Nadhim under attack for EU article
STRATFORD MP Nadhim Zahawi this week gave the whole Brexit drama a new twist by saying that Britain should continue paying £8.5billion a year into the EU to retain access to the European single market.
Mr Zahawi, a Conservative who supported the “Leave” campaign, has not only surprised fellow Brexiteers but also come in for considerable flak from his political opponents.
In an article in The Mail on Sunday, Mr Zahawi wrote: “It is obviously in all our interests to have the closest, friendliest relationship with the European Union after leaving. However — and my fellow Brexiteers may be surprised to hear me say this — we may have to pay to seal the deal, and I believe we should.
“In 2015, we paid £13billion into the EU budget. Of this, only £4.5billion was subsequently spent in the UK, on things such as funding scientific research at our universities and on subsidies for farmers.
“So, even once you take away every penny of what the EU spends in the UK, the European Union will be missing out on an £8.5billion British contribution to its budget.”
After pointing out that the loss of Britain’s £8.5billion would be a big blow to the EU, and could cause huge problems for the remaining members, Mr Zahawi said: “Further political or economic distress on the continent will damage us too.
“I was one of those who campaigned to leave, but the government should be absolutely clear that our motive is not for the European Union to fail — we just don’t think it is right for us.
“That is why we would pay a proportion of the £8.5billion that we will save through leaving back into its budget. We should help bridge some of the EU’s funding gap, but only on the condition that the EU delivers our demand of providing British businesses with tariff-free access to the single market.”
He stressed that Britain would be free to set its own policies and trade with the world, and would be released from “the interfering grasp” of the European Court of Justice, and he declared: “The only issue to negotiate is how high our payment would be in return for single market access, and that must be left to the negotiators.
“But whatever we pay, up to and including the £8.5billion we will save from leaving, would be worth it.”
Mr Zahawi’s article prompted swift responses from his political opponents in Stratford. Jeff Kenner, who stood against Mr Zahawi for Labour in the 2015 general election, and is Professor of European Law at Nottingham University, told the Herald that Mr Zahawi’s Mail on Sunday article was both honest and dishonest. “It’s honest because he admits that the UK will have to make a huge financial contribution if it wishes to have access to the single market,” he said. But he added: “What is dishonest is that the £350million referred to in the referendum campaign was based on the UK gross contribution of £13billion. He’s using alternative figures and ignoring the £5billion rebate.”
Prof Kenner questioned how Britain could have access to the single market without agreeing to the free movement of people. And we would be forking out £8.5 billion while having no say at the table. Britain would have to pay up and comply with the rules without having any control over them. “It’s the complete opposite of taking control,” he said. “It’s losing any control.”
Edward Fila, who stood for UKIP against Mr Zahawi last year, told the Herald: “I was very concerned to read Nadhim Zahawi’s article in The Mail on Sunday this weekend appearing to support some form of a ‘deal’ when negotiating our withdrawal from the EU. “As an apparent supporter of Brexit, he owes it to his constituents who, don’t forget, voted by a majority to leave the EU, to support the process voted upon by the biggest democratic outcome ever in this country, to leave the EU.
“There is no such thing as a hard or soft Brexit. We voted for Brexit. Plain and simple. There is no deal to negotiate in regard to ‘paying to seal the deal’.
“We have been one of the highest contributors to the EU coffers. They will certainly miss our funds and our country’s decision to leave will undoubtedly create much uncertainty within other member states.
“This is a time to be strong. Our negotiators must ensure they achieve what 17.4 million people voted for in June.
“The reason so many voted for Brexit is because they believed there was no future in maintaining our relationship with Brussels. I am surprised Mr Zahawi has forgotten that as quickly as he appears to have.”
The main opposition leader on Stratford District Council, Cllr Peter Moorse (Lib Dem, Hathaway), told the Herald: “During the referendum the Brexiteers, of whom Mr Zahawi claims to be a leading light, promised that £350million a week could be spent on the NHS rather than sent to Brussels.
“I’ve twice challenged Mr Zahawi to press the government to commit some of that money to support our local NHS in Warwickshire, but twice Mr Zahawi has declined. The reasons have now become clear. Mr Zahawi is intent on continuing to send the money to Brussels instead. “In his article in The Mail on Sunday he claims our net contribution to Brussels is £8.5billion a year and calls for ‘up to and including the £8.5billion’ to be offered each year to Brussels in return for single market access. I wonder why he didn’t mention this at the time of the referendum.”
IN response to the criticisms of his Mail on Sunday article, Mr Zahawi issued this statement to the Herald.
“I was flattered to hear that Edward Fila of UKIP, Jeff Kenner of Labour and Peter Moorse of the Lib Dems took the time out of their weekends to read my article in the Mail on Sunday. For those who didn’t, I should start with a short synopsis.
“I pointed out that, after our rebate, Britain paid the European Union £13bn in 2015. Of this only £4.5bn was spent in the UK on the things like farming subsidies and university research that we want to preserve after Brexit, leaving £8.5bn saved each and every year.
“It will be up to the current Government and every future Government what it does with this money for every year in the future. What I proposed was that our negotiators could use some of this money, at least to begin with, to help smooth our exit. But only if we are offered tariff-free access to the single market in return, and we take back control of our borders, our taxes and our laws.
“The EU is keen to discourage other countries from following us out the exit, and needs money to fix its many systemic and largely self-inflicted issues. It’s in our interests for these issues to be solved too — we want to be a friendly neighbour to an economically and politically stable European Union after we leave.
“We need to maintain our old trade links while building new ones across the world, but we’ll be damaged if the Eurozone falls into recession again. Meanwhile the cost would be easily bearable for us in comparison to the huge amounts we currently contribute, but would be more daunting for a smaller country considering following suit — Europe would have its ‘example’.
“I believe this could be a reasonable solution that is actually reflective of the result of the referendum. What Edward Fila, Jeff Kenner and Peter Moorse don’t understand is that they are not representative of the country or our local area — both of which narrowly voted to leave the EU.
“The vast majority of voters of Britain are neither EU hating obsessives nor EU loving ideologues; we are pragmatists.
“My side of the referendum won, and we are leaving the European Union, but we must get a good deal for everyone in this country whether they voted leave or remain. I believe my attempt at a pragmatic and helpful solution can help do just that. It’s certainly more useful than complaining from the side-lines.”
