[ad_1]
LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister of Transport Jo Johnson announced Friday that he was leaving the government for his agreement on Brexit, calling for a second referendum and saying Britain was on the brink of the biggest crisis since the Second World War.
FILE PHOTO: Jo Johnson arrives at 9 Downing Street, London, January 9, 2018. REUTERS / Peter Nicholls / File Photo
Here is the text of the resignation statement of Johnson, brother of former Foreign Minister Boris Johnson.
"Brexit has divided the country. He divided the political parties. And he also divided the families. Although I voted to stay, I desperately wanted the government, in which I am proud to serve, to succeed in Brexit: reunifying our country, our party and, of course, my family. Sometimes I thought it was possible. That is why I voted in favor of launching the section 50 process, and I have been supporting the Prime Minister for two years in her efforts to get the best deal possible for the country. But it has become increasingly clear to me that the withdrawal agreement, which is being finalized in Brussels and Whitehall just as I write, will be a terrible one. fault.
"Indeed, the choice presented to the British people is not a choice at all. The first option is the one proposed by the government: an agreement that will leave our country economically weakened, with no word to say about the European rules to be respected and years of uncertainty for companies. The second option is a "no agreement" Brexit, which, I know, as the Minister of Transport, will inflict untold damage on our country. Presenting to the nation a choice between two deeply unattractive results, vassalism and chaos, is a failure of British politics on a scale unprecedented since the Suez crisis. My constituents in Orpington deserve better than their government.
"What is being proposed now will not look like what was promised two years ago.
"The hope of a" simplest trade deal in history "has proven to be delusional. Contrary to promises, there is in fact no agreement on trade relations that can be presented to the country with the EU. Even less everything that offers "exactly the same benefits" as the single market, as promised David Davis, or the "specific guarantees of a trade without friction" which the Prime Minister assured us would be available. All that is being finalized, is the agreement to pay tens of billions of pounds to the EU. All that can be offered on the trade, it is the possibility of an agreement to stay in a temporary customs arrangement while we discuss the possibility of a trade agreement with the EU , whose experience shows that it will take many years to negotiate.
"Even if we eventually obtain a customs regime for merchandise trade, this will be bad news for the service sector – for companies in the financial, information technology, communications and digital sectors. Maintaining market access for EU goods is important, but we are fundamentally a service economy. Among the two million British employees in financial services, for example, many in Orpington, going to central London for jobs of all kinds in the city. Countries around the world are making significant efforts to attract jobs in financial and professional services on our coasts. An agreement that significantly reduces access to European markets for financial services – or makes us vulnerable to regulatory changes over which we will have no influence – will hurt my constituents and one of the most prosperous sectors.
"While waiting to negotiate the commercial terms, the rules of the game will be defined solely by the EU. Britain will lose its seat at the table and its ability to change or vote rules it opposes. Instead of Britain regaining control, we will cede control to other European countries. This democratic deficit inherent in the Prime Minister's proposal is a parody of Brexit. When we were told that Brexit meant taking over the powers of Parliament, no one told my constituents that it was the French Parliament and the German Parliament, not ours. In these circumstances, we must ask what we are doing. William Hague has already described the goal of conservative politics as "in Europe, but not led by Europe". The government's proposals will exclude us from Europe but will be led by a Europe subject to rules that we will have lost.
"Even worse, there is not much clarity on how this situation will end. The proposed withdrawal agreement brings back many of the most important issues of our future relations with Europe in a period of boundless transition. This is a problem for the British people: there is no proof that the kind of Brexit we have not managed to negotiate while we are still members can be magically agreed upon once the UK has lost its seat at the table. The leverage we have as a full member of the EU will be gone. We will be in a much worse bargaining position than today. And we still have not been able to solve the fundamental issues that are raising uncertainty for companies and preventing them from investing for the future.
"My brother Boris, who led the holiday campaign, is as unhappy with me as the government's proposals. Indeed, he recently noted that the proposed arrangements were "significantly worse than staying in the EU". He is undoubtedly right on this point. If these negotiations were not successful, they at least united us in fraternal consternation.
"The government's argument against this agreement is not that it is better for Britain than our current members. The Prime Minister knows that she can not honestly say that this agreement is an improvement over the current agreements between Great Britain and the EU, and she has the merit of refusing to do so. The only case she can try is to say that it is better than the alternative to leave the EU without any agreement.
"Certainly, I know from my own work at the Ministry of Transport the potential chaos that will follow a" not agree "with the Brexit. This will cause disruptions, delays and serious damage to our economy. The question of how we can guarantee access to fresh food and medicine if the crucial trade route between Dover and Calais is congested is real. The government may need to take control of the trucks and goods that are allowed in and out of the country, which is an extraordinary and certainly unrealistic intervention for a government in an advanced capitalist economy. The prospect of seeing Kent become the truck park of England is very real in a dead end scenario. Orpington residents bordering Kent are facing an interruption in the M26 project, linking the M25 to the M20, as an additional queuing zone for trucks waiting from ports of the channel. That perspective would be a resignation for me as a constituency member, but it is just one facet of a much bigger problem facing the country.
"Nevertheless, despite all the challenges and the real pain it would cause us if we adapted to the new barriers to trade with our larger market, we can finally survive these difficulties. I think it would be a big mistake for the government to get this agreement through once again by releasing the Fear project. Such an outcome "without agreement" may well be better than the endless purgatory that the prime minister offers to the country. But my message to my brother and all the supporters of the "Leaving for Peace" campaign is that doing such serious economic and political harm to the country will leave an indelible impression of incompetence in the public mind. That can not be what you wanted and the 2016 referendum did not have a mandate to that effect.
"Since the reality of Brexit has been so far removed from what was promised, the democratic thing to do is give the public the last word. This is not to reorganize the 2016 referendum, but to ask people if they want to switch to Brexit now that we know the agreement we have, if we have to leave without any agreement or if the balance would prefer to stay with the agreement we already have within the European Union.
"I'm asking this to those who say that it's an affront to democracy given the outcome of 2016. Is it more democratic to rely on a three-year old vote based on what a Brexit could offer? idealized, or to have a vote based on what we know it really involves?
"A majority of Orpington voters have chosen to leave the EU in 2016 and many of my close friends, including hard-working local Conservative Party members, are passionately pro-Brexit. I respect their position. But I know from the meetings I had with the members of the local that many are as dismayed as I am by the course of the negotiations and the current choice that is being proposed. Two and a half years later, the practical options of Brexit are now clear and the public should be invited to choose between the various paths taken by our country: we will all have different positions on this choice, but I think that many members of my party, the constituency of Orpington and the whole country would like to have the last word on the government's Brexit proposals.
"Britain is on the brink of the biggest crisis since the Second World War. My loyalty to my party is intact. I have never rebelled on any issue before now. But my duty to my constituents and our great country has forced me to act. Today, I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to accept my resignation from the government. I now have the intention to vote against this withdrawal agreement. I reject this false choice between the Prime Minister's agreement and the "disagree" chaos. On this crucial issue, I think it is perfectly correct to ask citizens to confirm their decision to leave the EU and, if they wish, to give them the final say as to whether we leave or not. . the Prime Minister's agreement or without.
"Doing less than that will cause serious damage to our democracy."
Report by Michael Holden
