Brexit Deal: Referendum

Debate between Martin Vickers and Paul Blomfield

Monday 11th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The arrogance and confidence with which the Government approached the referendum campaign was probably what led to the result; it certainly meant that they were not prepared for the outcome.

I also understand the frustration that the promises made by leave campaigners were so quickly disowned after 23 June, whether that was the nonsense about £350 million a week for the NHS or the expectations about migration that were unleashed but that the Government have no intention of delivering in the way that the leave campaign led people to expect. Since Labour’s view was that our membership of the European Union was too complex and far-reaching an issue to be resolved by a simple binary vote, we did not support the call for a referendum at the time of the 2015 election. At least the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) for a further referendum matches his enthusiasm for the last.

We have heard some interesting contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) made some thoughtful comments. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) was probably right to say that these debates slip too often into tribalism, although I thought he was edging towards it himself at the end of his contribution. One of the problems with a simple binary vote was that it left the result open to the extreme interpretation, and those on the right of the Conservative party have tried to fill the void. They quickly seized upon the result, describing the decision as the biggest mandate in UK political history, which it was not. The number of people who voted to leave in 2016 was roughly the same as the number who voted yes in 1975—and that was a 67% vote in favour of joining the European Community. However, that did not stop some of the leave campaigners who remained consistent for more than 40 years in seeking to overturn that vote.

At the same time, some of those same people have interpreted the 2016 vote as a mandate for the deepest rupture possible, which it was not. As others have pointed out, it was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal, or without a transitional deal on much the same terms that we have now. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships, from Euratom to the European Medicines Agency, and it was not a vote for turning our back on the single market or for walking away from the customs union, regardless of the consequences. It was simply a vote to leave the European Union. It was a close vote—a painfully close vote—but there was a clear decision, and we should be implementing that decision in a way that tries to unite the country and not divide it.

I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because she addressed a central issue. I have been involved in all sorts of campaigns over the years, but one of the worst aspects of the 2016 referendum was just how unpleasant and divisive it was. I did dozens and dozens of meetings in my constituency, trying to make the case for us to remain within the European Union, and I was delighted that my constituents voted—by about 70%—to remain. However, the very last question at the very last meeting that I attended in a local church has stayed with me ever since. Somebody said, “How are you going to put together our broken country after this referendum?”

Another referendum will not tackle that challenge, but frankly nor will the approach of the Prime Minister in allowing the extreme Brexiteers in her party, who are a minority, to set the agenda. To be fair to the Prime Minister, she went to the country in June to seek a mandate for extreme Brexit, but she did not get it. That vote of the people deserves respect, too, but she is pushing on regardless and allowing the internal management of the Conservative party to come before the national interest.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) talked about this issue having been a running sore. Others have pointed out that it is not a running sore through the country; it has been a running sore through the Conservative party.

[Martin Vickers]

May I intervene on that point?

[Paul Blomfield]

Yes, I would love the hon. Gentleman to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

I pointed out that the 1975 referendum was to deal with the running sore within the Labour party. The Labour party was split at that time, as the hon. Gentleman will know. The fact is that both parties have been divided on this issue, which is actually a reflection of the way that the country is divided on it.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the point I was making was about the situation we are facing now, whereby the running sore that has driven the Conservative party to make so many mistakes on the question of the European Union is still there in the way in which we are seeing the Conservatives manage the Brexit process. We saw the landmark speech in Florence, in which the Prime Minister sought to define the way forward for the negotiations by drawing a line and moving forward. Within 24 hours, members of her Cabinet were unpicking it and she responded by back-pedalling.

We saw that again in relation to the settlement on Friday. That was a negotiated settlement, which drew the line under the first three key issues of the negotiations, so that we could move forward as a country. However, within hours members of her own Cabinet were seeking to say, “No, no, it wasn’t quite that.” Even the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was saying, “Well, that was just a kind of an agreement. We can always change it.” That inability to confront those within her party whose motivation in politics is driven by nothing beyond their hostility to the European Union is now damaging our country and damaging our ability to negotiate a departure from the European Union on terms that could reach out to the 48% as well as to the 52%.

What we need now, though, is not another referendum but a fundamental change of approach by the Government, to recognise what people did vote for on 23 June 2016 and what they did not vote for; to seize the opportunity not to take one side of the argument but to pull the country together. It is a challenge that I regret the Prime Minister has so far shown no sign of rising to. I hope that she might yet prove she is able to rise to that opportunity, and this debate might be a small part of that process, in a way that she has clearly been unable to so far. The interests of the country depend on that.

BBC (Proposed Cuts)

Debate between Martin Vickers and Paul Blomfield

Thursday 1st December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about regional identity; in fact, I was coming to that. My point about the spiral of decline is that, if evening programmes became national—“Radio England”—they would, by any definition, cease to be local, and the reason for listening to them would disappear. If afternoon programming becomes regional, the same will happen. In Sheffield, we are rightly proud of being part of Yorkshire, which is an important part of our identity. However, although Yorkshire is our region, it is not our community. Yet that point—precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman makes—is not understood by the BBC management in London.

Let me illustrate that by reference to the plans for shared sports coverage. Sport is very popular with the Radio Sheffield audience, and I have no doubt that the same is true around the country. Nobody else provides that service, and on a Saturday afternoon the station is the most popular station on the dial in south Yorkshire. One in four radio listeners are tuned in to Radio Sheffield. However, under the BBC plans, when Sheffield United play at Elland Road—as we will next year when we are promoted: I have to declare another interest at this point—the commentary will be provided by Radio Leeds. I recently pointed out to the director-general of the BBC—at the meeting to which the right hon. Member for Bath referred—that Sheffield United fans would rather switch off than listen to a Leeds-based commentary. He recognised that that was a problem and said that the BBC needed to provide more neutral football commentary—completely missing the point. As a Sheffield United fan, I listen to Radio Sheffield’s away commentary precisely because it is not neutral—because it is partisan and because Keith Edwards knows the club inside out and cares about it, just as I do.

[Martin Vickers]

As a blades supporter, I can understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree, however, that it is even more important for teams in the lower leagues—such as Grimsby Town, which is temporarily residing in the Blue Square premier league—and other local sports clubs to be covered by local radio? Without it, our 7-nil victory on Tuesday evening would not have been widely reported.

[Paul Blomfield]

That is an incredibly important point. I worry that, when the away coverage comes from London, as under the BBC’s proposal, a whole range of clubs will fail to get any commentary.

This issue goes beyond football. Local radio works because it is partisan, because it is rooted in communities and because it identifies with people, speaking to them and for them. Take that localness away and we will take the listeners away. As I mentioned earlier, BBC local radio in England has an estimated 7.5 million listeners, an increase of around 500,000 on last year and 700,000 more than the previous year. Cutting local radio in this way, when listener numbers are going up, makes absolutely no sense. If the current consultation launched by the BBC is to have any validity, I trust that it will listen to the huge number of voices raised in support of local radio and think again.