Agenda item

Notice of Motion Received from Councillor Dean: Exit from the European Union

Council recognises that there is continued uncertainty over the UKs future economic and social relationship with the Continental members of the European Union. It does not wish to see economic harm being caused to businesses and their employees in the Uttlesford district, such as those at Chesterford Research Park and those at Stansted Airport.

Council wishes no harm to be caused to residents, especially those of younger generations, who wish to maintain their ability to visit, study and work in this and neighbouring countries.

Council calls upon the Saffron Walden Member of Parliament, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, to take responsibility for the future wellbeing of the people of this district by striving at Westminster to find a way through the current uncertainties over Brexit to ensure that local peoples futures will not be harmed.

Council also notes that recent polls suggest that public opinion in this district, as well as nationally, is shifting away from leaving the EU towards a majority of people favouring the UK retaining its membership of the European Union.

Therefore, in the event that Parliament cannot reach an outcome from its current and forthcoming deliberations that will give a high confidence of maintaining or improving the wellbeing of local people, Council calls on Parliament to check again the will of the people by conducting what has become known as a Peoples Vote to confirm the present will of the people. 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Dean presented a motion he had submitted on the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.  He said the motion comprised four elements:  the impact on businesses in the District arising from current uncertainty regarding the future economic relationship with the European Union; the impact on residents especially younger generations, who wished to maintain their ability to visit, study and work in the UK and in neighbouring countries; a statement of intention to call upon the Saffron Walden Member of Parliament to work to find a way through the current uncertainties to ensure local peoples’ futures would not be harmed and to call on Parliament to confirm the present will of the people by means of a “People’s Vote”. 

 

Councillor Dean asked that there be a recorded vote.  He said a recent local survey had indicated 86% of people now supported remaining in the European Union; that the argument put forward by some that a second referendum would be divisive was not a reason against holding another referendum, as the existing outcome was divisive; that there was a duty to explain potential harm to younger people and that people had the right to change their mind.  He did not know Kemi Badenoch MP’s views, but if Members agreed with this motion, the Council would be offering her a way forward. 

 

Councillor Fairhurst seconded the motion.  He said this was a complicated motion, but all agreed on the Council’s wish that no harm be caused to the District’s residents, and that the MP should be asked to find a deal as a way forward. 

 

Councillor R Freeman said he supported the motion in so far as it affected residents, but that this Council had no influence over the decision, so to that extent the motion was an irrelevance.  He had voted to leave the EU, but was now not sure.  There were merits in setting a majority vote of two-thirds.  Brexit directly affected this Council in that businesses at Chesterford Research Park depended on the free movement of people. 

 

Councillor Artus said agreeing the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister was worse than staying in the EU.  The political elite were out of touch with the people.  People had already voted to leave by a greater majority than had voted for this government at the last general election.  The MP had been selected to defend the UK in the global arena.  A better deal was needed. 

 

Councillor Rolfe said this matter was incredibly important.  Whilst he agreed with some of what each speaker had said, the Council did not have the leverage to discuss what should be done, and Members had not been elected on a platform regarding their views on this subject.  All Members were likely to have different personal opinions.  He had been a remainer in 2016, and he accepted the vote had gone against him.  Theresa May was in an impossible position, as finding a deal which by necessity was always going to have to be a compromise was a challenge.  In his view, the deal was as good as it was going to get.  If there were to be another referendum, many people would not forgive the Government.  He would oppose the motion, as a remainer.

 

Councillor Howell said he was unhappy with the content of the motion, given the fact that there was to be a debate on the deal in Parliament next week.  There was little evidence that the will of the people had changed, both sides were angry, and any accounts of a national change of opinion were anecdotal.  17.4 million people had voted, so to term another referendum a “People’s Vote” was insulting.  The Council should listen to the people.  Councillor Fairhurst had identified the two sentences with which Members could agree.  Regarding the view of Councillor R Freeman that Brexit had an impact on the science businesses in the District, this view was wrong.  The tenants had indicated they were not affected by the UK exiting the European Union.  They had made an investment, and in fact the chief executive of one biotech business had said if the UK were to remain in the EU, it would be the death knell of the biotech business.  The EU was forcing innovative business in the UK to pay a state funding penalty, which was damaging to business.  Seeking a second vote would not solve the problem. 

 

Councillor Sell referred to a report the Leader of Tending District Council had asked officers to prepare, looking at how Brexit might impact on residents, or offer opportunities.  Next week Rochford Council had included discussion of a risk register for Brexit on its Council agenda.  He asked why Uttlesford District Council was not considering Brexit in a similar way. 

 

Councillor Wells said a risk register was considered by the Council’s Governance, Audit and Performance Committee. 

 

Councillor Asker congratulated Councillor Dean on his tenacity in surveying the residents of Saffron Walden for their views on Brexit.  She had been in the Republic of Ireland last week, and whilst she had originally voted to leave, she had learnt about the views of residents and businesses in Ireland who were desperate for the UK to remain.  She was not sure if Uttlesford could have an impact but she was intrigued and did not mind supporting the motion. 

 

Councillor Lodge said there were very strong views on Brexit, and he was not going to share his opinion.  The matters of the Local Plan, air quality, the library service were all vital to this district and were areas on which the Council could pull levers.  This matter was one in which the Council did not have any influence.  He had raised various issues with the MP and had received very little response.  He considered the Council would not get anywhere with this motion and he would abstain. 

 

Councillor Chambers said the problem was that there were 33 different opinions.  He asked that the vote be taken.

 

Councillor Fairhurst said Members supported most of the motion, and would consider an amendment.  No support for this suggestion was received. 

 

The motion as follows was put to the vote:

 

Council recognises that there is continued uncertainty over the UK’s future economic and social relationship with the Continental members of the European Union. It does not wish to see economic harm being caused to businesses and their employees in the Uttlesford district, such as those at Chesterford Research Park and those at Stansted Airport. Council wishes no harm to be caused to residents, especially those of younger generations, who wish to maintain their ability to visit, study and work in this and neighbouring countries. Council calls upon the Saffron Walden Member of Parliament, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, to take responsibility for the future wellbeing of the people of this district by striving at Westminster to find a way through the current uncertainties over Brexit to ensure that local people’s futures will not be harmed. Council also notes that recent polls suggest that public opinion in this district, as well as nationally, is shifting away from leaving the EU towards a majority of people favouring the UK retaining its membership of the European Union. Therefore, in the event that Parliament cannot reach an outcome from its current and forthcoming deliberations that will give a high confidence of maintaining or improving the wellbeing of local people, Council calls on Parliament to check again the will of the people by conducting what has become known as a People’s Vote to confirm the present will of the people.

 

The motion failed, with nine Members voting for the motion, 15 against.  Six Members abstained. 

 

Voting was as follows: 

 

For: Councillors Asker, Dean, Fairhurst, Foley, R Freeman, Lees, Lemon, Morris and Sell. 

 

Against:  Councillors Artus, G Barker, S Barker, Chambers, Davey, Davies, Farthing, Felton, Gerard, Hicks, Howell, Jones, Oliver, Ranger and Rolfe. 

 

Abstain:  Councillors Hargreaves, Harris, Lodge, Mills, Redfern and Wells.

 

The Chairman asked that Members vote on whether to continue the meeting, as the meeting was already of two hours duration.

 

RESOLVED to continue the meeting.