WITH crunch time for Theresa May’s Brexit deal scheduled for Monday, East Hampshire MP Damian Hinds hosted a public meeting in Alton last Saturday to provide an opportunity for people to hear more about the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and the UK’s future relationship with the European Union (EU).

It was a full house at the Alton Maltings Centre, with Mr Hinds keen to hear local views, and try to offer explanation and allay fears.

He was, he told his audience, there “to be held to account” through the same level of robust and expansive debate he had led in East Hampshire during the Referendum campaign in 2016.

There were people in attendance from across the political spectrum and with a wide range of views but while Mr Hinds was not in favour, it was the question of a second ‘people’s vote’ that caused the most amount of spontaneous applause from the floor.

As a ‘Remainer’ Mr Hinds had been disappointed, he said, with the result of the referendum but, from that moment he had been clear it was up to everyone to work together to secure the best Brexit deal for Britain. 

Having put in a vast amount of work over the past two and a half years into the drawing up of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Outline Political Declaration, agreed by all 28 EU nations, Mrs May and her political and diplomatic advisers, had come up with what he felt to be “a very good package” that will satisfy both the UK and the EU, while addressing the significant issues of the referendum – “control of our borders, of money and legislation.” But to do so had inevitably resulted in “reasonable compromise.”

Parliament was now being asked to vote on a deal that will, said Mr Hinds, “bring the end of freedom of movement, giving back control of this to the UK Parliament. It will stop the indefinite sending of huge sums to Brussels and give us back control of our laws.”

And “it does this in a way which is good for our economy and people’s jobs” while enabling the UK to maintain good levels of trade with the EU – including the ‘just-in-time’ supply chains needed for sectors like the automotive industry – and to strike its own deals with other countries.

On the question of the so-called ‘backstop’, Mr Hinds said the UK was not anticipating being in this scenario. Neither party wanted it and, with limited time to the end of December 2020 to settle the detail, there was a facility to extend the implementation period, in which case no backstop would be needed. 

If it was to be triggered it would be possible to call for a review, with an independent arbitration system in place should that fail to reach an agreement.

On the question of what will happen if the ‘deal’ is rejected in Parliament, and there is no Brexit, Mr Hinds said that it was unclear what the stance of some of the EU 27 would be, given their own varied domestic political pressures.

And, on holding a second referendum, based on greater knowledge of what life will be like post Brexit, Mr Hinds said that, in his view, it would be “undemocratic not to act in good faith” on the result of the 2016 referendum.

Alternatively, if agreement is not reached there is a very real risk of a ‘no deal’ scenario which would have an adverse impact on future trade and economic arrangements and a delay in administrative co-operation. The UK could be forced to use World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules when trading with the EU at a time when the major nations of the world are trying to move beyond WTO to wide-ranging free-trade agreements.

Mr Hinds further explained the EU is unable to negotiate a trade deal with a country which is part of the EU so the drawing up of documents can only happen once the UK leaves on March 29 next year.

Other questions revolved around concerns over the time it is taking to broker a deal, over the future supply of drugs from EU countries, the impact on academic research and security, and the predicted fall in the standard of living.

Mr Hinds said the deal was, in his opinion, “right for our country and right for East Hampshire.”