Tory contest chief : keep calm and carry on governing

MP organiser of election for Cameron’s successor urges party unity and focus on controlling migration

THE MP running the Tory leadership contest, has called for calm and warned the party must focus on controlling migration after the Brexit vote.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, Graham Brady says Conservatives must unite in the face of deep division and get on with the “delicate” and “essential” task of governing with a small majority in the Commons.

The backbench leader had wanted David Cameron to stay on as Prime Minister after a Leave vote to ensure stability for Britain as talks begin.

After bitter recriminations from both sides, Mr Brady urges a “more responsive and more accountable politics”.

He writes: “Pulling in opposite directions, it was inevitable that Britain would have to leave sooner or later – and the longer we stayed, the harder it would have been to get out. Fortunately, whatever short-term instability might be involved, the British people have settled this for the long term. We must show Conservatives of all traditions that they are valued in our party. The difference must be forgotten. Whichever side fellow Conservatives took in the referendum we must respect their reasons.”

Mr Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee which represents the views of Tory backbenchers, heralds the “remarkable triumph of democracy” of the EU poll but warns MPs must now get on with delivering the decision.

He continues: “We need to make a reality of what was previously unattainable – migration must be brought under control and shifted in favour of those with highly valued skills. People need to see their taxes spent on their priorities, not on subsidising the next wave of new member states. Most importantly the public need to feel a new connection between the votes they cast and the outcomes that they see.”

A firm Leave advocate, he also wants Parliament made more accountable so voters feel they are heard, as a number of reports after the Brexit vote said some supporters did not expect their choice to count and would have prefered to remain in the EU.

Mr Brady, 49, is the returning officer for the leadership campaign so will set the dates for ballots and oversee the process of replacing Mr Cameron. He criticised the Prime Minister’s campaign for an unconvincing argument: “Remain sought to tell the people that however undemocratic, unaccountable and expensive the EU might be, the financial costs of leaving would be too great. Like a bad trip to the Hotel California, you could check out but you could never afford to leave.”

He had previously attacked Mr Cameron’s efforts to improve the EU, warning they did not “come anywhere near to that fundamental reform of the nature of our relationship with the EU”.

The politics of Britain and the European Union has now changed for good. But it has been a long time coming.

When Britain voted to stay in the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1975, just a third of voters stood against the tide. Few looked beyond the bland assertions that this was just about trade; that the “Common Market” would not impinge upon our right to govern ourselves.

Perhaps because the naysayers of both Left and Right were slightly too clever, the look in their eyes just a little too messianic, people found it easy to disregard their warnings. Tony Benn and Enoch Powell both warned that our power to make our own laws would leach away to Brussels, that what we were joining was a political project clothed as a trading arrangement. They said that this was a process, not an event, and history has proved them right on every count.

By the time of the Maastricht Treaty debates in 1992, a growing band of Conservatives had come to understand the truth. A treaty that gave birth to the European Union, with its own currency and masses of laws made by “Qualified Majority Voting” – laws that could not be stopped by national veto – was the incarnation of the warnings given 17 years before. One by one the scales fell from peoples’ eyes.

In the referendum campaign, no informed adult was in the dark. The erosion of our ability to control our own country: to make our own laws, to set taxes and to control our borders was plain for everyone to see.

For a minority of Left and Right, that state of affairs is natural: an acceptance of a world in which nation states no longer matter; a more modern, liberal, internationalist world in which democratic government doesn’t work and should not be sought.

But make no mistake about it: that argument would have gained little traction and it was rarely used in public. Instead, in a campaign full of unnecessary bitterness and personal attacks, Remain sought to tell the people that however undemocratic, unaccountable and expensive the EU might be, the financial costs of leaving would be too great. Like a bad trip to the Hotel California, you could check out, but you could never afford to leave.

Still the EU was ploughing on towards an ever-closer union – and still Britain largely wanted a relationship based only on trade and cooperation. Pulling in opposite directions, it was inevitable that Britain would have to leave sooner or later – and the longer we stayed, the harder it would have been to get out. Fortunately, whatever short-term instability might be involved, the British people have settled this for the long term. We now face two important challenges.

First: to reunite the Conservative Party. At a time when we are in government and blessed with the challenge of a small working majority this task is as delicate as it is essential. Inevitably now played out against the backdrop of a leadership election, we must show Conservatives of all traditions that they are valued in our party. There is a small number of passionate supporters of EU integration: now that the EU question is settled, we must emphasise the 90 per cent of policy on which we agree. The rest of us are on a spectrum from passionate Brexiteers to reluctant Remainers. From last Friday, the differences must be forgotten. Whichever side fellow Conservatives took in the referendum we must respect their reasons.

The second task follows on from the first. The referendum was won for a variety of reasons. Some of us believe that democracy is intrinsically right – that our freedom and sovereignty could never be separated. Some saw uncontrolled immigration – the most obvious sign that our country had lost control of its own destiny – as the most important thing. For others, the vote was a cry of desperation with an Establishment that had forgotten how to listen to the people it is meant to serve.

If we are to build a healthier politics, all of these different groups of voters must be persuaded that our bold bid for freedom will make a real difference. We need to make a reality of what was previously unattainable. Migration must be brought under control and shifted in favour of those with highly valued skills. People need to see their taxes spent on their priorities, not on subsidising the next wave of new member EU states. Most importantly, the public need to feel a new connection between the votes they cast and the outcomes that they see.

The referendum was a remarkable triumph of democracy but it must be just the beginning of a politics that is more responsive and more accountable. As we return powers to our country, we must also strengthen a parliament that has been too weak a champion of the people. Get this right and we will build a vibrant democracy that embraces all our people and gives Britain the strength and the fleetness of foot to succeed in the world.