid before the HoC

• I will support and not frustrate the creation of a Free Trade  Agreement which provides for a non tariff, mutual recognition for goods and services which will be negotiated with the EU under the guide of the current Political Declaration. This FTA to be concluded and implemented at the end of the transition period at the latest by 31 December 2020

• I confirm that the future relationship with the EU, which will include other Sovereign State issues will be supported to run alongside a mutually agreed FTA

• I will not support any extension of the transition period beyond 31/12/2020

Getting BREXIT Done – means more than signing off the Withdrawal Agreement.

TRUST in our politics has become

ESSENTIAL for THE UK ELECTORATE

This election will test whether MPs, the government and its future Ministers can be trusted on the Brexit issue.

Those who have not registered to vote should do so in order to have their direct say in this General Election

We need to reinstate TRUST in our electoral system

The BREXIT Bill

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eu-withdrawal-agreement-bill

This is the legislation that will be going through Parliament during the comings days and weeks

Happy reading

If you have comments express them

THE DEAL – With the EU

TEMPORARY FTA – under GATT Article XXIV

The Withdrawal Agreement – as a whole – is an unacceptable International Treaty and has been rejected by the HoC in three separate votes. It remains unacceptable and is dead.

The WA was intended to trap the UK in the EU – Article 4 demonstrated that. It was composed by the EU under Union Law and the whole of its 585 pages with footnote references to EU Directives would all have to be complied with under Union Law.

Its sole purpose was to tie the UK into the legislative process coming under Union Law and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Not just during the implementation period but thereafter if the future relationship between the UK/ EU is not agreed. In addition the EU has to give permission for the UK to finally exit the EU. 

That is not a game 17.4m voters agreed to during the Referendum. They voted to bring back control to our sovereign realm.

– The UK must leave the EU on 31 October and should do so on WTO terms indicating that the UK wants a tariff free mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement with the EU that allows the UK to import / export goods between the UK / EU. 

– The political declaration is to prescriptive and should be revisited in a different way

– If the EU takes the view that the proposals for the “backstop” alternative arrangements that have been proposed by the government are unacceptable or indeed if the HoC are not prepared to accept the government proposals then the UK should propose a DEAL with the EU on the following basis

PROPOSAL FOR A REVISED DEAL

If what we want is a Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU then all is not lost. 

Perhaps the Deal that both parties can agree at this stage in the negotiations is for a new approach but with a positive strategic outcome.

• The UK to Leave the EU on WTO terms with the government’s current proposals on the table but extend the same arrangements relating to standards to the whole of the UK for a fixed term one year Transition period under GATT Article XXIV to cover trade

• The UK and EU accept that the current Withdrawal Agreement is not acceptable and delete it from future discussion

• The UK / EU accept that the UK leaves the EU on WTO terms on 31 October 2019

• Agree a Statement of Undertaking to have a FTA between the UK/EU as we invoke GATT Article XXIV and Enter into negotiation with the EU to establish a Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU 

• Introduce a fixed term Transition period of one year declaring that the negotiations are to establish a FTA as the objective whereby the UK continues to comply under EU standards and rules with the proviso that any new, revised standards are consulted with the UK during that Transition period

• Establish an Agreement for a temporary FTA to be adopted immediately between the UK and the EU for the fixed period of the one year Transition period (see below the explanation taken from the web site of Lawyers for Britain)

• The Customs Union issue would be resolved not just for the NI / I border by the establishment of a Temporary FTA but for all other export / import borders in / out of the UK until a complete non tariff mutual recognition FTA is finalised at end of the fixed term Transition Period

• The Internal Market integrity would be maintained 

• The Good Friday Agreement would be honoured

• Agree that the UK as a sovereign nation should have its own independent Customs Union regime to enable FTA’s to be negotiated with Third countries. Some level of mutual understanding could be established

• Other issues of a political, economic and social nature to be discussed and agreed for mutual cooperation under specific Undertakings between the UK and the EU

The UK can enter into a temporary FTA immediately so that free trade continues uninterrupted on non tariff rates

THIS EXPLANATION IS TAKEN FROM THE WEB SITE OF LAWYERS IN BRITAIN

The Lawyers for Britain answer the question whether a Temporary FTA can be agreed

“The answer is that it can. The UK and the EU can enter into a temporary FTA, intended to last only until the full FTA is negotiated and concluded. A temporary FTA dealing only with tariffs can be extremely simple. Dr Lorand Bartels, an expert in trade law at Cambridge University, has produced a one page draft of such an agreement. 

Link here https://www.dropbox.com/s/xaesprui8veacrb/Basic%20FTA%20copy.docx?dl=0

In practice, such a temporary arrangement on tariffs would need to be accompanied by temporary arrangements on continued recognition of EU standards on goods imported into the UK, and recognition by the EU of UK standards on goods going in the opposite direction. These temporary arrangements on standards do not raise MFN problems under GATT because it is objectively justified for the UK and the EU to generally recognise each others’ standards because they are now identical, and will only diverge over time and when specific changes to rules are made by one or other party. END

Full Article

A simple explainer about Article XXIV of the GATT

• LEAVE the EU on 31 October 2019 on WTO terms, 

• Invoke Article XXIV of GATT, based on a future aim to negotiate a genuine non tariff, mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement. 

• Agree a Deal for a fixed Transition Period of one year during which standards in the UK will follow the EU regime

• Part of that DEAL to negotiate an immediate temporary non tariff FTA ( where EU standards and rules will apply for the one year duration of the Transition Period 

• The UK to have its own Customs Union regime allowing for independent FTA’s with Third countries to be negotiated 

• Discuss other political, economic and social issues to establish cooperative measures

Some facts need to be explained.

A non tariff mutual recognition FTA is what is required on a long term basis to provide for frictionless trade between the UK and the EU member states. That includes trade between NI / I

Currently standards and rules for the export / import of goods are covered by the various EU Directives under the rules governing the Internal Market. These standards have all been harmonised under EU legislation. This allows for the free movement of all goods between member states of the EU which currently includes the UK

The EU Internal Market relates only to those member states in the EU

This arrangement means that under EU law a manufacturer of goods has to comply with these standards if they want to export their goods to a EU member state. They do not have to comply with these standards if they are being exported to a third country (where the manufacturer has to comply with the standards / rules of the host country). UK practice has deemed that even to supply goods for domestic marketing must comply with EU standards

The trade between Ireland and Northern Ireland works because both parties follow the same harmonised standards and rules (the argument about alignment does not apply as they are recognised standards under EU harmonisation).

In effect the new proposals to replace the backstop are but allowing the current status quo to continue under a new arrangement between the UK / EU with the added arrangement for the extra provision of consent which should apply for both Northern Ireland (and perhaps Ireland too).

This arrangement maintains the integrity of the EU Internal Market (single market) and allows for any customs checks to be undertaken away from the border by any acceptable means agreed between to parties involved.

It is essential that the United Kingdom maintains it’s position on the Customs Union as Northern Island is a part of the UK for both internal trade between the two and that of external trade with Third countries. It is impossible for NI to remain in the EU Customs Union for ever. Equally in order to negotiate FTA’s with the rest of the world the UK as a whole must utilise it’s own Customs Union regime and not have to seek authorisation from  nor follow the EU regime

If the EU rejects the backstop proposals put forward by the PM where do we go from here.

• Do we fall back on the original Withdrawal Agreement but that would trap us in the regulatory confines of Union Law, Perhaps for ever yet without the right to refuse to accede to those laws

• Do we seek a further extension under the terms of the Benn Act 2019 but that would kick the can down the road. We remain in the Internal Market, Customs Union and subject to Union Law. We in the UK are surely not going to lie down to such tactics

• We exit the EU on 31 October 2019 on WTO terms but agree conditions to negotiate a non tariff, mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement under Article XXIV of GATT. We don’t ask for an extension of Article 50 as we don’t need one but our DEAL with the EU is to have  a Transition period for a fixed time (one year) to negotiate this new FTA. 

• That would be a DEAL

During the Transition Period a similar arrangement could also apply for the whole of the UK as is being suggested for the NI / I border since import / export of goods would continue to abide by the current (EU) standards and rules. This would cease once a FTA was concluded at the end of the one year fixed term transition period.

The UK would comply with EU standards and rules for the fixed term transition period

This could all be agreed very quickly including an immediate Temporary non tariff FTA which would regularise the whole process of continuity

The UK would exit on a DEAL to produce what everybody says they want and the undertaking to follow the standards of the Internal Market for the duration of the Transition period. This would resolve the border situation between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

The mandate given by the UK electorate in the 2016 Referendum would have been honoured

To put this process on the table would exercise the EU to understand that the UK is leaving the EU but still wants an orderly exit that aims to produce a long term relationship between the UK and the EU through a non tariff mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement and other political, economic and social issues to be discussed and agreed by cooperative means

As mentioned above the UK must retain its own customs union regime in order to be able to enter into serious negotiations with third country governments like any sovereign state. Close cooperation would exist between the UK and EU to coordinate, where possible, tariff rates to avoid trade discrepancies.

In any case by agreeing a Temporary FTA under Article XXIV of GATT much of the issues that the EU appear to be concerned about would be ironed out

Before anybody mentions issues concerning non trade such as security, foreign policy, defence, human rights, employment rights, energy markets and so on remember that many of these issues are but cooperative measures which, although discussed in the Withdrawal Agreement are not fully covered as competences of the EU. If it became desirable to have a cooperative relationship between the UK and the EU these could be covered by separate undertakings. Certainly not in a binding International Treaty

The government’s proposals for NI / I are perfectly practical but as some of us have been saying the Withdrawal Agreement was a means under an International Treaty to trap the UK 

The HoC Benn Act insists that if no deal is negotiated with the EU by 19/10 the Prime Minister will have to seek an extension resulting in a standstill in the negotiations. This will continue uncertainty and simply kick the can down the road. Parliament has a responsibility to honour the Referendum result. 

It was a mandate given by the electorate.

By agreeing a DEAL as set out above the Benn Act would not apply

For the record:-  

My submission on a EU Strategy made in October 2016 can be read here

www.eustrategy.wordpress.com

The introduction of the Internal Market White Paper In 1985

I was involved when the policy to harmonise standards through the EU Internal Market White Paper was introduced by the Commissioner Lord (Arthur) Cockfield In 1985 some of us at that time suggested that like the UK where standards are set by the British Standards Institute future EU standards should be set by a non political body. It was argued that political involvement was not necessary. This body could involve non EU states who wanted to follow EU standards. I am still of that opinion

The EU Commission rejected that proposal as they wanted to make a statement to the world and, at that time, wanted as many third countries to adopt EU standards. Furthermore they wanted to compete with the United States regime for control of standards. They thought EU standards would become the world order in the same way that the EU thought the development of the euro would become a reserve currency.

As it turns out by having political involvement in the setting of standards, often involving debate by those who know nothing about the industry or products involved, has meant considerable bureaucratic delays when introducing new or revised measures.

The last time I was involved in such a revision it took 10 years to revise the Construction Products Directive.

To aid the negotiations we established a Forum in the European Parliament for Construction to bring together Industry Representatives; Members and Officials from the EU Institutions (the Council of Ministers, Commission, European Economic and Social Committee and Members of the European Parliament) to explore the technical operations and inform everybody of the practical implications. Practical explanations were useful to understand how the standards were applied.

We are at a stage in the BREXIT talks where practical exit from the EU is taken over by political issues. Where it might appear that some MPs in the HoC are but going through the process without having read the Withdrawal Agreement and understand the implications. Not understanding what the 17.4m electorate meant by voting to Leave the EU (out of the Internal Market (single market), Customs Union, Control of our borders, trade policy. Not involved in a EU army, diplomatic missions controlling foreign policy. Making our own laws and not coming under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice). They were, in my view wanting the UK to be unfettered by EU regulation which challenged our national sovereignty 

The Future Agreement – A DEAL

• We do not need an extension under Article 50 therefore the Benn Act is not required as this would simply kick the can down the road

• We need a Deal with the EU for a one year Transition Period to establish a practical non tariff mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU

• We need a new strategic approach that brings about a temporary non tariff mutual recognition FTA immediately dealing with a continuation of non tariff rates during the Transition Period 

• We need to have a medium / long tern strategy to establish a non tariff mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement between the UK and the EU

• We need the vision of both the UK and EU to fully accept that the UK Referendum of 2016 has to be honoured as a mandate to maintain SOVEREIGNTY vested in the UK

• Politicians need to listen to those with experience of negotiating a deal and with knowledge of how the EU operates in order to achieve an ever lasting arrangement.

• We need to negotiate a DEAL with the EU that brings about all the above to avoid disruption of trade between the UK and the EU member states

• We need a DEAL that caters for the UK to enter into FTA’s with Third countries unfettered by any restriction from the EU and outside the EU Customs Union

• We need to establish a long term relationship with the EU covering both political, economic and social issues but this can be developed over a period of time. In the interim rolling over existing well established cooperation regimes

• If it becomes apparent that this objective is not shared the UK electorate will then know where they stand

THE DEAL

It might be rumoured that the government will reintroduce a new version of the Withdrawal Agreement in order to get a deal with the EU.

What is imperative is that not just the “backstop” issue needs to be deleted but also Article 4 (which ties the UK into Union Law under the jurisdiction of the ECJ). Also all other references to compliance with Union Law should be deleted

The WA was not written overnight and the 585 pages were composed by the EU Commission, including being crawled over by EU Legal Services, and must have taken many months to formulate.

The WA has footnotes which reference EU Directives which will need to be applied in the UK in order to comply with the terms of the Agreement.

Unless all reference to compliance with Union Law is deleted the sovereignty of the UK under ECJ rulings will apply.

Sovereignty was a fundamental issue during the Referendum when the slogan to “ take back control” was a major theme of the campaign

My experience of over 30 years involvement in the EU taught me that any document proposed by the EU Commission has to be read in full as any dispute under Union Law following implementation will use interpretation to do just that.

When scrutinising EU proposals as a Member of the European Economic and Social Committee  – examining these from a UK position – the text needed scrutiny but also the interpretation (especially if the original proposal was written and legally drafted in a non English version)

I do wonder how many Members of Parliament and Ministers have actually read the full text of the Withdrawal Agreement

This Article 4 in the Withdrawal Agreement must be deleted if the UK wishes to have sovereignty. In addition all the footnotes where reference to EU Directives require compliance under ECJ rulings must be deleted

if the government reintroduces parts of the WA it is imperative that there be no misunderstanding that the UK Common Law applies over legislation.

READ ARTICLE 4

ARTICLE 4

Methods and principles relating to the effect,

The implementation and the application of this Agreement

1. The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.

Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.

2. The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary .

3. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the methods and general principles of Union law.

4. The provisions of this Agreement referring to Union law or to concepts or provisions thereof shall in their implementation and application be interpreted in conformity with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period.

5. In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom’s judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.

MPs collaborate with EU Leaders

If this report is true we have got to a very low level in our democratic process.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/07/mps-checked-with-eu-chiefs-over-brexit-delay-before-passing-bill

WE NEED A GENERAL ELECTION – NOW

It appears the HoC has become the government of the UK which surely breaks the electoral procedure relating to the business of government. This cannot be tolerated by the electorate

As I understand it is the duty of the Executive government to propose draft legislation and the duty of Parliament to scrutinise any Bill. If Parliament can take over the role of the Executive who scrutinises the legislation

If a decision by vote in the HoC can bring about neutering a government’s policy to enact a democratic mandate from a Referendum can we be certain that this HoC represents the electorate of the UK. The antics of the last three years demonstrates we can’t.

The delay in honouring the Referendum result and the political party Manifesto commitments during the 2017 General Election means that the electorate cannot trust these MPs who are supporting this new legislation.

What mandate do they have to resist the result of the 2016 Referendum

This legislation will stop a No Deal Exit from the EU, demand a further extension and demonstrates that all along certain MPs have wanted to stop BREXIT

Those who voted for the Bill this week Tuesday are betraying the will and trust of 17.4m voters, in my view actually many more.

We need a General Election so that the electorate are able to exercise their democratic right to vote against those MPs – of whatever political party – who have ignored the 2016 Referendum decision.

We need a whole new raft of MPs in the HoC that reflect the views of the electorate. A government that will honour the mandate of the 2016 Referendum not next year but on 31 October 2019

The HoL needs to be abolished