Richard Lutz tries to persuade his MP to turn his back on No Deal come October.
My MP is Bill Grant. He represents Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock in South Ayrshire. The local area voted 59% to stay in the EU. Mr Grant, a Conservative who swept aside the Scottish Nationalists in the 2017 election, also voted Remain. But times have changed. So I wrote him this letter which includes one or two grammatical improvements.
Dear Mr Grant,
Thank you for spending time with my wife and me during your recent surgery in Ayr. You made your stance on Brexit clear – and we appreciate this gesture as our MP.
As I remember our discussion, you were a remainer up to the referendum. You voted remain. Then you changed your mind to follow public opinion to leave the EU. Now that the Conservative leader and Prime Minister Boris Johnson says that we may leave with no deal, your are still unsure what your next step will be.
If that is still the present case, please remember what we agreed as our talk ended: No Deal does not really mean no deal simply because on 1st November, if there is no deal, Britain will have to deal and negotiate over trade, security and other main issues.
No deal will lead to dealing and negotiating. To wit, the US diplomat Mr John Bolton said as much when he said his country is ready to talk trade once no deal takes place; ie, negotiations will begin, ergo, deal making will begin.
No deal, Mr Grant, is a cul de sac and a basic misnomer. Hard fought deals will follow it. I accept that your loyalty to a political party takes precedence over your initial principle to remain. But please don’t back a No deal when it comes before our democratic institution, the Commons. It would a retrograde, useless and harmful gesture to leave without an agreement. And with your acknowledged enlightened views on Northern Ireland (and by inference its border with Eire) that you articulated in a previous chat with us when you first entered the House, it would jeopardise hard won peace in Ulster.
Footnote: Mr Grant’s office in Westminster acknowledged receipt of my letter and said, due to increased volume of emails, he will not personally reply to correspondence regarding government policy, but his stance on main issues will appear on his website. This, the response, says, is in line with ‘current practice’.