Julian Sturdy, MP for York Outer, spoke in the House in the Withdrawal Agreement debate last Monday (HERE). He is a farmer like his father Richard, himself a former MEP, and wants to be out of the EU, doesn't like May's deal because of the Irish backstop, but neither does he want to leave without a deal. He is not in favour of a second vote either.
His contribution was no help to anyone since it offered no solution only a 'hope' that Mrs May will be able to find an agreement. Don't hold your breath, she's been at it since July 2016. This is part of Sturdy's speech:
"I believe that agreeing to the deal represents a leap of faith, and that is why, currently, I could not vote for it. However, having said that, I do not believe that no deal or no Brexit are acceptable alternatives. In delivering a second referendum, we would just continue, and even deepen, the division and uncertainty with what would be an abdication of our responsibility as elected representatives to deliver a workable solution. I also have grave concerns about no deal. I believe it would lead to an economic correction. No one knows to what extent or how severe that correction might be, but there is a lot of crystal ball gazing—a gamble that could cost growth and jobs. I think it is reasonable to ask whether that gamble is worth taking".
It's ironic that in February 2016 declaring his position on Brexit (HERE) Mr Sturdy said:
“Some have called a vote to leave a step into the dark, but I believe we have the chance to step into the light and secure a brighter future for Britain".
Is a leap of faith different to a step into the dark? I don't think it is.
I wonder if he now regrets opting for leave in the referendum? And what he makes of his Conservative Brexiteer colleagues who are quite relaxed about leaving without a deal or even welcome it? His own government refuses to take no-deal off the table while the NFU (HERE) warn of the dire consequences that would flow from it. Minette Batters, NFU President says:
"I have been clear that such an exit [without a deal] would simply be catastrophic for Britain and its food and farming sector and the country’s ability to produce home-grown food".
Sturdy even thinks leaving without a deal is simply a 'gamble' when it is a known disaster, virtually the only certainty of Brexit. It was the decision to leave in 2016 which was the 'leap of faith' , a decision in which he was complicit and cheered on, denying it was a 'step into the dark'.
He began his contribution with this piece of wishful thinking:
"I believe that, ultimately, the final Brexit settlement has to be a compromise between leave and remain, while fundamentally delivering on the decision of June 2016. Remainers have to accept that the country clearly voted to exit the European Union, having been assured the Government would implement the decision of the referendum and, accordingly, that we have to leave. Leavers, like me, have to accept that the vote to leave was not overwhelming, as nearly half of our fellow citizens voted to remain, and the Brexit that is enacted therefore has to reflect their preference for a close partnership with Europe".
This is the mad belief that there actually is a middle position, at the centre of the triangle between leave, remain and the EU. A 'Goldilocks' position, not too close and not too far away around which we can all coalesce, including the EU, and live happily ever after. It is a pipe dream, a fantasy.
I do not see a status that Dominic Grieve and Bill Cash could ever agree on. The nation is split in two and this is made even more difficult now the narrow decision to leave seems to have been replaced by a narrow lead for remaining in the EU.
Sturdy himself doesn't seem to be troubled either way. His decision was a marginal one and one wonders if the years of argument, division and turmoil will be worth the candle?
