The EU single market destroys jobs

 

      We need to deal with the big lie of the federalists, that the EU supports or creates 3 million jobs in the UK and the single market is an enterprise friendly job creating bonus to us.

       The single market may have started out as a well intentioned project to allow freer trade between EU member states, but soon became a power grab by regulators and governors out to limit and control economic activity from the Brussels centre of the emerging European government.  The lie of the 3 million jobs is so obvious that it is amazing how many commentators and media interviewers still allow the dwindling band of Europhiles to trot it out as fact.  If the UK was not in the EU we would still be exporting to the continent, because they would still want to export to us and would have to reach a sensible arrangement on terms and tariffs. It would also be regulated by international trade rules anyway, preventing retaliatory tariffs and other impediments to trade.

           Worse than the lie is the deception over the single market. The EU’s economic and business rules now have destroyed and will destroy a large number of jobs in the UK. They do so by four main routes.

1. The imposition of physical quotas or restrictions on what the UK can produce. Thus we are prevented from producing all the milk we need, British b0ats  are prevented from fishing above a certain quota, and we are limited in how much electricity we can generate from carbon based fuels.

2. The enforced closure of UK plants that do not meet specified standards. We are in the process of closing eight power stations owing to an EU Directive, even though these stations produce cheaper power than their replacements. The slaughterhouse industry was subject to a large number of closures under EU rules.

3. The insistence on dear energy. This is probably the biggest single job destroyer the EU has so far come up with. We are living through a closure programme affecting petrochemcials, aluminium, steel, and other high energy using industries.

4. Banning or over regulating particular products. For example,  the herbal medicines and food supplements industry and retail  has been hit by the application of much more expensive regulations affecting these businesses.

           You could have a successful free trade area between the leading members of the EU. All you need is the simple rule that if something is of merchandisable quality in country A it can be offered for sale in country B.  Thus English cheeses, regulated by the UK authorities, can be offered for sale as English cheeses in France without additional French or EU regulation, and in turn French cheeses can be offered for sale in the UK without additional UK rules. What more do we need? Customers should decide what they like, based on reading the label which should include the country of origin.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

98 Comments

  1. Steve Cox
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 5:16 am | Permalink

    This is an interesting article, and much of it chimes with my own feelings:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10546394/Europe-is-slowly-strangling-the-life-out-of-national-democracy.html

    His point that opposition to the anti-democratic Brussels dictatorship across Europe comes mainly from the right of the political spectrum should make the likes of Miliband and Clegg deeply ashamed of themselves. The author’s comments on national politics and the contempt with which our leaders hold ordinary voters and party members (at least outside of the most marginal seats) are also apposite to out current predicament. As more and more of the electorate lose interest in politics, and therefore in democracy itself, we should be deeply concerned, but I see no indication of this in the behaviour of the leaders of the three main parties. Indeed, the only party leader actively criticising the current cosy cartel among the three main parties and its ruinous effect on our democracy is Nigel Farage. That speaks volumes to my mind.

    • Hope
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      The article is spot on the money, as are the books he refs to. People need to wake up if the want a sovereign independent UK run by politicians we elect. Not a socialist construct that no citizen has voted for.

    • Mark B
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      People have not lost interest in politics, not more than they have lost interest in eating. Its just they do not like what is not he menu, not to mention the hidden costs of ordering.

    • Timaction
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood of course you are right. However, the EU has never been about trade but the stealthy incremental creation of a super state by LibLabCons, hidden from the people.
      The game is nearly up as even the politically unaware are now realising we don’t want the free movement of the EU’s poor chipping up here to leech off of the system, to add to the overcrowding, to keep wages low, to compete in the job market on minimum wages and receive public services we are taxed to pay, whilst we have to wait longer to receive them.
      The building on the greenbelt, the queues on our roads and in our shopping centres. The teaching assistants working fulltime to help the children who don’t speak English whilst the rest of the class is held up, if you can actually get them into your school of choice.
      I’ve read that there will be a requirement for another Treaty to hasten the ever closer Union, so we may get our referendum by accident not design.
      We want our Country back and our borders secured. The politicos had no mandate to bring the misery of the EU to our shores and lie, lie and lie again.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for the link Steve, I found it very true and very sobering. Perhaps those who blindly support the EU would do us all the service of reading it and giving us their own appraisal.

      Tad

    • uanime5
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

      People are becoming disenfranchised with politics because they feel that most MP are acting in their own interests (such as rewards from the party or jobs at companies they help) rather than acting in the national interest. This would happen even if the UK wasn’t in the EU due to our first past the post electoral system which results in millions of wasted votes and our unelected House of Lords.

      Regarding the EU the author is incorrect because many important decisions are still made by member states (such as privatising the NHS, the bedroom tax, workfare, and trebling tuition fees). He also ignores that only 7% of statutory law originates from the EU, thus most of the laws made by parliament are made by local politicians. So the people in the UK are unlikely to oppose the EU in large numbers any time soon.

      • Hope
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

        Heath included the word essential so he would not be called a liar when he said essential sovereignty and independence would remain. He knew very well the EU would take e UK sovereignty by stealth and it would be hiddenf rom the public.

        Uni, once more, you are incorrect in socialist drivel. The infectious disease called the EU has invaded every part of our life and the MPs are but a token gesture to help implement the EU superstate. The EU did not commit regime change in Italy and Greece to let national politics florish. Perhaps waved Davey is too scared to oppose the EU after what occurred with Thatcher. Then he should have made sure Europhiles like Clarke were not within a million miles of government. Stop writing absolute rot.

  2. Arschloch
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Well just who signed us up to the single market in the first place? I remember point 1 being well argued at the time, but despite all the arguments to the contrary you just went a head and got us into this mess.

    Incidentally as the first of a new wave of Bulgarians and Romanians come to the UK, has anybody managed to solve one of the great mysteries of the universe as to why they are prepared to travel to take a job here and HMG continues to pay non contributory benefits to a large proportion of the indigenous population to sit around and do nothing?

    reply I voted No in 1975 and advised against signing the Single European market proposals.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

      Incidentally as the first of a new wave of Bulgarians and Romanians come to the UK, has anybody managed to solve one of the great mysteries of the universe as to why they are prepared to travel to take a job here

      UK minimum wage salaries are considerably higher than the salaries most Bulgarians and Romanians can earn in their own country. So from their perspective they’re moving to a location where they’ll do the same work for much more money.

      Also unlike most of the people in the UK Bulgarians and Romanians working for minimum wage can provide their family with a good quality of life.

      and HMG continues to pay non contributory benefits to a large proportion of the indigenous population to sit around and do nothing?

      Well that’s because all the programmes they government spent billions on didn’t get more people into work.

      • Hope
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:30 am | Permalink

        How do know they are here to find jobs? Did they tell you? Wake up man. There is no reliable way of counting people in or out of the country. However observations in towns and cities, schools, hospitals make it quite clear the UK is being overwhelmed by foreigners. The coalition has had nearly four years to get a procedure in place and have decided not to do so to allow the figures to be manipulated and so they cannot be held to account for the continuing mass immigration of Labour which has its origins int he EU for an integrated populous for the EU superstate.

  3. Richard1
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Most people don’t realize this. The single market is assumed to be the means by which free trade is secured, not a source of burdensome regulation. The 3 million jobs stat is like the one about 97% of scientists supporting global warming theory. A bogus statistic which is endlessly repeated in order to shut down any real debate.

  4. colliemum
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    It is inherent in any bureaucracy to expand and ‘produce’ regulations until life is totally smothered.
    In my view the EU has become such a dead hand on economies and life generally across Europe is that from the start, French bureaucratic procedures have combined with German thoroughness, according to which everything which is not explicitly allowed has to be forbidden.
    Once a bureaucracy has built their empires, it needs a revolution to dismantle them. That is what a look into the history books ought to have taught us.
    It seems to me that the Whitehall Mandarins saw a good thing (for themselves) and advised the politicians accordingly, with the added historical arrogance of the Foreign Office still assuming that they could manipulate ‘the continent’ to their satisfaction.
    To me, it is inexplicable that so many economists in politics and media still seem incapable to see that free markets simply do not prosper when bureaucratic empires stifle everything with their red tape.

    • uanime5
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      Once a bureaucracy has built their empires, it needs a revolution to dismantle them. That is what a look into the history books ought to have taught us.

      The Qing couldn’t dismantle the Ming bureaucracy despite a revolution in China. Also how long was it after Oliver Cromwell removed the King that England brought back the monarchy.

      If anything the history books tell us that people keep going back to the systems they had before the revolution. The only difference is the people in charge of these systems.

      To me, it is inexplicable that so many economists in politics and media still seem incapable to see that free markets simply do not prosper when bureaucratic empires stifle everything with their red tape.

      Germany has a better economy than the UK and much tougher regulations. So it seems that red tape doesn’t always harm economies.

      • Hope
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

        Germany’s ones not gold plate everything it examines it to see how it can be manipulatedt so unite their needs. Something the UK needs to wake up to.r d tape per se without any thought applied is a detriment and harm to our economy. Germany would not peruse such a stupid energy policy either that harms its industrial output.

        • Chris S
          Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

          No they are hurtling headlong into serious problems by closing all their nuclear stations decades before their designed working life is over at huge expense and replacing them with wind and solar !

          All because Merkel ran scared after the Japanese disaster.

  5. Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Yes most of this seems about right. There’s little point in staying inside the EU unless the UK wants to go the whole way and join the Eurozone. That’s not likely to happen and nor should it.
    At one time the anti EU (EC or EEC or whatever) movement was led by those inside the Labour Party who did warn of what has come about. They are still there. I’d hope that the Conservative Right don’t alienate them by linking the case for withdrawal to such right wing causes as climate change scepticism. Those dirty coal powered electricity generation stations probably need to be closed down anyway. But, that should be decided at Westminster in the course of the normal democratic process.
    Europe also imposes unnecessary regulations, according to Martin Howe, on the way the UK conducts its monetary policy. Potentially that is a job destroyer too.
    http://www.brugesgroup.com/events/index.live?article=14040#MartinHowe

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      If you look at the UK’s euro opt-out protocol starting on page 284 here:

      http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0201:0328:EN:PDF

      you’ll find that the UK is exempt from some of the relevant treaty provisions but not all of them.

      This was a legal reason why QE had to be conducted in a convoluted manner, with the Bank of England buying up previously issued gilts from private investors at the same time as the Treasury was selling new gilts to much the same set of private investors at much the same rate.

      It would have been simpler for the Bank to have bought new gilts direct from the Treasury, or to have extended a £375 billion overdraft to the Treasury, but both of those steps would have fallen foul of Article 123 TFEU. You may note that the ECB has been proceeding in the same indirect way of going into the secondary market and buying up large volumes of the bonds issued by the governments of distressed eurozone states, not buying them directly from the governments.

      In 2009 there was also the political reason that either of those courses would have been far too transparent and it would have been far too easy for the general public understand what was going on, which was not the Bank “pumping extra money into the financial system” or “stimulating the economy” as presented in the media, but the Bank indirectly lending money to the Labour government so that it could continue to pay all its bills in full and on time without having to make drastic and politically damaging cuts to its spending in the year leading up to the election.

      • Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

        Denis,
        On a previous thread we were discussing QE, I mentioned that Prof Fama was essentially making the same point of it being just an asset swap?
        (Google: fama asset swap)I was just wondering if you had seen that and had any comment?
        Regards
        Peter

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

          As it has been practised in the UK so far the overall effect of QE is that the Treasury and Bank of England swap their respective IOUs, with the Bank getting the Treasury’s IOUs, gilts, while the Treasury gets the Bank’s IOUs, money.

          However while the Bank still holds all the gilts that it bought and they are an asset the Treasury has spent all the money it got on all those many things that the government spends money on. It’s gone, dispersed when the government paid its bills, and while it is still an asset for those who now have it that money is no longer an asset for the Treasury.

          Every one of those gilts held by the Bank says that the Treasury owes the owner of the gilt money, and as at present the Bank is the owner that means that the Treasury owes the Bank about £375 billion.

          If the Bank continues to hold the gilts to maturity the Treasury will have to pay the Bank that £375 billion out of its future revenues, which means almost entirely its tax revenues; on the other hand if the Banks sells the gilts back to private investors then the Treasury will still have to pay that money, but to the new private owners of the gilts not the Bank.

          The Bank cannot agree to forgive the Treasury this huge debt, because while the Treasury’s IOUs, the gilts, could in principle simply be cancelled, the corresponding Bank’s IOUs, the money, has all been spent by the government and is in circulation in this country and indeed to some extent around the world, and there is no feasible let alone ethical way that it can be cancelled; therefore cancellation of the gilts would lead to the Bank going bust.

        • Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

          Denis,

          You’ve not mentioned the commercial banks and financial institutions. It’s they who get the created cash in the QE process not the Treasury.

          The process as generally understood is:

          The Bank of England creates lots of cash. The theory is to encourage spending and boost the economy. It spends it, buying government bonds from financial firms such as banks, insurance companies and pension funds.

          The BoE get the bonds. The financial firms get the cash. That’s the asset swap.

          The Bonds are indeed an IOU of the Treasury. When the bonds were sold in the first place the Treasury did get the money (that is normal practice) but they don’t get it twice over.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted January 3, 2014 at 11:32 am | Permalink

            “You’ve not mentioned the commercial banks and financial institutions. It’s they who get the created cash in the QE process not the Treasury.”

            I have mentioned the various types of financial players who participate in, and in fact make up, the gilts market, under the generic term “private investors”, as in this paragraph in my first comment:

            “This was a legal reason why QE had to be conducted in a convoluted manner, with the Bank of England buying up previously issued gilts from private investors at the same time as the Treasury was selling new gilts to much the same set of private investors at much the same rate.”

            After Darling had started up QE in March 2009 the first question which soon arose was:

            “Why is the Bank of England using almost all of the newly created money to buy up gilts, bonds issued by the Treasury, when Darling had originally said that a large part of it should be spent on buying up private sector assets?”

            Then the second question which arose was:

            “Why is the Treasury continuing to sell new gilts about as fast as the Bank is now buying up previously issued gilts?”

            Well, it was not difficult to see that the second question actually answered the first question: the Bank could have used the newly created money to buy up corporate bonds, but the Treasury doesn’t sell corporate bonds to fund the budget deficit; or it could have bought up property, but the Treasury doesn’t have that much property which it could easily sell to make ends meet; it could have bought up company shares, but outside of privatisations the government doesn’t sell company shares to get money to pay its bills; to be effective in helping to bridge the government’s yawning budget deficit the Bank had to buy up something that the government was selling, and that it could easily carry on creating and selling in large volumes, that something was gilts.

            On December 30th JR was kind enough to publish my very long screed here:

            http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2013/12/30/do-we-need-higher-interest-rates/

            starting:

            “Clearly there was no shortage of investors who were prepared to go along with what the Treasury and the Bank wanted to do … ”

            in which I referred back to one of my comments posted in April 2009.

            In that comment nearly five years ago I had given details of two recent reverse auctions that the Bank had held to BUY previously issued gilts, while in the same week the Treasury had held two auctions to SELL new gilts to much the same set of investors.

            Basically the Labour government got the Bank to rig the gilts market so that it could carry on with its over-spending during the year leading up to the general election; and the political consequences of the Tories’ failure to explain that to the electorate have been immense and are still with us, in fact it not only partly determined the outcome of the 2010 election but will partly determine the outcome of the 2015 election as well, given that the Tories were forced into a coalition with the LibDems and the latter then blocked the boundary changes that the Tories needed to have a reasonable chance of winning a Commons majority.

          • Posted January 3, 2014 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

            So, why does Prof Fama (Nobel Laureate) call QE ‘just an asset swap’ and ‘ no big deal’, do you think?

            You seem hung up about two things.

            Firstly: that the Treasury might come out of it all better (or worse ?) than the BoE. As they are both owned by the Government that really doesn’t matter in the slightest. You can divide up your own personal affairs into the ‘Treasury of Denis Cooper’ and the ‘Bank of Denis Cooper’ in any way you like. You can have one give the other an IOU for £375 billion if you like. You can decide whether it is going to be paid or whether there’s a default. It doesn’t matter. You won’t be any better, or worse, off either way.

            Secondly, that QE is linked , by printing money, to overspending by Governments. That’s just not the case. The spending was done when the the bonds were first issued. All governments have done that and, of course it is a legitimate POV to say that perhaps they shouldn’t have spent quite so much. But QE (the process of buying them back) doesn’t change any of that. QE doesn’t mean the Government gets to spend this £375 billion twice over.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted January 3, 2014 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

            There’s a lack of common understanding here which impedes sensible discussion, so let’s start with your mistaken idea that:

            “The spending was done when the bonds were first issued.”

            That is simply wrong; the reason that the Treasury sells its bonds, gilts, to private investors is to get in money so that government departments can then spend it, tax revenues being insufficient to cover all their expenditure.

            That is why this recent press notice from the Treasury’s Debt Management Office:

            http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docName=/gilts/press/121213conventional.pdf

            is headed:

            “RESULT OF THE SALE BY AUCTION OF £4500 MILLION OF 1¾% TREASURY GILT 2019″.

            It’s a SALE, the Treasury selling the gilts by auction and getting money from the private investors who purchase them; it doesn’t involve the creation of any new money by the Treasury or the spending of any money by the Treasury, apart from the minor incidental expenses of holding the auction and so on.

            It’s no different to the government selling shares in Royal Mail to get in money that it can then spend, except that:

            a) There is no defined limit to the bonds that the Treasury can sell, it can just keep issuing more, while in contrast once Royal Mail has been sold off it will not be possible to sell it off again; and

            b) The owners of the bonds issued by the Treasury have to be repaid, while the government won’t have to make any future payments to those who now own shares in Royal Mail.

            And it’s also no different from a company issuing bonds to raise money, for example:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/shell-plans-benchmark-offering-with-first-bond-sale-since-2010.html

            “Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA), Europe’s largest oil producer, raised $2.5 billion with its first bond offering since 2010 in a three-part sale.”

            Except that in the case of Shell:

            “The company’s Shell International Finance unit …will use proceeds for general corporate purposes … ”

            while in case of the Treasury selling gilts, as in that last auction back in December, the proceeds are used for the government’s purposes, ie paying its bills.

          • Posted January 4, 2014 at 1:08 am | Permalink

            Denis,

            OK I’ll go along, for now, with your argument that the government first sells the bonds /gilts to the private sector.

            So, say, it sells £1 million of gilts which are bought by Barclays bank. It then spends that on Mr Redwoods and other MP’s salaries :-) or whatever.

            Say it then decides to buy those gilts back from Barclays. It creates £1 million of new money. Barclays get that plus maybe a little extra to keep it sweet. The government get back the bonds which they tear up.

            Barclays are then back where they started with £1 million of government money in their reserve account at the BoE. The government now have no liability to repay the bonds when they reach maturity.

            So what’s the big deal? We now know that they’ve covered their deficit by printing money rather than borrowing it. But, we knew that was what they did anyway, didn’t we?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted January 4, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

            Right, so the Debt Management Office, an executive agency of the Treasury, has held an auction to sell a block of gilts, IOUs issued by the Treasury, to private investors; and a bid from Barclays has been accepted, and it has duly paid £1 million of money, IOUs issued by the Bank of England, to purchase some of those gilts; and the Treasury has got that money and passed it on to government departments to help them pay their bills, while Barclays has got the gilts.

            Barclays could now sell those gilts on to some other investor through the secondary market, swapping them for money, but let’s suppose that they hold the gilts and get paid the interest (or “coupon”) every six months, money paid by the Treasury to the owners of its bonds, until a time when the Debt Management Office holds one of its rather rare reverse auctions and offers to buy them back.

            Like this last one held in February 2001, one of only five such reverse auctions recorded on its website:

            http://www.dmo.gov.uk/documentview.aspx?docName=/gilts/press/pr01005.pdf

            “The DMO is inviting offers from holders of these stocks to sell all or part of their holdings … ”

            So far so good, but now you go completely wrong again by supposing that the Treasury would create new money to pay Barclays for the gilts; it didn’t create new money to buy back the gilts after that reverse auction in February 2001, it used existing money that it had collected in taxes, mainly, perhaps with some that it had got from private investors by selling off public assets; and it wouldn’t create new money to buy back any of the gilts which are currently in issue, nominal value £1365 billion:

            http://www.dmo.gov.uk/reportView.aspx?rptCode=D1A&rptName=16717760&reportpage=D1A

            of which just over a quarter, £375 billion, are held by what is in effect its captive investor, the Bank of England, while the rest are held by normal gilts investors; all of those will have to be paid off by the Treasury collecting existing money from you and me and everyone else as taxes, once again possibly with some relatively small contributions from selling off whatever public assets remain to be sold off.

            You say:

            “So what’s the big deal? We now know that they’ve covered their deficit by printing money rather than borrowing it. But, we knew that was what they did anyway, didn’t we?”

            and my reply is that for the great majority of the electorate the answer would have been “no” when they went to vote on May 6th 2010; many of them didn’t even understand what was meant by the government’s “deficit”, let alone how large it was or that the Labour government was having to borrow a quarter of all the money it was spending, and had arranged wholesale rigging of the gilts market so that would remain possible; and as I said recently I doubt that even now, nearly five years after it was started, there is one person in ten who fully understands that QE was never intended to “stimulate the economy”, as they were told by the mass media, it was above all a device to enable the Labour government to carry on with its normal overspending during the year running up to the general election and so avoid the electoral annihilation that it properly deserved for its gross economic and financial mismanagement.

  6. Leslie Singleton
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    John, Your reference to international trade rules….[now] preventing retaliatory tariffs and other impediments to trade is presumably based on fact, in fact I know it is. But does Brussels agree; also (again) why do we not see more on this crucial aspect in the papers? Best I know, it was the tariff wall against us that was the only reason we went in in the first place (note I did not say that even then it was a sufficient one) but then who knows what was in traitor Heath’s mind? I can imagine it might be difficult to do, but is there no way we could summarise or average the effect of the reduction in tariff walls since then if only approximately? I suspect the drift would be very clear. Does anyone have one of them there links?

    On a different and more specific tack, why should we listen to Brussels’ opinion on slaughter houses? I have visited (and lent money to) some in the past and the rule changes have gone in exactly the wrong direction. The right direction is to slaughter the animals as close to as possible or better yet on their home farm, ideally individually such that they literally do not know what hit them and die happy without realising what was coming and with no travelling . Instead (and of course putting up costs), the animals are now forced to be moved long distances in larger numbers and they can smell their death coming in places that are straight out of hell and of course very frightening for them. Do they have farms in Brussels?

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      As a vegetarian for the last 30 years, I could not agree more with your comments on abattoirs. If you must indulge in slaughter of animals, at least spare them the torment you describe.

      • Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        Mike,
        I take it that you mean that UK standards on animal treatment should be the highest possible.
        Yes I would agree. Most UK voters would too regardless of party affiliation. If the normal workings of Westminster democracy are allowed to function then UK law would require exactly that. There’s no need for the EU in that matter.

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    All of this is obviously true, of course. But we still have Clegg and nearly all the Libdems, cast rubber Cameron, Ed Davey, Ken Clarke, Lord Patten, John Major, Heseltine and the huge BBC propaganda unit, all devoted to endlessly pushing these job destroying lies on behalf of the EU. Also these absurd exaggerations over Anth. Globabal Warming and the expensive, intermittent quack energy religion. Every decent engineer & business person knows the plan is economic lunacy.

    At least Huhne and Yeo have gone I suppose, but we are still heading for a Miliband majority all thanks to the, I threw the last election away, ratter Cameron.

    • Hope
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Yep has not gone. He will not be selected by his local party. JR’s biggest problem is Cameron and his cohorts who will lead the Tory party to destruction. But like the UK fishing grounds and CAP EU are likely to think it is a price worth paying. To the. Majority of us it is not. Nor do we want to be reliant on EU electricity to hold us at ransom to further pressurise the UK to do what the EU says.

      If Cameron w a Eurosceptic as he claimed, he would not have Clarke within the cabinet or Major and Heseltine as advisors.

  8. Jennifer A
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Not only does the EU destroy jobs it intensifies the competition for jobs (and other things) in areas where work remains. It makes things difficult for the ordinary Brit as we are finding out; the ‘feel good’ is, as yet, to be felt from this economic upturn. For many I doubt that it ever will be.

    • Jennifer A
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      Reports today that many young people feel unwanted by society is unsurprising and probably underestimated.

      We are storing up massive problems in this country. Utter betrayal.

      Any ‘gains’ in house price rises will be lost in trying to help fledglings fly the nest.

  9. Iain Gill
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Its not really fair to say “The EU single market destroys jobs” some countries, say Germany and Belgium do rather well out of the EU. It’s more accurate to say the whole of the British political class destroys jobs. The poor quality of our political class, the way they are selected, the way they are insulated from the broad mass of society, and so on is the bigger issue, and that translates into the poor deal they negotiate from the EU, and allow the EU to negotiate with the rest of the world on our behalf.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Iain

      Whilst I agree that the EU has become a political monster.
      I also agree very much with your points about the quality of people who represent and negotiate on our behalf, and who have proven to have been and abject failure in the past, but still seem to hold onto their positions.

      Add to the above the claim culture and the gold plating of all directives and regulations, and it is not hard to see why we are nowhere near as competitive as a Country as we should be.

      We have far too many pointers, pokers, negative thinkers, talkers, bean counters, and far too few productive workers and people with a positive can do attitude.

      Sadly our Host is one of but a few who is actually clued up about the situation.

  10. Mike Stallard
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Christmas joke: I thought the three million jobs referred to the bureaucrats in Brussels!

    Thank you for a very succinct and accurate account of this lie. Well written!

    PS M. Barroso will not agree: what he wants in each of the four points is more and more control. He is quite open about this. I wish he would sometimes appear on TV saying it.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      His background is Maoist even though he has heavily disguised this by joining other parties.

      What else can you expect?

  11. lifelogic
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    I see that some commuter fares are now over £5000 PA. Needless to say, although this is clearly a cost of working (as is child care) it is not tax deductible.

    Unless you are an MP I think the MPs’ creche will cost taxpayers £400,000 I read.

    Also “MPs may claim for certain travel and subsistence expenses, including food and non-alcoholic drinks, incurred in relation to their parliamentary duties. This includes journeys between the constituency and Westminster, travel within the constituency, extended UK travel and journeys to the EU, all subject to specific limitations and conditions set out by IPSA. MPs may also claim for travel and subsistence expenses incurred for family members and members of their staff, again subject to specific conditions. Claims may also be made in relation to late night parliamentary sittings for hotel accommodation and taxi fares.” Tax free benefits too it seems.

    Still we are all in it together as they say!

    • Jennifer A
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      Oughtn’t cars used to get to work be tax deductible too ?

      Try getting insurance as a young person – £3000 a year, every year for a small car. All because they have been lumped in with idiots and cash-for-crash gangs, many of uncertain origin.

      Can we blame them for getting the message that they are not wanted and should give up looking for work ?

      We have made things incredibly difficult for our own – and it is about to get difficult for relative newcomers too as newcomer undercuts and takes resources from newcomer.

      When will the madness stop ?

      • lifelogic
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

        Indeed if tax and NI take such a large proportion of wages as they do then the true costs of working need to be tax deductible, otherwise you might as well not work.

        As many choose to do.

  12. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    It may be a good idea to remember how things were done prior to joining the union, although I am little concerned that you mentioned the possibility of retaliatory steps.When the treaties were signed presumably the UK imagined that all would abide by the terms and conditions, yet in previous articles you have stated that they have moved away from the original intention of the treaties , especially Maastricht ; what is it that convinces you that exit conditions will not be equally breached?

  13. TGod
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    John, you are a eurosceptic in a europhile party even your own party leader is on record as saying he would vote in a referendum to stay in the EU whatever the conditions.

    It is good that you make these auguments but unfortunately the majority of conservative MP’s are europhiles so we have no prospect of any escape from the EU.

    Obviously if there were to be a referendum on the EU over some cosmetic changes your party would join the other parties and campaign to stay in and that would be the result.

    Reply Cosmetic changes cannot work and would mean Conservatives voted for Out.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      Against the wishes of your leader? I doubt it. If you mean Conservative party members across the country, then that dwindling band would have supported a pro-EU leader and in Parliament your party’s record is dismal – remember the vote of confidence over Maastricht?

      • lifelogic
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        Indeed too many career politicians in the party they would vote with EUphile, heart and soul, Cameron or change party. Not that Cameron will win in 2015 anyway.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        Talking of a ‘dwindling band’ – 3 million members in the 1950s, a hundred thousand now.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      John are you suggesting that if Mr Cameron wins the next election, and then eventually manages to negotiate some small concessions with the EU, and he then puts down a three line whip to stay in, then the majority of Conservatives would vote against it.

      That is a big call, with rather too many if’s for my liking.

      I think we have far too much Party fodder for that to happen.

      Now if it was a free vote, perhaps, just perhaps enough may have some courage, but history on the EU voting record of many would suggest even that may not be enough.

      But

      We live in hope.

      Keep on plugging away John, eventually some will open their eyes and ears.

      Reply Remember it is the electorate who decides whether the renegotiation is sufficient or not, not the MPs.It is put to a referendum.In the referendum many Conservatives will be for Out unless there is a great deal on offer.

      • Chris S
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        Can we please have the debate here and now on the Red Lines we need to see in the renegotiation ?

        There has been far too much skirting around these issues in the media. I’m quite sure some one as intelligent as you, John, will already have them all written down ready to go.

        Please share your thoughts with us.

        Reply I have done so. I want a new relationship based on free trade and political co-operation, where we have a veto over any instruction to us.

        • Mark B
          Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

          Reply to reply.

          You will not get anything meaningful from the EU, Barroso has said as much. That is why these ‘Red Lines’ are your @red Lines’ and not Cameron’s. Neither of you are doing the negotiating, as arch Euophile is.

          The only way, and ‘THIS IS THE ONLY WAY’, is to invoke Article 50. This compels other EU Member states to negotiate terms of our withdrawal.

          Anything else is just a sham.

        • Chris S
          Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

          I agree that you have outlined your views in extremely broad terms but if we went into negotiations demanding :

          “a new relationship based on free trade and political co-operation, where we have a veto over any instruction to us”

          the discussions would last about the length of time it would take to say it out loud and the only answer we would get would be a resounding “NO”.

          The campaign for an EU referendum is currently in the same situation as the Scots Nats are in : they demand independence but can’t explain exactly what they want or how it can be achieved.

          My reference would be to leave under a free trade agreement but we have to allow Cameron to try his renegotiation strategy first.

          However, people of our persuasion cannot be brought on board unless a reasoned and detailed argument is made with Red Lines set out clearly so that both sides understand what is going to be required for a deal that voters will be likely to accept.

          Until that happens, The renegotiation strategy cannot be taken seriously.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

        Just to be clear … (I know we well never be actually given an ‘in/out’ referendum but, if we are, will the referendum be binding on the government?

        Reply Yes, there will be an In/Out referendum if we have a Conservative majority government, and the government will then enact the will of the people.

        • Mark B
          Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

          Reply to reply.

          It is unlikely that we will have anything to vote on in 2017 as the EU will be in full new Treaty negotiations, and the successors to Barroso and Van Rompuy will not allow Cameron to gate crash this party.

          Things are going on that either you cannot see or will not talk about. Either way, Cameron is not in the driving seat and has nothing to offer.

  14. Alan Wheatley
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Analysis OK.

    So what is the plan? The subject of a future post?

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    It was projected that over a period of years the EU Single Market would enhance the collective GDP of the member states by about 5%.

    Of course a one-off increase of that magnitude is valuable, but it has to be put into the context of the natural growth of the UK economy at a long term trend rate of something like 2.5% a year; in other words the projected economic benefits of the EU Single Market would have been equivalent to maybe a couple of years of natural growth.

    In fact as far I’m aware that projected 5% benefit has not been achieved, and to the extent that it has led to an increase in GDP a substantial part of that is connected with people being employed to ensure compliance with its regulations, which is why many businesses say that for them the costs of the Single Market seem to exceed its benefits.

    Now when Open Europe discuss the potential benefits of completing the Single Market in services they are talking about projected one-off increases amounting to a few per cent of GDP; and going beyond that, the point which is most striking about the planned EU-US trade deal is its economic insignificance, and similarly with the mooted WTO deal:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/indonesia/10502425/Deal-to-boost-global-trade-reached-at-WTO-summit-w.html

    The government bandies around numbers to suggest that we would be missing out on a great bonanza if we were not part of that planned EU-US trade deal, but on the basis of those numbers it would provide a one-off increase of GDP of only 0.7%, equivalent to the natural growth of the UK economy over just a few months; and similarly with the mooted WTO deal, as its projected benefits would be equivalent to the natural growth of the world economy over just a few months.

    The overall message seems to be that trade has long been freed up to such a extent that we are now into diminishing returns and there is little more to gain.

    • forthurst
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

      “The government bandies around numbers to suggest that we would be missing out on a great bonanza if we were not part of that planned EU-US trade deal”

      JR suggested that it was ok for the French to sell us their cheese without us having to separately approve of its comestibility. I would tend to trust the French, gastronomically speaking. However, with regard to a US-EU trade deal on similar terms, are people aware that US corporations assist the US Congress by bankrolling its members and with the construction of legislation designed to assert the wholesomeness of their produce, entirely without any form of independent testing, or consequent liability. Should it be subsequently determined that what is being sold us is unwholesome and unsafe, where would be the comeback?

      On the general matter of merchantable quality, does an item of computer technology, hardware or software, constructed with a backdoor, pass the test of merchantability?

      Reply The US has high standards of food production with a regulatory agency that enforces food safety.

      • forthurst
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

        Reply to Reply. I was actually referring specifically to a supplier of genetically modified seeds whose mature plants are allegedly not affected in terms of their wholesomeness as food, either for animals or humans, by being doused with a highly toxic chemical not the general point.

  16. Douglas Carter
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    The ‘three million jobs’ mantra is a tedious charade which has origins in a commissioned report from the year 2000. It was quickly discredited – first yet by the agency which originated the report. That irrelevant and mediocre politicians cling to it as authoritative wisdom is not necessarily important. It’s rather a shame our current Prime Minister refuses to stand at the dispatch box and highlight just how empty the claims are on the public record.

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    JR: “We need to deal with the big lie of the federalists, that the EU supports or creates 3 million jobs in the UK and the single market is an enterprise friendly job creating bonus to us.”
    Most reading your blog agree with you but it ends there.You need to find a much wider audience. Unfortunately, your leader, most MPs and the BBC won’t listen to you.

  18. peter davies
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    The “3 million jobs” I read comes from some dubious research carried out around 12 years ago though the Lib Dems in particular have been keen not to show what it is based on.

    Being part of the EEA gives you the free trade you talk about in itself does it not? Which we are part of (Switzerland isn’t) anyway.

  19. 21stcnow
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    Dear O dear John can you not start a New Year with a little more joy? You are always so down. Why are you so intensely unhappy? Something in your genes? Your nonsense, day in day out about the EU is a fantasy of a deeply depressing order. Your belief system is bordering on the absurd. Where is its intelligence? Where its hope? The EU exists. We are in it thanks largely to your Party. Thanks to your heroine Maggie T. It provides us with a market for our goods. It proffers a market for the manufactures you supposedly want to reengineer Britain towards. The arrogance that the rest of the EU must buy our goods is daft? What is it built on? Pure unadultered conceit and arrogance. How does the single market destroy jobs when at the same time you are crowing about the growth of jobs since 2010? Your maths do not add up. Your logic does not add up. You used to be taken as a serious politician with good ideas worthy of import. Increasingly, such nonsenses as above are sidelining you to the fringe of the politically intellectually challenged. Throw off the deeply negative mindset you have unnecessarily addicted yourself to. It is not impressive but to a tiny sick minority. It is not intelligent. You could be a better man than what you have become. 2014 could be the year of your rebirth into the world of sane, sensible, modern, forward lookng thinking not a backward looking closed little mindset of Britains Alf Garnets.

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      This is an unfounded, patronising rhetort. Whilst Salmond is in the process of an attempt to Devo Max Scotland , there is little England , which is being eroded to the core and losing its identity to other races. The Union would be happy with this . Historically it wouldbe pay back for remaining independent and in control of our own situation .The nonsense and naivity is to think that collective psychology does not take into account the competitive nature of Country against Country.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      Thanks to your heroine Maggie T. It provides us with a market for our goods.

      An absurd comment. The people in Europe are a market for our goods. If they want to buy them, they will buy them. Do people in Europe buy goods from China? WHY? China are not in the EU! We do not need to be in the European Union to sell goods to European people.

      EU countries sell more to us than we do to them. Why would they want to stop selling to us, and buying from us, if we left the EU? Do explain. Everywhere I go I see BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Volkswagen, Skoda, Peugeot and Citroen cars (and vans). Why on earth would you jeopardise such a large market?

      Your diatribe is nonsensical.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      @21stcnow

      Given the tone and incoherency of your rant I’m afraid it is YOU who has the issues whoever you are.

      Have a careful look through this blog and you will find well put, reasonable arguments before you start throwing cheap insults. Mr Redwood does not throw abuse, or throw around cheap comments like many do, he lays out the facts based on evidence and rightly questions govt policy and strategy.

      You would need to be blind or stupid to not understand the democratic and economic damage being bought upon us all at the behest of the EU – please check out your facts and then come back with some rational arguments explaining in specific terms why you think he is wrong.

  20. Mark B
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    John Redwood MP said;

    “We need to deal with the big lie of the federalists . . . ”

    No we do not. What needs to be done is to explain the positives of returning to being a self-governing nation. This is not about economics, policies, trade or jobs. This is about who we choose to manage our affairs, for and on our behalf.

    And.

    “The single market may have started out as a well intentioned project to allow freer trade between EU member states, but soon became a power grab by regulators and governors . . . ”

    Not true ! You may believe this, and I believe that you do earnestly believe it, but you are wrong !

    The founding fathers of today’s EU (eg Jean Monnet) set out right from the very beginning, before the Second World War to create a United States of Europe (USE) but, they had a problem. No one wanted anything to do with the idea, not that that stopped them. It was not until after the end of the Second World War, and all the horrors of that conflict were truly known, that the idea of an USE gained some traction. But although people like Churchill thought the idea a good one, he did not want the UK to be part of it, much preferring the Council of Europe instead.

    Monnet and others pressed on. In the wartime words of Churchill, “the truth must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies”, they created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor of the EEC/EC/EU. They used trade as a way of luring nations into handing small amounts of sovereignty in return for some economic benefits. But the Treaty of Rome, which came later, made perfectly clear, signatories were bound to ‘Ever closer Union.’ This the Conservative Government of Edward Heath signed us up to, knowing full well what he was signing and lying to Parliament and the Nation about its true nature.

    As for your list:

    From 1-5. We signed up to these rules. If you do not like it, then leave. It’s their club and it is their rules. They not seem to want to change the rules to suit you. Well, that’s just tough. If you do not want to leave, then you should just stop complaining.

    1. That’s what it means to be part of a Customs Union and to allow a foreign power to dictate to you.

    2. We ‘Gold Plated’ the original EU Legislation, failed to plan properly a head, bought hook-line-and-sinker the scam of climate change. Vote BLUE, get GREEN.

    3. The EU neither creates or destroys jobs, just like Government. Only business and entrepreneurs create wealth and jobs. The Commission proposes legislation and woks within the confines of the Treaties negotiated between Member States.

    4. The EU, much like our own Government has exposed itself to various pressure and lobby groups. It is these groups, some funded by the EU as well as the Government that have called for and imposed legislation which is damaging the economies of the Member States. Deal with these people and create a better local, national and supranational democratic institutions and you might actually get somewhere.

    “You could have a successful free trade area between the leading members of the EU.”

    Yes. Its called the, European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and we were one of the founding members, but left. EFTA coupled with EEA membership is all that the UK requires. It gives everyone, the UK, UK Government, and UK business, access to the Single Market without the political and economic interference from Brussels. This is not talked up enough.

    The rules of the Single Market need to be established. This is primarily done by the EU and the Commission. Non-EU, but EEA Members do get a great say in the making of the rules (initially) but the final decision rests with the EU.

    Outside the EU, the UK can pursue other regulatory memberships free from EU interference. It can via these memberships, which are global, introduce legislation over and above the EU and its institutions, forcing the EU and EEA to adopt policies more to our, and others liking.

    At this point I will stop writing as is is getting too long. Sorry.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      @Mark B

      “Yes. Its called the, European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and we were one of the founding members, but left. EFTA coupled with EEA membership is all that the UK requires. It gives everyone, the UK, UK Government, and UK business, access to the Single Market without the political and economic interference from Brussels. This is not talked up enough.”

      You have put this yourself in one sentence – EEA and EFTA, why do so few politicians and journalists fail to mention this as a viable trade option? I even heard someone on ITV linking Norway with free people movement as a condition of access to the EU Single Market which is b*****cks who should have known full well that for some reason they signed up to Schengen.

      It seems like the so called consensus on climate change, there seems to be some sort of mass cabal driving this whole federal EU thing – I wish the likes of National Broadcasters and the political establishment would wake up and smell the coffee.

      • Mark B
        Posted January 2, 2014 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        @Peter

        Schengen is open boarders without passports. One of the ‘Four Freedoms’ of the EEA/Single Market is the free movement of people. ie An EU Citizen and EFTA/EEA member citizen has the same employment and social benefit rights as you and I. This comes from the Treaties of Rome and Maastricht, both negotiated and signed by a Conservative Government. We also have the Single European Act, also negotiated and signed by a Conservative Government.

        Certain opt-outs where agreed but ‘I believe’ the last Labour Government removed them. So we have ended up with a situation we have today.

        EFTA/EEA membership is part of a journey to return the UK back to be a proper self governing, sovereign, democracy.

        Eventually, I hope, that the UK will have the same arrangements but better terms than say Switzerland or any other country.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Area

    • uanime5
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

      Yes. Its called the, European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and we were one of the founding members, but left. EFTA coupled with EEA membership is all that the UK requires. It gives everyone, the UK, UK Government, and UK business, access to the Single Market without the political and economic interference from Brussels.

      Members of the EFTA have to implement almost all EU law even though they have no influence over these laws. So it isn’t access to the single market without the political and economic interference from Brussels. We’ll also only have access to the EU’s good market but not their services market.

      Outside the EU, the UK can pursue other regulatory memberships free from EU interference. It can via these memberships, which are global, introduce legislation over and above the EU and its institutions, forcing the EU and EEA to adopt policies more to our, and others liking.

      Care to explain why the US hasn’t done this to force the EU to adopt policies that are more to their liking? Could it be because this doesn’t work.

      • Hope
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

        The Swiss and Norway do by well and have a say at the world table equal tot he say of the EU not a small voice within the EU as one of twenty seven or so sheep. Moreover, the Swiss has just negotiated what immigration it will allow into the country, can the UK do this from within? NO. The UK could also make trade deals with whoever it wished without EU approval if it was not in the EU herd. It could also act in its own national interest irrespective if it upset the other EU countries.

        66 percent in-built majority. Next year for the caucus of Eurozone countries who find themselves in a economic perilous position. Not likely to be interested in what the UK might want.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 11:40 am | Permalink

        “Members of the EFTA have to implement almost all EU law even though they have no influence over these laws.”

        You’ve been repeatedly corrected on this, but still keep trotting it out.

      • Mark B
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        @ uanime5

        You absolute rotter ! I said EFTA/EEA. As you have been told time and time again, the EEA/Single Market covers the ‘Four Freedoms’, two of which are free movement of services, and the free movement of capital.

        I’ll post a link for you as you are so keen on them. Not that you bother ever to look at them, judging by your refusal to accept my position.

        http://www.efta.int/eea/policy-areas

        U5 said;

        “Care to explain why the US hasn’t done this to force the EU to adopt policies that are more to their liking? Could it be because this doesn’t work.”

        Care to post me a link supporting your statement ?

        The USA is part of UNECE. Read it and weep !

        http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/governing_bodies.html

  21. Amanda
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    There is benefit in repeating the truth about the EU, (and your blog seems to be read and quoted more often, but not on the BBC !!) but many of us know this already. Perhaps it is your ‘two faced’, weak minded, Leader you need to convince.

    What We want to work on, is the antidote. I could fill my days reading comments from anti-EU bloggers, but all just bemoan the situation; we need more action.

    You are very scathing of those people who intend to vote Ukip, but they at least are doing something. Either you get rid of Cameron as leader, or voters will have to get rid of the Trojan horse Tory party – the bit that did for Mrs T, and is now using the EU loving LibDems for cover !!

    Whilst you are in some sort of power, why are your fellow Tory ‘Eurosceptics’, not doing more to rid us of having to pay the BBC licence fee (the only way to cut of the lifeline to this EU propaganda unit). I would have thought the BBC has done quite enough in the last couple of years to demonstrate its utter corruption.

    Anti-EU sentiment, is just comment – it needs backing with more organized action; which is what I believe Richard North and Co are trying to do with their Harrogate Agenda. Perhaps Tories in Government who see the truth could work with others outside the Party a little more – in times of danger rivals can make better bedfellows !!!

    • Jennifer A
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      Excellent comment Amanda.

    • Mark B
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      All good stuff Amanda.

      The BBC is moving way outside the terms of its Charter, as I am sure our kind host might agree. Dealing with the licence fee I think will be a bit of a vote winner. Too many people are being criminalized and the Courts are being clogged up because the BBC wants its money.

      Technology has made the concept of a Licence Fee redundant and its time that this was openly discussed a head of the 2015 GE so that the electorate will know were the various parties stand on this issue.

      If we can privatize our utilities, mail services a parts of our armed services, then I do not see any reason for anyone to abject the BBC going over to subscription.

  22. Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    This is an interesting article written by one of my favourite economists. The EMU was the forerunner of the Euro and Wynne Godley, as always, was spot on with his warning.

    ” The danger, then, is the budgetary restraint to which governments are individually committed will impart a deflationary bias that locks Europe, as a whole, into a depression it is powerless to lift”

    http://www.concertedaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Curried-EMU.jpg

  23. Bert Young
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    I draw your attention to Peter Oborne’s article in the Telegraph today – the essence is “Political Parties are divorced from the opinions of the electorate”; how true . He mentions the decline in membership of the Conservative Party – a huge fall in support and still dwindling . My mind was fresh with these facts when I read your blog this morning ; a wake up call indeed . EU bureaucracy is a stifling effect on the economy of our country and we must make the break from its influences . UKIP will lead the way in the initial response when May arrives , but it does not have the depth in its leadership to continue afterwards . I believe strongly in the resurgence of the Conservatives led by its right wing members and a marked change in its leadership ; shedding itself of those who are misguided by short-term political motives is the best way forward ; UKIP can then be absorbed into its ranks and the way forward will be in keeping with the will and wishes of the electorate.

  24. oldtimer
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Thank you for nailing the big lie about 3 million jobs, frequently repeated by Mr Clegg. I await his response with interest, and that of the BBC which repeats it.

    One response will be no response, for them to ignore it. That seems to be the standard operating procedure when faced with arguments for which they have no answer. This is certainly the case with DECC`s non responses to questions put to them via my MP.

  25. behindthefrogs
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    The government needs to take strong action to get rid of EU quotas that stop us being self sufficient simply to benefit other often subsidised countries. Milk quotas are a specific example where we should be self sufficient. Similarly fishing quotas should not be allocated in such a way that we import fish caught under other countries’ quotas.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      you mean “import our own fish” whilst 100k native UK fishermen have been forced out of business – you couldn’t make it up!

  26. Posted January 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    I used to use Sodium Chlorate for weed killing on my drive and patio. It never did any harm except when misused by terrorists. Yet it was banned by the EU as dangerous, and the main “approved” weedkiller is now made by a Major German company, who seem to have largely cornered the market in agro-chemicals. I wonder who proposed the EU ban? I certainly have my suspicions.
    Similarly the recent proposals concerning olive oil, fortunately rejected, was to the advantage of the big producers and would have closed the smaller ones all over Italy. Again, I wonder who wanted the changes?

    Another “by-product” of the EU rules is that they hurt third word countries which are trying to fend for themselves. Didn’t the Prime Minister from one African country recently say that he’d rather the EU allowed him to trade with the EU than receive their foreign aid? We should trade with any country that wants to trade with Britain provided it is done on mutually acceptable terms and without EU interference.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

      this has been mentioned time and time again – CAP helps keep out African food producers who would otherwise be able to grow large businesses, setup their own supply chains and employ loads of people rather than rely on western aid handouts

  27. fkc
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    You are spot on with your latest posting. I agree that we have been hampered too long by unelected bodies. Where do we start and what to do. I look forward to the next developments with eager interest.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      fkc wrote: I agree that we have been hampered too long by unelected bodies.

      I would say the opposite is true. We are hampered by politicians and elections. All they think about – all of them – day and night – is ‘the next election’ and how they can buy enough votes to get re-elected. Councillors and MPs alike – they are all the same.

      They will an election and then, every single thing they do is couched in terms of ‘How will this go down at the next election? How many votes will this cost us?’

      As such it is impossible for us to have long term and coherent energy, defence, education and health policies. As for infrastructure, it is a miracle anything ever gets done.

  28. lojolondon
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    John, as you mention above (and Amanda and oldtimer repeat) – the Biased BBC is extremely culpable in this regard – they have a massive monopoly over the information that is delivered within the UK. They push their agenda, which is pure propaganda and has nothing to do with the news or education, and they will not publish or broadcast any contrary information or point of view.
    I have no doubt they are well-meaning, but their lack of commitment to honest reporting has done untold damage to the UK.

    The BBC believes :

    Left-wing good, right wing bad
    Labour good, Conservatives bad
    Palestine good, Israel bad
    Democrats good, Republicans bad
    Diversity good, national identity bad
    Wind power good, cheap power bad
    Northern UK good, Southern UK bad
    EU good, UK bad
    Muslim fundamentalists good, Christian fundamentalists bad
    Communism good, capitalism bad
    Government good, private sector bad
    Rioters good, policemen bad

    This lefty-communist-academic positioning dominates every message we ever get on the BBC, to the point where people in BBC soaps and ‘comedy’ will be repeating the same garbage – anecdotes about GW Bush, climate change, the EU, Conservatives, Israel, etc.

    • peter davies
      Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      you should see some of the books my kids get from school that have BBC origins explaining how good the NHS is

  29. zorro
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    All I will say on the matter is……. Vive Cassis de Dijon Principle!….. How very European of me…..

    zorro

  30. Antisthenes
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    If the UK were to leave the EU it is not over optimistic to assume that 3 million jobs would be created. As you say trade will still carry on with the EU even under their stupid rules and regulations that only help protectionist France (the euro of course is solely for the benefit of Germany as it is a much weaker currency than the DM would be). The extra jobs would come from as you also say from having control of our own waters, agriculture, shale gas (which Brussels and especially the EP are determined that we shall never extract), energy policy and of course have unfettered access to trade with the rest of the world. This presupposes of course that the UK eco-loons and the left are not allowed to interfere in their usual way.

  31. Narrow shoulders
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    It is rare that I read a post on this blog with such lucid logic and well crafted points that I just can not agree with. Similar to listening to Bob Crowe or Ken Livingstone the argument is flawless because so much remains unmentioned.

    Jobs are destroyed due to the profiteering of business. The CEO’s package takes precedence over other factors hence the free movement of cheap and exploitable labour (as the Poles become more expensive their negotiating hand is forced by opening the market to those from further east) and our taxes being used to subsidise increased profits by credits for low wages.

    Business will invariably seek tbe lowest cost base to output the quality its customer base demands. If Romania where much of the horsemeat came from accepts horsemeat then by the logic above horsemeat may enter the food chain. Business will gravitate to areas such as these leaving only the luxury market protected.

    Businesses reduce jobs as much as regulation I am afraid. The EU however does take a sledgehammer to crack a nut in the instances you mention above

  32. Posted January 2, 2014 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    John, you mentioned food.

    What we are doing now is dangerous in my view.

    The UK food importers and supermarkets have reduced the amount of mobile food technologists whose job it was to ensure the quality and wholesomeness of foods being imported.

    With the introduction of supposedly common standards they have relied more heavily on suppliers providing assurances that they are complying with eu regulations when it comes to food safety. The policing that was carried out previously has effectively been delegated to government inspectors in the respective nations.

    On paper this may look good as it means that large corporations can save a lot of money by having less skilled staff on the books while relying on adherence to eu standards.

    In my experience, however, many UK importers are fully aware that in different cultures, policing and enforcement are very different from one state to another. While they may think they can enjoy higher margins by procuring from eu states with very light (or corrupt) enforcement, they are in fact creating the conditions for large outbreaks of food poisoning.

  33. Dennis
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood is correct. The EU rules have stopped me manufacturing a model of car which Mr Redwood would certainly promote if allowed as it is much cheaper to make. It needs only one wheel to have a brake, no windows except for a windscreen, no heater and wooden seats -who needs cushioning?

    That obligatory cleaner sources of power etc. are more expensive is equally an absurd
    restriction on laissez – faire conditions.

    Reply Silly response. What is clean about wind power when you take into account the construction of the machines and towers, and the back up plant for when it is not running.

  34. miami.mode
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    When faced with the “3 million jobs” statement, I despair of interviewers who do not ask for details such as what jobs and/or what industries.

    When N Clegg has to answer questions as Deputy PM why does nobody seem to ask these questions following his many assertions.

  35. uanime5
    Posted January 2, 2014 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

    If the UK was not in the EU we would still be exporting to the continent, because they would still want to export to us and would have to reach a sensible arrangement on terms and tariffs. It would also be regulated by international trade rules anyway, preventing retaliatory tariffs and other impediments to trade.

    If the UK was not in the EU and didn’t want to obey EU law we would be subject to the same tariffs as the USA and China. This would make UK goods more expensive, resulting in less of them being sold within the EU. As less goods are being sold less people would be needed to produce these goods resulting in job losses.

    Let’s not forget that no country outside of the EU has access to the EU’s services market so any UK jobs involved with the EU service sector will be lost if the UK leaves the EU. Given that the UK currently has a trade surplus with the EU regarding a trade in services this loss will hit the UK hard.

    1. The imposition of physical quotas or restrictions on what the UK can produce. Thus we are prevented from producing all the milk we need, British b0ats are prevented from fishing above a certain quota, and we are limited in how much electricity we can generate from carbon based fuels.

    I can’t recall anywhere suffering for a milk shortage or needing to import EU milk. So it seems that the milk quota is adequate.

    There are fishing quotas because overfishing results in declining fish stocks. Even Norway, which isn’t in the EU, has fishing quotas to ensure that their fishermen don’t overfish.

    2. The enforced closure of UK plants that do not meet specified standards. We are in the process of closing eight power stations owing to an EU Directive, even though these stations produce cheaper power than their replacements. The slaughterhouse industry was subject to a large number of closures under EU rules.

    The UK could avoid these closures by upgrading these plants so they meet EU standards.

    Were the slaughterhouses closed because of their part in the BSE epidemic?

    We are living through a closure programme affecting petrochemcials, aluminium, steel, and other high energy using industries.

    How many jobs do these industries provide? If these factories are mostly automated then they won’t provide many jobs.

    4. Banning or over regulating particular products. For example, the herbal medicines and food supplements industry and retail has been hit by the application of much more expensive regulations affecting these businesses.

    The herbal medicines and food supplements industries were subject to more regulations because they were making medical claims that they couldn’t prove. It’s grossly misleading to claim these products have healing effects when there’s no evidence these effects exist.

    All you need is the simple rule that if something is of merchandisable quality in country A it can be offered for sale in country B. Thus English cheeses, regulated by the UK authorities, can be offered for sale as English cheeses in France without additional French or EU regulation, and in turn French cheeses can be offered for sale in the UK without additional UK rules.

    That plan will be a disaster. What happens if in country A you can sell cheese made from unpasteurised milk but in country B this is illegal? Under your plan you could circumvent the law of one country simply by setting up your company in the country with the fewest regulations. Thus the UK’s Parliament would lose all their powers to regulate goods because a company would be able to avoid all UK regulations by producing their goods in another country.

    Customers should decide what they like, based on reading the label which should include the country of origin.

    Given the decline in wages in real terms people won’t be able to afford to chose which product they want and will instead have to buy the cheapest one. It’s also ridiculous to expect people to know the food regulations of all 28 EU countries so they can make an informed choice regarding which food will be the best/safest.

  36. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted January 3, 2014 at 3:26 am | Permalink

    Very perceptive. Now go through your list and tell us how much of this nonsense has been authorised because we signed up to the Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon Treaties. The Single Market was more useful to us when the Single European Act was passed than it is now.

    While we are about it, please discuss the matter of the European Court ignoring opt outs that we obtained from the Lisbon ‘Treaty’. Why do we still recognise the European Court? When are you going to ask the Prime Minister in the House of Commons why we still recognise the European Court?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 3, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      I’m afraid that much of the nonsense comes from the Single European Act.

  37. Robert Taggart
    Posted January 3, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    How to deal with the E U Federalists ? – vote UKIP – this coming May !

    Reading a piece the other week concerning prisoners voting ‘rights’…
    An ECHR Judge suggested the continued refusal by Blighty to grants these ‘rights’ to these crims’ could put Blighty in breach of the court and lead to our possible removal from its jurisdiction. Such an action on their part would then lead to the dismissal of Blighty from the E U. Although the ECHR be part of the C E not the E U – membership of the former, apparently, be a prerequisite for membership of the latter.
    Ergo, Blighty would be ‘bounced-out’ of the E U.
    True ? False ?? – could this be the ‘answer to our prayers’ ?!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 3, 2014 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      It would need a sequence of steps, each pretty unlikely, for the UK’s withdrawal just from the jurisdiction of the ECHR to result in the UK leaving the EU.

      First, when the government derogated from Article 46(1) of the Convention:

      “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

      the Council of Europe could react by saying that the UK could not derogate just from that article, instead it would have to withdraw from the whole Convention; but on the other hand it might not react in that way.

      Then if the UK government had withdrawn from the whole Convention the Council of Europe could say that the UK could no longer be a member of the Council of Europe; but I doubt whether there would be a legal basis for that decision, as the treaty establishing the Council of Europe preceded the Convention, and therefore it says nothing about members having to accede to the Convention, and it seems unlikely that it would happen.

      Then some other countries in the EU might claim that the UK was in breach of the fundamental rights enshrined in the EU treaties, but then again they might shrink from doing that and say nothing, and even if they did do it the EU treaties provide no way for a member state to be expelled on any grounds whatsoever.

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted January 3, 2014 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

        Oh… dammit !

  38. Posted January 3, 2014 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Sigh, another Tory who cannot admit that his party made one of the biggest mistakes in UK history.

    The EU to its credit has always admitted it’s a project of political union, to argue it was only ever about freer trade is to fly in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    It’s rather like buying a tin of Ronseal (it does what it says on the tin) and perpetually complaining that the contents don’t contain a pineapple upside-down cake.

    No wonder the Tory party is in decline – it’s membership on a plummet trajectory – when it has engaged in a process of 40 years of self-deception.

    • Sue Jameson
      Posted January 3, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      I’m afraid I have to agree. A simple look through Millbanks and other documentation prove inrrevocably that you lot knew exactly what you were agreeing to. You knew you were selling our sovereignty down the river. At least have the decency now to admit it and get us out… ALL THE WAY OUT, we don’t want to wait for Camerons bogus negotiation. We all know, its not going to happen. WE’D LIKE OUT COUNTRY BACK PLEASE!

  39. Chris S
    Posted January 3, 2014 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    We have been comprehensively lied to over Europe by Labour and Conservative leaders in equal measures from day 1. This was all done with the active connivance of the BBC and others who covered up the true nature of the beast.

    We were always told we were just joining a “Common Market” trading block while the rest of Europe made no real attempt to hide the core aim of “Ever Closer Union”. This came about because the French were terrified of another bout of German Domination and the German leadership was racked with guilt over Hitler and the war and, far from wanting to lead, they wanted to submerge their country within a European structure.

    Strange how it ended up, isn’t it !

  40. Posted January 4, 2014 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    “If the UK was not in the EU we would still be exporting to the continent, because they would still want to export to us and would have to reach a sensible arrangement on terms and tariffs. It would also be regulated by international trade rules anyway, preventing retaliatory tariffs and other impediments to trade.”

    There is a very good concise article on http://www.newalliance.org.uk/trade.htm showing that the EU would not introduce trade barriers if we left.

    As both the UK and the rest of the EU are members of the World Trade Organization, we could look forward to further trade liberalisation without discrimination.

    As there is no doubt that EU membership is about accepting political union and the superstate, we should safely get out while we can.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page