Brexit should respect the rights of all Brits, so let’s replace the withdrawal agreement with a deal that honours them

We need to respect the needs of the public. Under the current arrangements, the sought-after combination of workers’ rights, public services and national sovereignty are seriously at risk, writes Graham Stringer

A new report by the Centre for Brexit Policy launched at the weekend sets out the flaws of the withdrawal agreement (Getty Images)

The withdrawal agreement contains some good principles, not least encouraging further cooperation between the UK and the EU, consolidating the gains made since 1972, when we first entered the European Economic Community, and prioritising our geographic and cultural neighbours above foreign players like China.

Yet in the name of bureaucratic uniformity and political expansionism on the part of the bloc, the agreement sacrifices a number of key areas all proud Brits, across the political spectrum, should seek to uphold.

A new report by the Centre for Brexit Policy, "Replacing the Withdrawal Agreement – How to Ensure Britain Takes Back Control on Exiting the Transition Period" launched at the weekend sets out the flaws of the withdrawal agreement. Among them is the financial burden of leaving the EU on the bloc’s own terms, which would strip the UK of essential funds to support the NHS and other public institutions we rely on. The so-called "divorce payment" liabilities on the table are vastly greater than the zero UK obligation under international law coupled with the European Court of Justice’s adjudication.

Our prolonged membership of the European Investment Bank and other funds ties us into further future liabilities. In turn, these would continue to undercut the financial resources we have available to sustain public health and education services at a time of crisis for the nation. There are also concerns relating to Brits living in Gibraltar, who should have the same rights we have to enjoy the public services offered by Westminster, without the encroachment of EU bureaucracy.

Assenting to the withdrawal agreement would also permit the carving up of Northern Ireland. It renders Northern Irish businesses completely unprotected from EU anti-competitive behaviour, including Northern Ireland-based branches of UK-wide operations. It would create burdensome EU customs mechanisms at an East-West Irish Sea border, impose new checks on all agri-food imports into Northern Ireland and, crucially at a time when businesses are struggling to recover from the Covid-19 fallout, force Northern Ireland to implement EU VAT regulations.

Over time, this would sever Northern Ireland from the UK, despite widespread support for the Union among Northern Ireland voters. Of all the human rights violations being discussed, forcing a population to change its political allegiance by disincentivising interaction with its own country must rank high among them. This agreement would all but ensure Northern Ireland's stay in the single market as time goes on, an economic system that has had severe consequences for hardworking British fishermen and farmers alike.

We must stand up for all key workers, especially those who put food on our table. Approving joint sovereignty with the EU on fishing rights gives up the beautiful British seas that have fed us so well throughout history, and have provided thousands upon thousands of jobs for those living in coastal areas, as well as transport workers and others involved with the food chain. Donating this national treasure, which is what this agreement does, would be a crime not just against fishermen’s rights, but all those who rely on the fish market for their daily work.

For these reasons, the Labour Party should press for a replacement to the withdrawal agreement. In its place must come a "sovereignty-compliant" deal that respects the rights of all Brits, especially those with the most to lose. It is no surprise Labour’s "red wall" collapsed last December. To rebuild it, we will need to consider carefully the arguments of those who turned against us for the first time in decades. What they wanted, and what eventually decided the election, was an attractive combination of workers’ rights, public services and national sovereignty, all to some extent depending on each other, and which are rejected outright by the agreement being hurriedly drawn up in Brussels.

Graham Stringer is Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton and a director of the Centre for Brexit Policy