Rosie's Brexit Diary
15 January 2019

Today is the vote in Parliament

Today the MPs vote on the appalling-beyond-words ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ under which Britain’s independence and sovereignty come to an end.

Under the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’, Britain will be ruled by two bureaucrats exchanging notes in a private meeting. The content of the notes will be binding on Parliament.  

Buried away in an annex at the back of the 585-page treaty, it explains that meetings can happen as little as once a year while legally binding decisions can be taken simply by an “exchange of notes” between the two co-chairmen.

The agreement states the committee’s decisions “shall be binding on the Union and the United Kingdom, and the Union and the United Kingdom shall implement those decisions. They shall have the same legal effect as this Agreement.”

Martin Howe QC, a leading expert in EU law, told The Daily Telegraph: “The Withdrawal Agreement contains a presumption of secrecy regarding the proceedings of the Joint Committee. “Unless Parliament were to legislate to constrict or control the activities of the UK representative on the Joint Committee, a civil servant could wield very substantial legislative powers without oversight from Parliament. This is a matter of great concern.”



Parliament has supposedly been debating the contents of the ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ but instead of mature debate there has been chaos, all aimed at keeping Britain in and under the EU. Lack of proper debate has led to people having to write letters to set out their concerns about this ‘agreement.’


Former cabinet ministers have written to every Conservative MP to urge them to vote down Theresa May’s deal and leave the European Union on World Trade Organisation terms.


Sir Richard Dearlove and Falklands War veteran Major General Julian Thompson wrote to Mrs May on November 29, saying that the withdrawal agreement “threatens to change our national security policy by binding us into new sets of EU-controlled relationships”. The letter described the European Commission an “undemocratic organisation” that had “demonstrated how untrustworthy and hostile towards the UK” it is by “using the Irish border as a weapon”.

This letter was rubbished by Theresa May, and they wrote a long rebuttal of Theresa May’s claims, which was also ignored.  There was no BBC coverage of the letter and little press coverage, even in the Daily Telegraph. The ‘Withdrawal Agreement’ is so long, and written in such tricksy language, that any explanation of what is wrong with it necessarily ends up as a long document (all deliberate, of course.)

On 9 January they (Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie, the former chief of defence staff) wrote to Conservative Party chairmen in an effort to get their message across. “Buried in the agreement is the offer of a 'new, deep and special relationship' with the EU in defence, security and intelligence which cuts across the three fundamentals of our national security policy: membership of NATO, our close bilateral defence and intelligence relationship with the USA, and the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

“The first duty of the state, above trade, is the security of its citizens. The Withdrawal Agreement abrogates this fundamental contract and would place control of aspects of our national security in foreign hands.


The UK would have the same legal status under the EU courts as Moldova and Ukraine: