Is the PM’s EU withdrawal agreement good for UK? Yes, says Henley MP John Howell

I SPENT the weekend reading the withdrawal agreement on the assumption we are leaving the European Union.

There are times when it is necessary to go back to the source document and see what it actually says. I wish that many of those who wrote to me simply condemning the agreement had also done so or at least read the summary.

One correspondent wrote: “I won’t be reading the document because it would be a total waste of my time. I can understand without reading it.”

Another said they had read “extensive analysis” by which I took them to mean commentary in the press or in the media.

Yet there are times when you cannot rely on the press or media to give an unbiased answer.

They all look at the issue through their own prisms and confuse the facts. So what did I learn by spending my weekend reading the document?

Did I find anything in the document which made me reach for my pen to ask for Theresa May’s resignation as Prime Minister? No.

What I found was a document that is good in parts but which also raised some issues with which I was very uncomfortable.

The public reaction has been interesting. An opinion poll produced by ORB asked: “In the event that MPs reject the deal
what do you think the Government should then do?” The findings were as follows:

• Only one in four wanted a no-deal Brexit.

• A massive 22 per cent did not know.

• A majority of 51 per cent wanted negotiations around the current deal to continue.

The last is the position I reached as well and I believe that some revisions are still possible.

There are many good parts to this document — for example, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU are protected. Reciprocal law enforcement and judicial co-operation will continue, including passenger name record data, DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data.

Of particular interest to me is the close partnership in foreign affairs.

I also think that an implementation period of up to two years is not unreasonable and will allow business to continue trading as now until the end of 2020.

Disputes between the UK and the EU will first be consulted on in a joint committee and, then if agreement cannot be reached, heard by an independent arbitration panel.

Finally, there is provision for a comprehensive air transport agreement.

However, those areas with which I feel uncomfortable can be seen in the tone of the agreement, which comes across very much as an EU document. The whole issue of the Northern Ireland border seems over complex. I am not happy being locked into a customs arrangement with no ability to leave on our own.

In many ways this is better than the original EU proposal but it still needs to explain how this does not move us closer to breaking up the UK.

Finally, I am not convinced that the details of the implementation period have been thought through.

The fact that we are not to be part of EU institutions during the transition period but still have to implement EU rules is questionable.

As a set of documents, this does take us out of the EU.

There is a price to pay for existing commitments. The agreement ends free movement of people. It does take us out of the Common Agricultural Policy.

I do not believe that a no-deal scenario is in anyone’s interests and I think this goes a long way to avoiding that and setting up a positive arrangement.

But the document is not there yet and will need some more work that I am happy to contribute to in debate.