DON’T SINK BREXIT

MICHAEL GOVE WRITES FOR THE MAIL

DECIDING to campaign to leave the European Union wasn’t easy for me. At the time the referendum was called, I was part of a government led by David Cameron and George Osborne which was achieving amazing things for our country. We were transforming our education system so the poorest in our society could enjoy the same opportunities as the wealthiest; we were overhauling our prison service to give offenders a second chance and in doing so cut crime; we were mending our economy — broken after years of over- spending by Labour and reckless behaviour by chancers and profiteers in the banking sector.

I am proud of what David and George achieved, and my small part in that success. It was a great team effort that, I sincerely believe, made our country a better place to live for all our citizens.

So I knew that in campaigning to leave, I would be breaking with colleagues with whom I was working to change the country for the better, and putting at risk the future gains we could yet have made together.

I also knew it would come at a personal cost. The impact of my decision on my family and friendships has been impossible to ignore.

I make these points not because I expect sympathy — that is the price you pay as a politician, you are elected to make tough decisions in the national interest — but to help explain my thinking then and now.

Because, despite everything, would I make the same decision again? A thousand times, yes.

When you are faced with a fundamental question about the future of your country, you must put aside your own interests and do what you think is right.

And leaving the EU is the right thing to do.

For too long, this overbearing, undemocratic and profligate bureaucracy has told us what to do, protected vested interests, stood in the way of innovation and inflicted economic and social harm on its citizens.

The referendum offered us the chance to break free, to become the authors of our own national story, to bring democracy home.

I believe in Brexit, I campaigned for it heart and soul. And now I want to see it through.

AND we should be in no doubt, seeing it through is by no means guaranteed. Brexit is under greater threat than at any time since the referendum. Should we fail to leave, don’t be fooled into thinking we could just stick with the status quo.

Like a guilty partner who had threatened to leave for another and come crawling back, we would be forced to accept far tougher terms than we have now.

Keeping the rebate? Forget about it. Stopping a tide of new EU laws? No way. Halting progress towards a European army? Nope. Guaranteeing we wouldn’t have to pay billions to bail out euro members in the future? I’m afraid not.

And the danger of finding ourselves dragged back into the rigid structures of the EU is growing. Those members of the Establishment who campaigned to remain and have never accepted the result are now trying to reverse Brexit by calling for a second referendum.

And now they have been joined by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

At the last election, they pledged to honour the referendum result. Yet now John McDonnell says a second referendum is ‘inevitable’.

I fear a second vote to overturn the first would not just damage public faith in democracy, it would also cause deep wounds to the social fabric of our country.

The vote in 2016 gave voice, for the first time, to millions of people who had always felt ignored by politicians. At last, they had a say and a stake — and they won.

For them to be told now that they got it wrong the first time, that they should get back in their box, that their will is going to be ignored, would cause disillusionment on a scale never seen before.

It would also prove right all the criticisms we made of the EU and the Westminster establishment during the campaign — that they never listen; that they only answer to the people when it suits them; that they will simply never change.

And that is why, for all its flaws, I am doing everything I can to support the Prime Minister’s deal which secures, at long last, our exit from the EU.

Is it perfect? Far from it. Does it deliver 100 per cent of what I wanted? No. But then we didn’t win 100 per cent of the vote on June 23 2016.

In politics, as in life, you can’t always get everything that you want. But this deal delivers in crucial ways.

It guarantees an end to freedom of movement and control over our borders.

Immigration wasn’t the main concern for all leave voters but it was for some — and this deal delivers for them.

Future governments will now be free to implement immigration policies which they think best for the country — whether it’s this Government’s preferred option of a visa system or the Australian-style points system Vote Leave advocated.

Finally, voters will be able to hold politicians to account at the ballot box on immigration.

The deal also means we will no longer be automatically sending huge sums of money to the EU every single week.

The size of our financial contributions to Brussels was of huge concern to a great many leave voters during the referendum campaign. The Leave campaign argued we should end these contributions and invest in priorities such as the NHS instead. This deal delivers that critical pledge.

Although the deal limits our ability to control some of the existing laws and rules relating to manufactured goods and agricultural products, it does give us control of rules over services which make up a far larger proportion of our economy and it allows us to reject new EU rules we think are bad for business.

In the areas for which I am responsible as Environment Secretary, we will take back control of both farming and fishing policy.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has failed to help farmers create the productive and profitable businesses they aspire to and has damaged our countryside environment.

From 2020 we will be outside the CAP and able to create our own farming policy.

And we will be able decide who has access to our waters and on what terms. The great injustice which was inflicted on the fishing industry in the Seventies, and which drove my own father’s fish processing business into the ground, will at last be put right.

There are, however, real concerns which many of my friends and colleagues have raised about this deal. And in many respects I share those concerns. It’s important to be honest about that.

The so-called backstop — the ‘insurance policy’ to prevent a hard border in Ireland in the event that we haven’t agreed a new trading relationship with the EU — is uncomfortable for me. I would prefer to have had a mechanism to exit the backstop unilaterally.

But it’s important to look in detail at what the backstop entails — and to appreciate that however uncomfortable it is for the UK, it actually creates major problems for the EU.

We would have tariff- free access to their markets — without having to pay a penny. Not only would we be free from any financial contributions, we would be largely free from the rule of the Commission and direct control by the European Court of Justice.

We would have total control over our borders. And we would take back full control of our fishing waters.

NOT only would we have many of the benefits of Brexit, but also many of the benefits of EU membership, without most of the obligations. Just what the EU said they could never offer.

And if we do enter a backstop, there are ways in which we can leverage it to our advantage. There are good reasons European leaders are uncomfortable about this deal — especially because it doesn’t deliver what so many of them want.

For how long would the President of France put up with the protests of French fishermen denied all access to UK waters? How long will other EU countries be comfortable with us diverging from EU rules in many areas while we have tariff- free access to their home markets?

The longer the backstop lasts, the more difficult it will be for Europe. Far from it suiting their interests to keep the

‘A second vote would deeply wound our nation’

backstop going, they will be keen to avoid it and conclude a durable free-trade deal.

And in considering whether to support this deal, we all need to assess these issues in the round — we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Indeed, if we don’t accept this deal, I believe we enter dangerous waters. We risk a softer Brexit, no Brexit at all, or no deal.

Compared to the PM’s deal, a softer Brexit — such as the Norway option which some of my colleagues advocate — would mean less freedom to decide our laws, less control over our borders and we would still be sending significant sums to Brussels every year. It’s better than EU membership, but worse than this deal.

I also know some of my colleagues would prefer a clean break — that we should walk away from the negotiating table and move towards a relationship based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. I respect their position but I can’t share it. lying behind their view is a fair point — the economy could adjust to WTO rules and succeed over time.

Many other countries around the world trade with the EU on this basis, so there is no reason the UK couldn’t as well. While higher tariffs aren’t desirable, they needn’t be catastrophic.

This is all true, but tariffs aren’t the whole story. Over the past 40 years of membership, the EU has extended its reach into the functioning of our economy and society in countless ways — indeed, this is one of the strongest arguments for getting out.

From how we regulate chemicals to how we track movements of animals and animal products; from licences that let hauliers operate to arrangements which allow organic food to be sold — these are just a handful of the ways in which we rely on EU systems and processes.

While we may want to unwind all these arrangements, it is simply not possible do so overnight in an orderly fashion without ructions and repercussions. So it is undeniable that no deal would cause considerable dislocation and disruption in the short term.

I know some of my colleagues think these warnings are Project Fear Mark Two. Well, during the referendum campaign, there was no greater opponent of Project Fear than me.

I called out those economists — ‘experts’ if you will — who tell us they know best but get it consistently wrong.

My comments were misquoted and criticised at the time and have continued to attract ire since. But the central point was proven right — after the leave vote, the sky did not fall in, the economy did not shrink, jobs were not lost. Quite the opposite.

However, if those who orchestrated Project Fear last time round were the boys who cried wolf, let’s not forget how that story ended. Too many false warnings meant that when the real threat came it wasn’t heeded.

I know that if we left without a deal it would cause difficulties for farmers and food producers, manufacturing industry and small businesses. And because we currently rely so much on the narrow straits between dover and Calais for our trade, the EU, and the French government, could cause considerable disruption if they chose.

YES, we would recover over time. And, yes, across a range of areas, the Government can and will take the necessary steps to mitigate the worst effects of no deal.

At the department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, as in other departments, we’re working full tilt on plans to cope with the consequences — and, indeed, it’s because I’ve looked so long and hard at what’s required that I am of the firm view that no deal would generate turbulence.

And why risk that damage when this deal can deliver much of what we campaigned for?

The choice facing my colleagues in Parliament is momentous. Get this wrong and we may put in peril the Brexit the British people voted for and want us to deliver.

It’s time for all of us to put our personal perfect plan to one side, recognise the reality of the choice we face, and start to bring the country back together again.

The United Kingdom has been a force for good in the world all my adult life, now we can use the tools this deal gives us to aim even higher, and create a brighter future for our children. let’s not, at this critical hour, risk the chance to reclaim our democracy and renew faith in our country.