Matthew Pennycook: "We must be willing to vote against a Brexit deal that doesn’t work for the country"
10 min read
Matthew Pennycook was not even 18 months into his parliamentary career when he was called upon to enter the Shadow Brexit team. With the negotiations on tenterhooks – and the possibility of ‘no deal’ looming – is he prepared for Labour to take up the reins? He talks to Sebastian Whale
Growing up in a single-parent family during the 1980s ignited in Matthew Pennycook a passion for social justice. His mother worked a variety of low-paid jobs to provide for him and his younger brother. At the same time, he says, the Conservative government viewed additional assistance from the state as “handouts” and “benefit scrounging”.
“Not people who needed a bit of support, who were doing their best as I saw my mum do, trying to juggle not just work but to be at home for the kids… She was there for me and my brother when we were growing up and I think she did a fantastic job. It was seeing just the attitude of the government at the time – it still makes me angry actually,” he says, pausing momentarily, the memory still fresh.
“I think a lot of that has changed, obviously. But not in all senses. There are still policy decisions made by this government that affect single-parent families in a really negative way, universal credit being a good example.”
Pennycook joined the Labour party “as soon as I could” at the age of 18. The south Londoner earned a first in History and International Relations at LSE before undertaking a masters at Oxford University. Inspired by the experiences of his mother, he worked for several charities that focussed on low pay such as the Child Poverty Action Group and the Living Wage Foundation, where he sat on the advisory board.
For a man whose political interest was sparked for such a personal reason, the 34-year-old is a calm and composed individual. His childhood informs rather than drives his political outlook. And though he admits to a residual anger towards the Thatcher government, he is no stranger to cross-party working.
“I think it’s wrong, and I think it kind of diminishes our politics, if you assume the other side are all evil, and that you have a monopoly on virtue,” he says. “There’s very strongly-held values on either side, differences of opinion, and different directions for the country that you want to see. I don’t think that stops you being friends in some cases, but with everyone at least being civil. I’ve always tried to do that and I think that does allow you to be able to work cross party with colleagues.”
Pennycook served as a councillor in Greenwich West from 2010 until resigning just before the 2015 election, where he stood as Labour candidate in the safe seat of Greenwich and Woolwich. Like others in his crop, he has experienced a tumultuous introduction to parliamentary life, befit with snap elections, a referendum and two Labour leadership contests. At the 2015 vote to replace Ed Miliband, he backed Yvette Cooper. In 2016, he supported Owen Smith’s bid to replace Jeremy Corbyn (after resigning as PPS to John Healey in the wake of the EU referendum). He says it’s fair to say he “couldn’t be labelled a Corbynista in any sense”, but sits more on the “soft, pragmatic, centre left” of the party.
Sir Keir Starmer, then bedding in as Shadow Brexit Secretary, approached Pennycook to join his team in October 2016. He was faced right away with an issue of conscience during the debate over triggering Article 50. Pennycook, whose constituency voted heavily in favour of Remain, concluded that it would be “dangerous” to pit parliament against the electorate in saying MPs know better than they do. But with ministers talking up the chances of leaving the EU with no deal to speak of, would Pennycook still have voted to trigger Article 50, knowing what he does now? “If you feel that any Brexit deal is that catastrophic, you should not have voted for the Referendum Act at all,” he says. “I would still vote to trigger Article 50. I think you do have to at least acknowledge that the referendum happened, while being as flexible as we can with getting the deal that will work for people.”
Pennycook believes that Theresa May, along with her Cabinet colleagues Amber Rudd and Philip Hammond, would not countenance a no deal outcome. But fears of leaving without a new agreement have grown as deadlines on the Brexit talks loom large. Phase one of the negotiations, which centres on the question of EU citizens, Northern Ireland and the charged issue of the Divorce Bill, is yet to be completed. With each important milestone that is missed, Pennycook says, “the probability of a no deal increases”. Given the scale of uncertainty for business, “it has to be ruled out” and not used as a negotiating tactic, he adds. Pennycook argues that we would be in a “very different place” had the PM taken the tone used in her recent speech in Florence a year ago.
“There’s just a sense with this government that you’ve got to be tough and confrontational with the EU, you’ve got to hype these things up, ‘they are the enemy’ as Philip Hammond even said, and that they’ll blink first. What Florence showed was that a more constructive, positive tone can go a long way with the EU,” he says.
While Pennycook maintains that Brexit is a “mistaken decision”, he is not convinced about the idea of a second EU referendum. Another vote would present a “host of practical challenges” surrounding when it would take place. “That’s why the concession we rung out of the government on the Article 50 bill was so important – that parliament is the body that can and should take this decision,” he continues. “But we’ve got to be able to take that decision on the basis of what works for the country, and to be willing to vote against a deal that doesn’t work for the country and to certainly vote against a no deal option.”
But won’t voting against the final deal potentially lead to the UK crashing out of the EU empty handed – the exact result he claims to be seeking to avoid? “No, I don’t think that’s necessarily the case… If we fundamentally couldn’t accept the deal because it had such a detrimental impact on the economy, on jobs, then the Prime Minister should go back to the EU27 and try again.”
The PM’s deal being voted down by Parliament could however lead to a snap general election. Is that Labour’s wider tactic? “Not for the sake of calling an election over something that’s that important, no… I cannot vote for a deal that seriously harms the people that live in the area that I represent. That is how we would have to judge the deal. Party politics don’t have a place on such a serious judgment call.”
A spanner is thrown in the works the day after our interview, however, when Brexit Secretary David Davis suggests parliament will not have a vote on the final deal until after the UK has left the EU. The PM later said she was “confident” a deal would be struck in time for Parliament to have a vote before the end of March 2019. Pennycook says the government must honour its commitment to give both Houses of Parliament a vote on the terms of the UK’s EU exit.
In the meantime, the government is busy addressing hundreds of amendments to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, the legislation that will transfer EU law into UK statute. Labour has lodged a number of amendments, that include ensuring that MPs get a final say on whether to approve the withdrawal agreement, that the transition period as set out by the PM is added into the legislation, and a concession for the repatriated powers from Brussels to go to the devolved administrations where it would usually fall under their remit.
Pennycook believes that the legislation, which Labour voted against at second reading, will largely be a “damp squib”. He claims the bill is being rewritten by ministers to placate concerns made by Tory backbenchers. “I don’t think that we’re going to have a major rebellion of Remainers. The Article 50 bill showed that, the Tory Remainers are in many ways a bit of a paper tiger and are not natural rebels. So, they will seek accommodation,” he says.
Pennycook insists Labour would back the withdrawal bill at third reading if the party’s demands are met (“this legislation has to happen”). “If the bill is tightened up, if we get enhanced parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of those delegated powers, how those laws are transposed over, if there is movement on the devolved institutions, if importantly the bill is drafted in such a way that allows us to transition on current arrangements, if all of those things are done as we’ve called for we would support it. It’s not an attempt to wreck the Brexit process,” he says.
It’s no secret that Labour has been exposed by contrasting views on the party’s frontbench over Brexit, on key issues such as membership of the single market and the customs union. The party clawed back some notion of cohesion however, when Starmer announced that Labour was in favour of a two-to-four-year transition period with the UK remaining inside the single market and part of a customs union.
Going forward, Pennycook says the Labour party “owes it to the country” to explain what the party sees as the future deal “in more detail”. “I think over the next year we do have to start fleshing it out, because that’s where the talks will move to hopefully if we get past stage one.”
But Jeremy Corbyn, for whom Brexit has been an Achilles heel, still faces criticisms that he is not fully on top of the subject. “I think Jeremy is across it, but the person who is in the detail and over every aspect of it is Keir Starmer and the rest of us on that team,” Pennycook responds.
Earlier this month, Corbyn paid yet another visit to Brussels to meet Michel Barnier and other senior EU officials. Pennycook says that since the general election, “there’s been a much greater interest in and eagerness to meet us” in European circles, and Labour “needs to be ready” to take over the negotiation process.
It’s fair to say that Pennycook finds himself in one of the more important shadow ministerial briefs on the market. With the threat of a snap election never far away, he could find himself in government. Does he hold ambitions for high office?
“What I want to do is not just tread water in this place, I want to do something, I want to be in government, part of a Labour government, changing the country. But I think too often we think just about individuals and who is the one person who can do everything for us when we should be talking about how can we get a team and a body of people with strength in depth, and mobilise all those talents.
“The party is bigger than one person and a government, if they’re to be an effective government, have got to have scores of effective Cabinet ministers. But absolutely, I want to play a senior role in that.”
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
