𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Brexit is doing and will do more harm than good. That is my opinion – one I have always held and will always hold. It’s just what it is. Voluntarily disrupting our international trade, and damaging relations with our closest neighbours, is just nonsensical to me. Britain’s standing in the world has taken a hit that it will never recover from, ironically after voters in 2016 harked back to an age when the UK was a top-tier global power in thinking that we would be better off standing alone.

After I watched David Dimbleby declare “we’re out” on the BBC in the early hours of the morning following a heavy night out on June 24, I was plunged into a near permanent state of embarrassment, as Theresa May’s government, and those of subsequent premiers, made a pig’s ear of negotiations. Michel Barnier made us look like amateurs. Brexiteers were also dissatisfied, feeling that ministers were not going far enough.

Nobody liked the way things were going.

They were toxic, unpleasant times that no one would wish to relive.

Everyone will have their own reasons for voting how they did, but, nearly 10 years on, the decision to leave was in my view overall clearly intended to be a protest – a punch in the face for Westminster.

Despite my opinion on the matter, there are some positives that have resulted from Brexit, including the regaining of sovereignty from Brussels.

We now have the opportunity to legislate and implement whatever laws our executive or occasional private member sees fit to put before the House and Commons and House of Lords, without having to do things decided upon by MEPs in Strasbourg.

Our own MPs, elected by British constituents, will either progress or reject Bills that will affect the lives of voters.

But Keir Starmer does not seem to think this applies to everything.

In a troubling move, he has decided that the UK will follow EU rules without necessarily giving MPs a vote, under plans which will be unveiled in the King’s Speech.

The Government will seek to pass a new law which would allow single market rules to be adopted through secondary legislation, which will likely mean Parliament can either approve or reject secondary legislation, but cannot amend it.

Does the PM need to refresh his knowledge of the writings of Montesquieu – the Frenchman who emphasised that a state must be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches, preventing any one controlling all governmental functions.

The executive cannot have all the say. We elect representatives to speak for us in Parliament for a reason.

We may not like what all of them have to say, but that’s how our system, which is, by the way, the best democracy in the world, works.

Leave voters will justifiably be seething at this decision to bypass their MPs, who will most likely reflect their want to keep UK and EU regulations separate.

He is already detested by many of those who wanted Brexit, and this won’t help his approval ratings.

In my view, closer alignment is the right thing to do in order to make trade easier for businesses, which, in a hostile fiscal and macro-economic environment, need all the help they can get at the moment. We have to make the best of the path that the British people decided to take the country down, and limit damage where we can, while not going back on the landmark verdict.

But not everyone will think this, and the Prime Minister needs to listen to them.

Besides, surely he has enough pro-EU MPs at this time to ensure the changes are passed?

His latest move, betraying Brexit voters, looks to be overkill – and just morally wrong.