Ending free movement is step back
Theresa May’s decision to cancel yesterday’s Brexit vote will not stop the ongoing debate over whether Brexit should go ahead.
I am writing this column just after speaking in the debate on the Withdrawal Agreement, where I set out the reasons why I would have been voting against the Prime Minister’s deal.
Like many people who live in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, I felt devastated on the morning of June 24 2016 as we learned that the UK had voted to leave the European Union.
Having now witnessed the process of leaving the EU from inside parliament, I have seen nothing to change my view that Brexit will leave us economically and socially worse off as a nation.
I shudder when I see the Prime Minister talking about people ‘jumping the queue’ and sending Tweets in the style of Donald Trump that celebrate “putting an end to the free movement of people once and for all”.
Personally, I believe ending free movement is a step backwards.
Curbing the rights of EU nationals to live and work in the UK means curbing the rights of the next generation of young people from this country who will be unable to move freely across Europe to live, work or study in the same way that we do now.
I accept that not everyone agrees and that there were real concerns about free movement prior to, and during, the EU referendum.
But this is an issue that could have been better addressed through reform from within the EU rather than outside of it.
Many businesses in Scotland rely on recruiting EU nationals to meet demands in the Labour market.
The onshore fishing sector, for example, is 70 per cent dependant on an EEA workforce, and there is no detail in the Withdrawal Agreement about how these vacancies will be filled or what will replace free movement.
The Government knows that any new trade deals we manage to secure with countries outside of the EU in the future will inevitably include some element of workforce mobility, so it is in its interest to tackle the myths about migration and start an honest conversation about what we gain out of these arrangements.
On this, and on every major issue that will affect our economy and determine our future relationship with the EU, the Withdrawal Agreement is lacking in substance.
It amounts to no more than a leap into the dark and, by the Government’s own admission, would leave the country worse off than we would otherwise be if we were staying in the European Union.
If there had been a vote, and it had failed to gain the approval of Parliment, I want people in Rutherglen and Hamilton West to know that as well as supporting a motion of no confidence in the Government that may follow, I would support motions or amendments calling for a People’s Vote.
Whatever happens I will continue to advocate for the closest possible relationship with the EU.