Read more: why Brexit could be Britain's biggest diplomatic disaster
Ever since the day I walked into parliament I have been told that the EU is moving in the UK’s direction. I have been assured that Brussels wants to hand powers back to national parliaments, and that the EU is on course to become a vibrant economy and dynamic trading bloc. A key thing that I have learnt in that time is that the EU is very good at making promises but is very bad at delivering them.
The draft agreement between the UK Government and the EU made yesterday is a case in point. David Cameron has not actually asked for very much, but the EU has still failed to countenance his proposals.
The Conservative manifesto upon which I stood for re-election in May promised a complete suspension of EU migrant benefits for four years. Indeed, the Prime Minister suggested that this was the headline item of his reform package. However, the draft agreement states that "the limitation should be graduated," meaning there is not a complete ban. Instead, EU migrants will begin to receive in-work benefits within the four year period. This simplest of manifesto pledges has been broken because the EU will not allow us to control our own welfare or immigration systems. In other words, in this policy area we are not sovereign.
Significantly, the proposed "emergency brake," which can be employed to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants, will be triggered by the EU—not by us. We would have to wait for the permission of unelected EU bureaucrats before we could act. In November 2014, the Prime Minister described the brake as an "arcane system," yet now he claims it is a "substantial change." The British people want to take back control of our borders. It is clearer than ever before that the renegotiation will not achieve this for us.
The Prime Minister also claims that the draft agreement will bring powers back to national governments by introducing a "red card" system. This would mean that if over half of parliaments across the EU clubbed together, they could block EU law. However, the proposal is both unworkable and impractical. As my friend William Hague has said, "even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first-born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of parliamentary votes".
The current yellow card system only requires one third of member states to trigger a review of legislation. This has only ever been used twice, and on one of these occasions the EU completely ignored the wishes of elected parliaments. With the required threshold higher for the red card, this means that the proposed arrangement would be even harder to use.
The Conservative Party has campaigned for a great deal of reform in the EU for decades. We have pledged to get a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and to ensure that EU jobseekers have a job offer before they come here. But none of those important measures are now on the table.
Crucially, we are now told that there will be no treaty change before the referendum. Without this, the reform package is not worth the paper it’s written on. Judges in the European Court of Justice will be able to rule that migrants should have access to welfare benefits and the EU can ignore the red card mechanism and there is nothing we can do about it.
We have been promised that the EU reform cheque is in the post—but it is quite likely that it will never arrive. If you have faith that EU politicians will honour these promises then by all means go ahead and vote to remain.
But if, like me, you believe that the UK can be a prosperous independent nation again and that we should retake our place on the global stage as the world’s fifth largest economy, then join me in voting to leave.
The British people want to take back control of their borders, control of their economy and to end the supremacy of EU law. This renegotiation will not deliver any of those changes. That’s why the safer choice in this referendum is to Vote Leave.
Ever since the day I walked into parliament I have been told that the EU is moving in the UK’s direction. I have been assured that Brussels wants to hand powers back to national parliaments, and that the EU is on course to become a vibrant economy and dynamic trading bloc. A key thing that I have learnt in that time is that the EU is very good at making promises but is very bad at delivering them.
The draft agreement between the UK Government and the EU made yesterday is a case in point. David Cameron has not actually asked for very much, but the EU has still failed to countenance his proposals.
The Conservative manifesto upon which I stood for re-election in May promised a complete suspension of EU migrant benefits for four years. Indeed, the Prime Minister suggested that this was the headline item of his reform package. However, the draft agreement states that "the limitation should be graduated," meaning there is not a complete ban. Instead, EU migrants will begin to receive in-work benefits within the four year period. This simplest of manifesto pledges has been broken because the EU will not allow us to control our own welfare or immigration systems. In other words, in this policy area we are not sovereign.
Significantly, the proposed "emergency brake," which can be employed to limit in-work benefits for EU migrants, will be triggered by the EU—not by us. We would have to wait for the permission of unelected EU bureaucrats before we could act. In November 2014, the Prime Minister described the brake as an "arcane system," yet now he claims it is a "substantial change." The British people want to take back control of our borders. It is clearer than ever before that the renegotiation will not achieve this for us.
The Prime Minister also claims that the draft agreement will bring powers back to national governments by introducing a "red card" system. This would mean that if over half of parliaments across the EU clubbed together, they could block EU law. However, the proposal is both unworkable and impractical. As my friend William Hague has said, "even if the European Commission proposed the slaughter of the first-born it would be difficult to achieve such a remarkable conjunction of parliamentary votes".
The current yellow card system only requires one third of member states to trigger a review of legislation. This has only ever been used twice, and on one of these occasions the EU completely ignored the wishes of elected parliaments. With the required threshold higher for the red card, this means that the proposed arrangement would be even harder to use.
The Conservative Party has campaigned for a great deal of reform in the EU for decades. We have pledged to get a complete opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and to ensure that EU jobseekers have a job offer before they come here. But none of those important measures are now on the table.
Crucially, we are now told that there will be no treaty change before the referendum. Without this, the reform package is not worth the paper it’s written on. Judges in the European Court of Justice will be able to rule that migrants should have access to welfare benefits and the EU can ignore the red card mechanism and there is nothing we can do about it.
We have been promised that the EU reform cheque is in the post—but it is quite likely that it will never arrive. If you have faith that EU politicians will honour these promises then by all means go ahead and vote to remain.
But if, like me, you believe that the UK can be a prosperous independent nation again and that we should retake our place on the global stage as the world’s fifth largest economy, then join me in voting to leave.
The British people want to take back control of their borders, control of their economy and to end the supremacy of EU law. This renegotiation will not deliver any of those changes. That’s why the safer choice in this referendum is to Vote Leave.
