Many
of my constituents have expressed their concern about the progress of Brexit
followings yesterday’s events and what implications it may have for our
departure from the European Union.
Clause
89 of the Finance Bill enabled the Treasury to alter regulations around
taxation that currently involve the EU without consulting Parliament. Amendment
7, tabled by Yvette Cooper and voted for by 303 to 296 MPs, withholds these
powers unless either the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal has been passed, Article
50 has been extended or MPs have voted to approve a no-deal Brexit.
In
theory, this amendment has the potential of making more difficult for the
Government to mitigate the damage of no deal. If the Treasury is unable to
alter the wording of tax regulations that mention the EU, they might no longer
be able to collect certain taxes, for example.
Upon
closer examination of the amendment however, it is clear that its provisions
only apply to minor tax laws and do not prevent the taxes from being raised, as
had previously been expected. That means its actual impact on the government’s
powers to raise and collect taxes are going to be relatively minor.
It
is important to note that in and of itself, the amendment carries no legal
provision to prevent us leaving the European Union without a deal.
The legal
positions remains that we will be leaving the EU on 29th March this
year, whether or not we have reached an agreement with the EU. The only way to
change this would be through a specific act of Parliament – legislation of this
nature can only be moved by the government.
Whilst
I am not in favour of a disorderly Brexit and would prefer to leave with an
agreement that provides as smooth a transition as possible. However, the
withdrawal agreement, as it stands, does not fundamentally deliver on the
legitimate outcome of the 2016 referendum. No deal does not necessarily mean
that we are worse off, if we are given time and resource to manage an orderly
Brexit on WTO terms. I am pleased that the Government is clearly making
preparations in readiness for us to leave the EU with or without an agreement.
Those
who support the amendment and argue no deal must be ruled out now appear to be
in disagreement with each other over what the alternative might be: Are they going
to vote for a withdrawal agreement to prevent a no deal, or are they going to
try to reverse the will of the British people by extending Article 50 or worse
still, calling for a second referendum?
In
my view those who supported this amendment have been reckless in seeking to
hinder no deal preparations. However, I am content that their actions will
amount to very little impact. Please be assured that I will continue to fight
to ensure we deliver on the referendum and leave the EU at the end of March.
