Because I can not support the Brexit agreement proposed by the government
Brexit shared the land. He shared the political parties. And he also shared the families.
Although I voted for Remain, I desperately wanted the government in which I am proud to succeed Brexit: to bring our country, our party and, yes, my family together.
Sometimes I thought it was possible. That is why I voted for the start of the Article 50 procedure and I assisted the Prime Minister for two years in obtaining the best deal for the country.
However, it has become increasingly clear to me that the resignation agreement that will be signed in Brussels and Whitehall during my writing will be a terrible mistake.
Indeed, the election presented to the British people is by no means a choice.
The first option is that which the government proposes: an agreement that will make our country economically weakened without the regulations of the EU having to do it and the economy is insecure for years.
The second option is a Brexit "without agreement", which I know will cause a transport minister to inflict unsuspected harm to our nation.
Offering the nation the choice of two extremely unattractive results, vassalage and chaos, is a failure of British government capacity to such an extent that it had not been seen by the Suez crisis.
My Orpington voters earn more from their government.
What is proposed now does not correspond to what was promised two years ago.
The hopes for "the simplest trade in history" have turned out to be delusional.
Contrary to the promise, there is no agreement on our future trade relations with the EU, which the government can present to the country.
Even less this offers "exactly the same benefits" of the single market, as David Davis had promised, or "the precise guarantees of a good trade" that the Prime Minister promised to be available. ,
All that is finalized is the agreement to pay the EU tens of billions of pounds.
All that can be offered on the market could be the possibility that an agreement remains in a temporary customs agreement while we discuss the possibility of an EU trade agreement that will show all the experience to be negotiated.
Although we ultimately guarantee a tariff regime for the exchange of goods, this is bad news for the service sector – for companies in the finance, information technology, communications and digital technology sectors.
It is important to have access to the EU markets for goods, but we are essentially a service economy.
For example, many in Orpington are among the two million Britons who work in the financial services industry and commute to central London for all kinds of jobs in the city.
Countries around the world are eager to get jobs in financial services and professional services from our shores.
An agreement that severely restricts access to EU financial services markets or makes us vulnerable to regulatory changes we have no control over – will damage my constituents and damage one of the most successful sectors.
While we are waiting for trading conditions, the rules of the game are established by the EU alone. Britain will lose its place at the table and its ability to change or tune the derived rules.
Instead of "resuming" control of the United Kingdom, we will transfer control to other European countries.
This democratic deficit, inherent in the Prime Minister's proposal, is a misrepresentation of Brexit.
When we were told that Brexit would withdraw the powers for Parliament, no one told my constituents that this meant the French Parliament and the German Parliament, not ours.
In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves what we get. William Hague once described the goal of conservative politics as "guided in Europe but not by Europe".
Government proposals will take us out of Europe, but they will be governed by Europe and bound by rules that we have lost in shaping.
Worse, there is no real clarity as to how this situation will ever end.
With the proposed resignation contract, many of the major problems related to our future relationships with Europe will be introduced in an unlimited transitional period.
This is a scam for the British people: there is no evidence that the type of Brexit we have not discussed until we are still members can be magically agreed as soon as the UK has lost its place at the table.
The influence we have as a full member of the European Union will no longer exist.
We will be in a much worse bargaining position today.
And we have not yet managed to solve the fundamental problems that increase uncertainty for companies and prevent them from investing in the future.
My brother Boris, who has led the holiday campaign, is just as dissatisfied with the government proposals that I am.
He recently noted that the proposed agreements are "significantly worse than remaining in the EU". Undoubtedly, he is right in this.
If these negotiations have not done much, at least they have united us in a fraternal dismay.
The argument that the government is supporting the revocation agreement is not that it is better for Britain than our current membership.
The PM knows that he can not honestly state that the agreement is an improvement of Britain's current relations with the EU and rejects its recognition.
The only case that can prove is that it is better than the alternative to leave the EU without any agreement.
Of course, from my own work in the Department of Transportation, I know the potential chaos that will follow the Brexit without an agreement.
This will lead to interruptions, delays and significant damage to our economy.
There are real questions about how we can guarantee access to fresh food and medicine when the important trade route from Dover to Calais is clogged.
The government may need to take control of which trucks and goods are allowed inside and outside the country. This is an extraordinary and certainly unworkable intervention for a government in an advanced capitalist economy.
The prospect that Kent becomes Lorry Park in England is very real in a scenario without agreements.
The residents of Orpington, which border the Kent border, are bothered by plans to connect the nearby M26, which connects the M25 to the M20, as a further tail for heavy vehicles secured by canal ports.
This perspective alone would be a matter resigned to me as a constitutive member, but it is only one aspect of a much larger problem that afflicts the nation.
With all its challenges and all the real pain we cause by adapting ourselves to new trade barriers with our biggest market, we can eventually survive these difficulties.
I think it would be a serious mistake for the government to break this agreement by setting off Project Fear again.
A result without such an agreement could be better than the endless purgatory offered by the Prime Minister to the country.
However, my message to my brother and to all the Leave activists is that causing economic and political damage to the country will leave an indelible mark on public incompetence.
It can not be what you wanted, and the 2016 referendum did not provide a mandate for this.
Considering that the reality of Brexit was so far removed from what was once promised, it is democratic to give the public the last word.
This is not about re-launching the referendum in 2016, it's about asking people if they want to continue the Brexit now that we know the agreement, which is actually available to us, if we do not have to leave an agreement, or keep people in Movement The balance would be closer to the already existing deal in the European Union.
For those who say that this is an affront to democracy, given the results of 2016, I ask.
Is it more democratic to rely on a three-year vote that can be based on what an idealized Brexit could offer or a vote based on what we really know?
Most Orpington voters have decided to leave the EU in 2016, and many of my closest friends, including conservative and hardworking members of the region, are passionate about Brexit.
Respect your position.
But I know from the conversations I had with the local members that many are just as upset as I am from the negotiation process and the actual selection offered.
After two and a half years, the practical options for Brexit are now clear and the public should be asked to choose between the different ways in which our country faces the Orpington constituency and the whole country would like to have # 39; last word on Brexit proposed by the government.
Britain is on the edge of the biggest crisis since World War II.
My loyalty to my group is uninterrupted. I have never rebelled a topic so far.
But my duty towards my constituents and our great nation forced me to act.
I wrote today to the Prime Minister and asked her to accept my resignation from the government. Now I intend to vote against this resignation agreement.
Rejecting this wrong decision between the Prime Minister's agreement and chaos "no agreement"
On these crucial issues, I think it's perfectly fair to go back to people and ask them to confirm their decision to leave the EU and, if they decide to give them the last word, if we're going with the & # 39; agreement of the prime minister or without.
Making less will cause serious damage to our democracy.