Let people express their identity

 

One of the worst features of the EU is the way it wants to suppress people’s natural senses of identity. England is the country they do not allow on a map. It is a curious paradox that the EU wants to prevent the UK government having a new relationship that works for us, yet wishes to bolster the other member states who face separatist problems. Having encouraged senses of regional identity, the EU now backs national governments by telling Catalonia it has to stay with Spain, and  the Veneto to stay in Italy  even though a strong message has been sent in a recent informal referendum. Above all, the EU wants to keep the Ukraine together when the government of the Ukraine visibly cannot govern large parts of the country  because consent has broken down.

The EU’s  dislike of England and our approach to supranational government is fuelling a wish  for England to leave the EU, and will be sorted out when the UK or the rest of the UK minus Scotland  finally has our EU referendum. In many areas the EU backs defensive national governments who think they can ignore separatist movements. In the case of England the EU antagonises  the Conservative part of the Coalition government by its often unhelpful response to UK wishes for less interference and more freedom.

The western powers are right to say that yesterday’s referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk was neither legal nor properly conducted. Those wanting out may have voted more than once in some cases, and those who wished to stay in the Ukraine may have taken the advice of the Ukrainian government to stay away from the polls. However, no-one can doubt that a large number of people in Eastern Ukraine do not accept the legitimacy of the current Kiev government, and do fear its intentions towards them.

At the very least the Ukrainian government should talk to the rebels. Sending in the army and trying to remove them by force is not the right answer, and will intensify the civil war in the making. It will increase  the bitterness on both sides. The Ukrainian regime needs to discuss whether a much greater degree of autonomy within the Ukraine would satisfy enough easterners. Are there guarantees that the Ukrainian government can offer on  Russian language and customs that would be credible?

If it is not possible to find a way of jointly governing in the Ukrainian state, then the Ukrainian government needs to offer a legal and properly organised referendum with sensible propositions on the ballot paper that could attract consent.

The UK has offered Scotland a referendum despite the absence of SNP MPs in large numbers at Westminster, and in good time whilst the UK can  govern Scotland with consent. The people of Scotland will now decide whether they wish to renew their consent to Union government or whether they wish to be self governing. If they decide Yes to the Union they will  understand that has to be for a considerable time, as unions should not  be made and broken too often.  That could be a model for any  part of a European state that is unhappy about its current status. It is not just the EU that needs to amend its ways of tackling these issues, but it is the EU that has played an important part in fomenting regional identities which may  now affect not just the individual member states but also EU policy  itself.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

105 Comments

  1. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:17 am | Permalink

    How could it affect EU policy?

    • Hope
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      Do you want to live in a self governing sovereign nation or become a province of the EU superstate. The former would make citizens British nationals, the latter EU provisionals.

      The LIbLab Con do want want to run the country as we see and hear every day they want to implement EU law, regulation and policy. Wi 75 percent coming from the EU why do we need so many MPs and Lords. It only fulfils self serving greed and ambition to hold the kudos office.

      Listen to Ecnoch Powell on Eurpoe he explains the situation with clarity and very articulately.

    • dave roderick
      Posted May 13, 2014 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

      Why Cameron wants to push EU Referendum beyond 31st March 2017
      Last evening I received a message from an always reliable source the essence of which is the following:

      On the 1st November 2014 the right of Parliament to legislate over us in 43 areas, the important ones, will be removed and be made subject to approval, by majority vote of the lying undemocratic and unelected (people ed) fronting the EU.
      They call it QMV, Quality Majority Voting, which translates in English to: You’ll do what we tell you, or else.
      Heath – Thatcher – Major – Blair – Brown, are all, by allowing this, acting in High Treason, but as every important Government post is now held by an EU Common Purpose trained (person ed), waiting to take over from elected local government officials from 1st November 2014, there seems to be little we can do about it.
      Below, are the 43 areas of ‘competence’, areas we British have been declared incompetent to decide for ourselves.

      Make a note of the last one because it says we cannot leave the EU unless the other members allow it.
      On 1st November 2014 the following areas of competence will switch from requiring unanimous approval of all member states to qualified majority voting only:
      (43) Initiatives of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Administrative co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Asylum – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
      Border controls – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Citizens’ initiative regulations – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Civil protection – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Committee of the Regions – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Common defence policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Crime prevention incentives – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Criminal judicial co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Criminal law – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Culture – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Diplomatic & Consular protection – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
      Economic & Social Committee – Nice: QMV Lisbon: QMV
      Emergency international aid – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon: QMV
      Energy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      EU budget – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Eurojust – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      European Central Bank – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      European Court of Justice – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Europol – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Eurozone external representation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Foreign Affairs High Representative election – Lisbon: QMV
      Freedom of movement for workers – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Freedom to establish a business – Nice: Unanimity Lisbon QMV
      Freedom, security, justice, co-operation & evaluation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Funding the Common Foreign & Security Policy – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      General economic interest services – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Humanitarian aid – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Immigration – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
      Intellectual property – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Organisation of the Council of the EU – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Police co-operation – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      President of the European Council election – Lisbon: QMV
      Response to natural disasters & terrorism – Lisbon: QMV
      Rules concerning the Armaments Agency – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Self-employment access rights – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Social Security Unanimity – Nice: QMV; Lisbon: QMV
      Space – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Sport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Structural & Cohension Funds – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Tourism – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Transport – Nice: Unanimity; Lisbon: QMV
      Withdrawal of a member state – Lisbon: QMV

      §§§§§

      A brief review of the Treaties confirms the substance of the above. Transitional arrangements allow, only on specific votes, for the Nice Treaty Provisions to apply from 1st November 2014 until March 2017, hence I imagine PM David Cameron’s determination to delay our referendum beyond that date, tying Britain for ever within the non-democratic, totalitarian and now clearly despotic EU.

      All Parliamentarians must be made aware of the deep danger the nation now faces when casting their vote on the 2014 Referendum possibility that Adam Afriyie’s referendum amendment has suddenly appeared to provide.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    “will be sorted out when the UK or the rest of the UK minus Scotland finally has our EU referendum.”
    It is very encouraging to see a politician with your experience and, yes, common sense, talking like this. I notice that several of you are beginning to see that we Brits eventually will have to break away from a federal, unitary State of Europe.

    Actually the question is this:
    HOW?
    Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is full of small print. An application to leave the Union has to be put first in the Council of Ministers without a British representative present. Then it has to go before the European Parliament. This sounds reasonable until we learn that every single measure presented has to come from the Commission, which we can presume, wants us to stay in. Even if the Commission feels generous, then we only have 73/736MEPs – one in ten (which includes the pro European Union parties too, of course). So there is very little chance that our voice will be heard. And the whole process will take a long time too – decades maybe. It will be the EU authorities who will decide the time scale, not us.
    The EU will no more accept our referendum as binding than it will accept the current one going on in the Ukraine. In this way, the Scottish referendum is totally irrelevant.
    So, let me repeat: HOW do we leave?

    Reply We will leave when the UK Parliament repeals the 1972 Act – just as we left the Catholic Church by Act of Parliament in 1533, denying all future appeals to Rome’s courts.

    • zorro
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      News today – UK has condemned the referendum held in Ukraine which showed that 90% wanted to leave the Ukraine. That shows you all you need to know about attitudes to referendums in the EU and the UKK government. If it’s not the right result it’s illegal or they don’t want to know.

      zorro

      • stred
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:48 am | Permalink

        Zorro. Flicked between stations this morning to see Little Willy condemning the eastern Ukrainian secondary rebel’s referendum as illegal and not even trying to be. Other pictures on RT show polling clerks checking registrations, as in the UK, and Kiev troops shooting people trying to vote at a polling station, while several other stations were blocked. And this is to prevent them having regional government and taxation- not to join Russia. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how they could make a referendum comply with EU standards.

        Meanwhile the unelected president of the EU and officials are trying to put sanctions on more Russian companies. Stand by for the gas turn off. All in our interest of course. What a nuisance multi-channel TV and the internet must be for EU and US executives carrying out their expansion plans. One unexpected turn after another.

      • Anonymous
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

        All you need to know about EU corruption and collusion can be seen in the scoring on Eurovision.

        The EU isn’t just a suppression of our national identity – it is an outright assault on it.

        David Cameron is part of it.

        • bigneil
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

          Fits in nicely with the ruling that we cant deport a Somali killer. We now have a career criminal free to walk our streets, while we pay him benefits, house him, and look after his health. The EU and Cameron are hell bent on our destruction as a nation. they should, but won’t be, ashamed of themselves. Things may only change if the next target is the relative of someone “important”, obviously as their lives are worth more than ours.
          This will be yet another vote getter for you know who, as liblabcon cannot justify this ruling.

    • Aunty Estab
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      Repeal the 1972 act, music to the ears!

    • Duyfken
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would leave European Union law unenforceable in the UK. Of course we would need a government with the will and majority to bring this about, but I wonder how this would affect and how we can renege on the multiplicity of regulations/treaties/agreements made with the EU. How in practice could withdrawal be smoothly put into effect? It sounds like a great solution and it needs more of an airing and discussion.

      Reply Once Parliament has the will to repeal, then the rest of the EU will want to parley about all the agreements we would need for trade/transport links etc.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

        The Act of repeal could lay down that all the present EU laws would remain in force in the UK until repealed by the UK Parliament or by the UK government acting with the authorisation of Parliament, depending on the nature of the law, so providing a relatively smooth transition.

      • Duyfken
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

        I am now confused, a not unusual circumstance. Having scanned Richard North’s Flexcit treatise (but not presently examined in detail), having taken on board Mike Stallard’s reservations of the Article 50 procedure, and having JR’s assurance of the apparent ease in repealing the 1972 Act, this supported by Denis’ assurance, I know not still what correct path should be followed. Does anybody?

        Reply All these technical arguments are relatively unimportant. What matters is getting political will to do this, which requires Eurosceptics learning to work together!

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

          How can they work together when the Tory party is about half, pro EU, green crap, high tax, socialist and it is led by one of them.

          • Hope
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 8:31 am | Permalink

            Moreover, who trusts Cameron?

          • APL
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

            Lifelogic: “Tory party is about half, pro EU .. ”

            The best bit is, nothing they do will bring around the bovine unthinking ranks of the Labour party.

            Because, well, they are bovine and unthinking. “Tories are evil because Margaret Thatcher stole our milk”

            It is a fruitless task to try to appease this group, the best that the Tory party could do is fix the economy – then leave us alone.

            They won’t do that because the modern generation of ‘Tories’, Cameron, Osbourne et al, have spent their childhood being indoctrinated by socialist tutors in both school and University.

            They can’t help it, the poor dears.

          • APL
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

            Thatcher could have lost to the Miners and beaten the NUT to smithereens, we’d be better off today.

        • Ray Veysey
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

          Well UKIP won’t work with you under Cameron, and you won’t get rid of him, Labour and Lib dems are fairly solid in favour of EU and there are 19 of you in the conservative party who will vote selectively against the government, so good luck with that.

          Reply There are over 100 who vote for Eurosceptic causes against the whip, and 300 who vote for Eurosceptic policies with the whip.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 4:44 am | Permalink

            Yet only 5 MP voted against the patently absurd Climate Change Act, so out of touch with reality are even these 100 MPs.

        • zorro
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

          The most effective means of leaving, as John says, has been and always will be for Parliament to assert its sovereignty by repealing the 1972 Act. As Denis mentions, in doing so it could include clauses that we could respect (by our own volition) provisons of EU agreements until we renegotiate on terms acceptable to us.

          zorro

        • Mark B
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

          Reply to reply (again).

          No Mr. Redwood MP sir ! It is important to establish exactly what we want and to produce a credible exist strategy that all can agree upon. We have signed up to the rules of the game and agreed to the means by which, legally, we can exit.

          If we just repeal the 1972 ECA, the EU would be entitled to retaliate against the UK, locking us out of the Single Market.

          You’re wrong !

          Reply Noty so. I said we need to negotiate a new relationship at the same time – I want free trade, not aLL the rules and costs of the so called single market..

          • Mark B
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

            Yes, renegotiate a new relationship by all means, but how ? The EU has said that there can be no renegotiation of the current treaties and, without that, you’re stuffed. You cannot force the EU or any of the member states to do as you want, there is a legally binding procedure to all this and, as I said, you have to play by the rules of the game. Therefore, the ONLY way, and it is the ONLY way, you can force the EU to renegotiate new terms, is to issue and Article 50 declarations and leave the EU.

            Being a member of the EU is like being in a marriage. Yes, you can walkout but, you are still legally responsible to your spouse. To annul the marriage, you must go through due process. The same here applies.

    • Mark B
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      Before the Lisbon Treaty, repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act would have been the right way – I guess. But after Lisbon, and the inclusion of Article 50 and the LEGAL requirement for a Member State to withdraw from the EU through a negotiated settlement, is a absolute must. You cannot simply walkaway from over forty years in integration just like that. I would have thought that someone with your intelligence, knowledge and background would have known this.

      To that end, may I respectfully suggest you acquaint yourself with Dr. Richard North’s EUReferendum blog and his FLEXIT proposal.

      Thank you.

      • Malcolm Edward
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

        A treaty only continues to exist with the continued assent of the participating countries, there is no other peaceful enforcement. When a country withdraws from a treaty, the treaty (and all its contents) become null and void with respect to that country. Diplomatically, a notice period of 3 to 6 months may be given.
        By repealing the enabling acts for the EU treaties, any obligations under the treaties cease to exist with the annulment of the treaties (and that means article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty vanishes too).
        Say if withdrawal of the UK follows a “no” vote in a referendum, the voters would want the decision to be acted upon in short time, not put off for years. There is no advantage to the UK of triggering article 50 – we would want to leave in a timescale that suits us, and we would not want to be isolated within the EU in the meantime by invoking article 50.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

          Well, I agree that the legal obligation to proceed through Article 50 TEU will only persist for as long as the UK Parliament continues to acquiesce in the UK being bound by the treaties of which that “exit clause” is one part. But I disagree that there would be no advantage to us in proceeding through Article 50, at least initially. But if they started to muck us about then the UK Parliament could warn that if they didn’t negotiate sensibly we would just leave.

        • Mark B
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

          We are not dealing with any old treaty here. We are dealing with a system of government that we have signed up to. Also, we have to consider the Single Market. As a member of the EU, we automatically become members of the EEA (Single Market). Outside the EU, with no agreement in place, we would lose access to the EEA and trade. We would also have our goods and services blocked, not only by the EU, but by the rest of the world because, we have allowed the EU to sign trade treaties for and on our behalf. Outside the EU, we could no longer trade as before and would have to renegotiate with other countries.

          The EU ‘is’ our Government. To leave, we must obey the rules. Lisbon was not just any old treaty, it was a constitution for the EU. We would be seen just like eastern Ukraine and Crimea are seen to the outside world.

          I sometimes really wounder if the people here, including our kind host, really understand what the EU is.

          • zorro
            Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

            Not at all, we would default to be members if the EEA. I do not believe that what you say would transpire. I can tell you now that we are not East Ukraine/Crimea no matter what the EU may think or wish!

            zorro

          • ian wragg
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 7:46 am | Permalink

            There is a very good word in the English dictionary. ABROGATE. All treaties can be abrogated at any time by either party and the EU is no different. The politicians signed them without our consent and they can very well repeal them. The EU is not a military entity and can only operate if participating countries are willing serfs. The fact that Gordon Bankrupt Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty without a mandate means we can opt out at any time.
            It’s funny how anything pro EU can be readily achieved but anything anti Eu is seen to be impossible.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

            “We are not dealing with any old treaty here.”

            That is certainly true; it is such an extraordinary treaty that it is sometimes described as being “sui generis”.

            Nevertheless, so far it is still only a treaty made between sovereign states, any of which can abrogate it at any time.

            In the past I have warned that Article 50 could prove to be a trap, because it makes withdrawal from the EU a matter of specifically EU law, as well as domestic law, rather than a matter of general international law and domestic law, and the EU’s Court of Justice is not excluded from adjudicating on the process of withdrawal.

            Therefore, yes, we could potentially find ourselves in the position where the ECJ was obstructing our withdrawal by accepting complaints that the correct procedure was not being followed in certain particulars, and even if those complaints were patently spurious the word of the ECJ would be final under the EU treaties.

          • Malcolm Edward
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

            Leaving the EU will not be bleak.
            To start with we will stop paying 55 million pounds a day to the EU. We can start to remove legislation that reduces our competiveness – some of it specifically designed to relatively disadvantage the UK.
            The current WTO rules agreed by most trading nations would mean we can still trade with countries in the EU.
            Should the EU contemplate sanctions, it would expect the UK to adopt reciprocal sanctions, hence the EU would be unlikely to – and they would be against the WTO rules.
            As an example, sanctions would mean the German car industry would be placed at a competitive disadvantage exporting to the UK with respect to its worldwide competitors. And a company like BMW with manufacturing interests in the UK would also be hit when it exports into the EU, so it is likely to pressure the German government to oppose sanctions.
            The EEA and especially EFTA (which requires a fee to be paid to the EU) allow the EU to apply regulations (such as the EU attempting to control Norway’s north sea interests) on member countries. So not being a member would be in-line with being an independent nation. All we need is a straight-forward cost-free trade-only agreement.
            As for free trade agreements with non-EU countries, it is likely that our government would suggest to those countries with EU trade agreements, that we bilaterally continue with them (perhaps until we jointly make new simpler agreements) and it is probable that they would agree.
            I suggest we take a can-do approach to the world, there is no need to be constrained by an EU-centric view.

          • APL
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

            Denis Cooper: “In the past I have warned that Article 50 could prove to be a trap,”

            So, invoke article 50 at the same time as we repeal the ’72 act.

            Denis Cooper: “complaints that the correct procedure was not being followed”

            It’s irrelevant once the ’72 act has been repealed, – which would arrest the torrent of EU legislation – their procrastination could allow us extra time to negotiate our way into the EEA, or EFTA or both.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted May 14, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

            APL, but if the ECJ obstructed our exit for long enough there might be a general election and the government which had put in our notice of withdrawal might be replaced by one which attempted to rescind that notice.

            Bear in mind that the scheme for imposing the Lisbon Treaty on the UK revolved around the timing of the next general election, because a new government might have put it to a referendum.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    Indeed one of the worst features of the EU is indeed the way it wants to suppress people’s natural senses of identity. Yet in other areas they encourage schools pushing Welsh at reluctant children (whose parents and grandparents have never even spoken it) and Provençal is now pushed at children and road users in the south of France. It seems the EU want to weaken the strength of the larger units like Britain, but not so much as they quite break up. They can then continue their hoovering up of power, regulation, central direction and taxation to core of the corrupt, incompetent, undemocratic, socialist, EUSSR. It clearly will break up eventually despite Cameron’s heart and soul love of it all.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      I see the Sunday Times claims we have 104 billionaires in the UK. The governments excellent tax haven for non doms policy is working very well. Just pay £30K or later £50K tax PA and no IHT for 17 years at least.

      Just a shame UK domiciles have to pay more like 50% of their income and 40% of their wealth on death too in IHT, thanks to Osborne’s cynical ratting on his promise.

      Cameron also has the dishonesty to knock other low tax areas while running one of the best ones going, so long as you are not British that is. Think how much better off the UK could be with sensible tax policies for all and a much smaller state sector.

      • stred
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:58 am | Permalink

        Some pop stars having to pay back millions after a legal luvvie investment scheme with tax breaks, invented by Labour, and was overturned, have been called on to hand back their CBEs in shame. Mr Cameron has said they should not. No mention of the accountants who persuaded them to do it. etc ed

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

          The tax laws should be very clear before the investment is made, not as obtuse, random and arbitrary as they clearly are in the UK. This uncertainly is hugely damaging to investment. Just as the uncertainty in employment laws damages employment and Miliband’s new rent act will damage investment in new rental properties – indeed it is already doing huge damage. People already reluctant to sign new rental agreements.

      • libertarian
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        Dear Lifelogic

        It would really help if you understood how tax actually worked before you condemn people out of hand. I despair of a lot of the people who post on here. Do none of you ever stop to think about what you are posting first?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

          I understand fair bit about the absurd UK tax system. What do you think I misunderstand?

          Non doms pay only £30K or £50K PA, then tax only on UK income or income remitted to the UK, and IHT only on UK assets (unless deemed domicile for IHT usually after 17 years residence).

          UK people pay nearly 50% in income tax and NI and pay 40% IHT on death on worldwide assets. The UK taxes can easily take well over 90% of your wealth off you over 20 years or so.

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

            Lifelogic

            Just because someone has assets doesn’t mean they have income. Income is what is taxed. What does the non dom pay £30 or £50 k for? Why shouldn’t anyone only pay on what is earned here or sold here. You miss the point entirely that if they are being charged IHT they aren’t non doms theyre dead

            So to recap a Non Dom now pay £50k PLUS top rate of tax and NI on earnings here plus vat on stuff they buy plus rates plus IHT on UK assets when they die. You think this is a problem

            Oh and youre wrong about UK nationals we pay 62% tax

        • Alte Fritz
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

          Where is he wrong? Seems right to me.

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

            Alte Fritz

            LL said they JUST pay £30 or £50 K plus IHT after 17 years . He’s wrong they don’t JUST pay that. They also pay tax on income, vat, council tax etc. If they employ people here which most do they also pay ENI.

            Therefor he’s wrong

        • Lifelogic
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

          Please enlighten me as to “how tax actually works”.

        • John E
          Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

          I pay tax and can’t work out what Lifelogic said that is wrong. Could you explain further?

          • libertarian
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

            John E

            LL said they JUST pay £30 or £50 K plus IHT after 17 years . He’s wrong they don’t JUST pay that. They also pay tax on income, vat, council tax etc. If they employ people here which most do they also pay ENI.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted May 13, 2014 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

            If they structure things well they do not have to pay any more than the £30K or £50K as they can arrange to have no UK income or remittances. Of course they also pay VAT etc. on what they spend in the UK too. Also IHT on UK assets only.

            What I said was perfectly correct.

  4. Mark B
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    John Redwood MP wrote:

    ” . . . Ukraine visibly cannot govern large parts of the country because consent has broken down.”

    And this, looking longterm, also applies to the EU. It has no Demos, or consent from the people. The people want to be, what they want to be and, not be, what the EU want them to be, ie European. I am NOT an EU Citizen – I was NOT asked, and NEVER gave my consent (thanks Maastricht). This all has been ‘forced’ from the top down and can only survive by the EU using force, bribes, or threats. Not a solid foundation to build a nation state, is it ?

    “The EU’s dislike of England . . . ”

    The EU has been pretty much run by the French and, I think this dislike comes from that. Now that the German’s are firmly in charge, I think that this might, overtime, change. The German’s consider the English as their, ‘Little Cousins’ and, whilst I do not think they will do us any favours, I do think this perceived anti-Englishness in the EU will wane.

    ” . . . EU antagonists the Conservative part of the Coalition government by its often unhelpful response to UK wishes for less interference and more freedom.”

    So you have heard Commissioners Barroso’s speech then ?

    The EU does not seek to antagonise the Conservative Party. It merely wishes that the UK Government, of whatever hue, carries out its obligations under the treaties that ALL political parties have signed – from Rome too Lisbon.

    I believe in the, Right of Self Determination. That the people of a nation, must be able to decide who governs them, and from where. Where people, freely, openly and with full knowledge of the facts, are able to express their wish over a matter of governance, they should be either supported or listened to.

    It is good to see the people of Scotland, once again, being asked if they wish to remain part of the UK. As an Englishman and a ‘true’ nationalist, I too would like to be asked if my country, England, would like to be part of the UK. But apparently, even amongst our own MP’s in Westminster, I do not exist !

    • Graham
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      I fully agree.

      I also find it very disappointing that JR believes that anything will come from any referendum pledge. As you point out the EU monolith will not budge an inch – they are at least clear on that.

      Maybe as we absorb more extreme cultures from Eastern Europe and elsewhere it may rub off on the locals to use other methods to get change – who knows??

      No good will come from the continuing deceit though from our own ‘so called’ politicians.

      • lifelogic
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        Nothing can come of the Tory referendum pledge as:

        Cameron will never have an overall majority in a years time.

        Even if he did his Ken Clark/John Major wing of about 50% of the party would stop him doing anything sensible.

        Even if they did not, his heart and soul/no greater Switzerland on Sea genetic and brain structure, would just make him rat a second time. It is even easier the second time as you have zero credibility left to lose second time.

        His demand for a woman (rather than the best candidate) to be head of the BBC trustees says it all. He is an anti male sexist pig, a pro EU, lefty, green crap, PR stunt, ratter sort of person.

        • APL
          Posted May 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

          Lifelogic: “would just make him rat a second time.”

          So why would one give the benefit of the doubt to a fellow who has just thumped you in the eye, when he says he won’t do it again?

  5. Old Albion
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    England is ‘governed’ by an empirical EU puppet government whatever colour tie the MP’s at Westminster wear.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:49 am | Permalink

      Indeed.

  6. Michael James
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Scottish people who wish to leave the European Union should vote for independence in September, since on becoming independent Scotland would automatically leave the EU.

    Surely UKIP supports a Yes vote in the referendum?

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      That is the irony – Salmond claims he wants independence but in the next breath declares he wants his independent Scotland to be governed by the EU. Strange kind of independence.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        My thoughts exactly Brian!

        Tad

    • yulwaymartyn
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      Michael James: I totally agree but from the other perspective. Those Scottish people who wish to stay in the EU should vote for independence and ditch themselves of English euroscepticism. After independence the Scots could then vote on whether to seek EU membership as an independent country. Then the Welsh could follow suit as the Welsh nationalists seem to be pro EU. Then the good people of Northern Island. And so it would just be the English who could choose to be in or out or on their own. Perfect.

  7. The PrangWizard
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    The people of Scotland will now decide whether they wish to renew their consent to Union government or whether they wish to be self governing. If they decide Yes to the Union they will understand that has to be for a considerable time, as unions should not be made and broken too often.

    However, it is unlikely they will accept any such thing. I suspect you know the UK Union is dying. Scottish Nationalists will continue to campaign even if there is a vote to remain, the issue will be a running sore to Unionists. For me I hope they press on. In any event powers will continue to be devolved to them, and in a few years Scotland will be independent in all but name and will retain the benefit of the pound. So they will have got almost everything they wanted anyhow. And then there will of course be another vote.

    Meanwhile England and the people of England will continue to be cheated and used by the British/UK government and Establishment, because they know any concessions in England will certainly bring and end to the Union. Devolving powers to the counties is a deceit.

    England’s right to self determination must be granted, England must have a parliament of its own with directly elected MPs. If it is right in Scotland it cannot be denied in England.

    I have been alienated from the Union by the present and previous governments and their apologists because of their attitude to England and the English, and I no longer recognise the Union flag. I will continue to campaign for an English parliament, I will vote for a political party that does the same, and in the end I want to see England as an independent nation.

  8. zorro
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:52 am | Permalink

    A good, measured and factual piece John, and I will add some observations to it……The true colours of the EU, UK, and US are being shown by how they react to the Ukrainian government’s actions in invading its own country. That is the extent of their legitimacy, and they have a cheek in calling the referendum illegal, as if they would countenance holding one! They would not do so because they would know the result – doubtless they will have been keenly advised by the EU on that issue. I note that they have not been elected either, and overthrew the lawful authority in Ukraine.

    In multiple places in Eastern Ukraine, including Odessa and Mariupol we see violence being enacted on the citizenry by the army. They are not fighting the Russian army – if they did, you wouldn’t see them for dust….. The lie to that proposition is clear in that you can see multiple videos of Ukrainian regime forces firing at and killing unarmed citizens. Even James Mates ITV has said that it’s a funny way to try and win the citizens to your point of view. Can you imagine the outcry if the legitimate Ukrainian President had used the army against the people in such a way. And what do you hear from the West now – nothing – despicable.

    Some German interests are less than happy with how things are going on in the Ukraine, noting that they had been developing trade with Russia which is now in jeopardy, and seeing that it is US interests that might be benefitting. (Allegation left out ed)
    Again Putin is using diplomacy and statecraft to deal with this situation like a proper judo enthusiast, and using someone’s supposed strength against them. So we see the Ukrainian army torching and killing citizens in Eastern Ukraine….they are ensuring that no sensible Russian speaking person can see a future ruled by the regime in Kiev. Stupid really, because the Russian speaking people in Eastern Ukraine would have preferred a confederation and guarantees on rights and culture, and instead the nasty regime in Kiev is forcing them intoo Russia by its actions.

    I see we have more anti-Russian idiocy about the Eurovision song contest saying that they oppose the winner…..and that incisive political analyst Lorraine Kelly off GMTV asks why Russians feel like this……and who does she quote…….Vladimir Zhirinovsky…… I ask you, is this what we have come to? It’s just too embarassing for words.

    zorro

    • zorro
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      Vacuous nonsense masquerading as entertainment…. I see that the most popular act was the Polish entry although not for the UK judging panel who went for the Austrian entry…. Well no matter how much the elites try and condition our thinking….. ‘If there is hope, it lies in the proles’

      zorro

      • Lifelogic
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

        Indeed.

  9. JoolsB
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    “England is the country they do not allow on a map.”

    And pray John what have your party, who owe their very existence to England, done about putting this insult to democracy right? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. England is the word which must not pass their lips let alone heaven forbid demanding recognition for it in it’s own right. 15 years after Labour’s gerrymandering asymmetrical devolution act which DELIBERATELY left England out, politicians squatting in English seats still refuse to demand recognition or constitutional equality for their English constituents and an end to the constant blatant discrimination hurled at them on a daily basis both politically and financially by out-of touch, anti-English UK politicians in a UK Parliament.

    England, once the Mother of all Parliaments, is now treated like a third world colony, the only country in the western world DENIED recognition in it’s own right, DENIED it’s own legislature or any representation. Where’s England’s parliament, it’s own first Minister or Secretary of State to stand up for England’s interests in the same way Scotland, Wales and NI and the rest of the western world already enjoy? Who stands up for England when politicians elected not just in England but elected outside of it also, decide England’s young alone in their beloved union should be clobbered with crippling £9,000 tuition fees or England’s sick alone should pay for their prescriptions and exorbitant hospital parking charges or only England’s elderly should hand over their homes in return for care? Answer no-one and certainly not the 533 UK MPs squatting in English seats.

    Yes, the EU hates England and in doing their bidding, the LAB/LIB/CON parties have proved they do too. We expect no better from Labour who created this constitutional mess in the first place nor the Lib Dums, after all if England was given recognition in it’s own right and equal status they would lose their inbuilt majority of Scottish (& Welsh) MPs needed to govern England but the Tories deserve the most contempt for carrying on where Labour left off in their denial of England and for allowing this insult to democracy to continue a minute longer. And they wonder why we are abandoning them in our droves – traitors to England the lot of them!

  10. Timaction
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    With well over half our laws being made in the EU our Parliament is a charade. There is only one party wanting this back to our own democracy and sovereignty back. We all know the solution!!

  11. alan jutson,
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    John

    Simple question.

    We joined the EU as the United Kingdom which included Scotland.

    If Scotland votes to leave the union of the UK, does it still remain a member of the EU?

    Does the remainder of the UK still remain in the EU without Scotland, given that the status of the UK has changed.

    Reply That all requires political agreement with the EU. They will probably want to extract compromises in return for the rest of the UK being the successor state to the UK.I would want any such event to trigger a proper renegotiation, getting us out of Nice, Amsterdam, Lisbon etc

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      How can you remain a member of such an organisation but not agree to be bound by the treaties established by that organisation? There is only one acceptable solution which is for the UK to leave the EU – regrettably something your party will not condone.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      I often disagree with Nigel Farage over particular issues, and one of those was his statement that it would be a mere formality to keep an independent Scotland in the EU:

      http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/anti-ukip-protesters-descend-on-scotland-rally-1-3405509

      “Mr Farage was of the view that Scotland would get into the EU easily. “It is a formality,” he said. “They will have anybody. Look at the former Communist countries they have let in where corruption is rife. Scotland is a shining light compared to them.”

      Mr Salmond’s white paper did not offer true independence, because Scotland would still be in the EU, Mr Farage said.”

      Technically it would be a formality, but legally it would require the agreement of the governments of all the other existing EU member states and politically it is very hard to believe that none of them would try to extract concessions as the price for their agreement.

    • alan jutson,
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      Rely to reply

      How strange the ways of unintended consequences.

      If Scotland votes for independence, we also have the chance to get it from the EU by default.

      Guarantee our government will not take advantage of any renegotiation to our advantage, but will just accept less influence with fewer votes.

  12. NickW
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I think that there is more to the apparent desire for self determination than a matter of national identity.

    It is Douglas Carswell’s contention, (a politician for whom I have a great deal of respect), that the advent of the internet will change the way that government works.

    What we are seeing, I think is the birth pangs of that change. In the old days, the West would have got away with its massive disinformation exercise over the events in Ukraine, and the populations of the West would have been swayed to accept their government’s version of events. There are now, however, too many sources of information via the internet for deception to work.

    Something has changed; the populations were not persuaded by an intensive sustained media campaign by press and broadcasters that black was in fact white.

    Independence movements are driven, not so much by a desire for national identity, but by a desire for people to free themselves from subjugation by politicians who, the world over, have shown themselves to be financially corrupt, sexually immoral and completely untrustworthy. Every country has its Yanukovichs, although there are, (too few), honourable exceptions.

    We know that a Cameron promises are worthless, that his vows to clean up expenses abuse were meaningless, and that his desire to allow the Inland Revenue direct access to bank accounts without resource to legal proceedings is a betrayal of everything the conservatives have ever stood for.
    How could a conservative who has listened to Miliband’s rhetoric and seen the direction of his policies give such an instrument to a socialist government?

    If England could vote for independence from Westminster, it surely would, and that is perhaps what the UKIP phenomenon is telling us.

    If Douglas Carswell, is right, (and I think he is), Governments will either have to raise their game substantially, or alternatively close down the internet.

    We have two choices; a world devoid of freedom and dominated by one or two superpowers, with a tightly controlled (or absent) internet or a world made up of many small and democratic governments with informed electorates.

    I hope for the best, but fear the worst.

    • acorn
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      Nick you say “a world made up of many small and democratic governments with informed electorates”. In Europe there is a platform that already exists, but never gets talked about in the UK; “The Assembly of European Regions”. I think Hampshire County Council still is the only UK member of it. Nothing to do with the EU COR (Committee of the Regions), or the EU but it does advise both on regionalism.

      “Regionalism” is a dirty word in the UK and, unfortunately, has been politicised by our Punch and Judy parliament. But most of Europe has a much more structured local government system based on historical attributes. The AER has circa 230 Regions as members in thirty odd European States. Like the COR it sees the traditional “Nation States” as an anachronism. I think they would consider the breakup of the UK as part of a natural process toward the regionalisation of Europe and a simpler trading relationship between such regions.

      The AER has summed up the problem in Ukraine. It said that Ukrainian regions need to see the central government implement a reform of the country’s territorial organisation. Direct election of regional leaders and budgetary independence of local and regional authorities must be key in this process of regionalisation, providing concrete suggestions for an effective and sustainable decentralisation.

      Fortunately for our Westminster government, the good citizens of Wokingham or the New Forest, are unlikely to pick-up an AK47 and hit the streets, Ukrainian style, for something they believe in. Mind you, if the government cancelled Eastenders; Coronation Street and all World Cup football coverage on all channels; they would definitely have a good old whinge about it. But, as always, they would take it up the a*** and say thankyou government.

      Lack of education is a wonderful thing. For the 99% that is.

      • acorn
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        There is a map of the AER Regions, should you be interested at http://www.aer.eu/publications/tabula-regionum-europae.html . You will see the likes of Catalunya and Veneto as JR mentioned. Like it or not, for exactly the reasons Nick stated above; regionalisation is the future. The current EU model isn’t.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

      I fear the worst too Nick. The internet is a great source of learning and advancement, but the ruling elite cannot afford that at any price, and seek to stop it. They’re not used to being faced with an alternative point of view or a different version of events. They like to keep control of the flow of information, and one of the very worst offenders just has to be the BBC.

      etc ed

      Tad

      • Tad Davison
        Posted May 13, 2014 at 10:49 am | Permalink

        There is one power above all others that is so dangerous, it needs to be reined in, so why won’t you let me even make a tiny reference to certain acts of world-changing ‘terrorism’, that specialists claim were very dubious?

        Is that not proving my point?

        And as I often say, to deny debate, is to deny democracy, but democracy is yet another thing these people don’t want at any price.

        Tad Davison

        Cambridge

  13. Bert Young
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    The EU has tried to influence Ukraine into its arms and , in doing so , has blundered . The natural language and history of Eastern Ukraine is the main factor dividing the country and cannot be overcome by anything other than the voice of the people . In our case the EU has again blundered ; its stance on the Scottish referendum is simply an effort to weaken and destroy the United Kingdom and put in place the bureaucracy in Brussels as a solution . If we had an effective leadership , our position would not be swayed by outside parties ; the presence of a coalition led by two europhile individuals has substantially weakened what the approach has been to the Scottish referendum . It should never have been allowed in the first place . The fact that there are dissenting voices in Scotland is undeniable ; there are dissenting voices in Wales and Northern Ireland . We have a form of democracy and representation that ought to be effective in accomodating differences but , it cannot function when outside forces are allowed to interfere .

  14. Atlas
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    John,

    I am rather sorry to report that your leader’s weekend TV Marr appearance still did not imbue me with confidence about his goals and, for that matter, promises.

    He is too little, too late, in particular he cannot see that his beloved ‘single market – level playing field’ is just as novelty sapping as the Euro project. I do not want to be the homogeneous output of a harmonisation machine.

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    “The western powers are right to say that yesterday’s referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk was neither legal nor properly conducted.”

    This is a revolutionary situation, which started with an unconstitutional usurpation of power in Kiev instigated by the EU/NATO/US troika, and it is now a moot point what is legal or illegal in Ukraine when the claimed “interim” government of Ukraine is itself illegal under the constitution of Ukraine.

    Reply It is not a moot point at all. The Ukrainian Parliament is still in place and did not vote for a referendum as is required to make it legal.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      The Ukrainian Parliament is tainted, it played a central role in the revolution and no longer has any legitimate authority as a body, any more than its speaker has any constitutional authority as the purported “interim” President.

      As I mentioned previously, the link to the Constitution of Ukraine on the Presidential website:

      http://www.president.gov.ua/en/

      worked for a time and was then disabled; why should that have been done if what happened was in fact in line with Article 112 of the constitution?

      • zorro
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, he was ousted in a political coup which did not follow constitutional procedure. Articles 108-112 state that there are four ways to get rid of the UKR president – resignation, incapacitation, death or impeachment. Yanukovich denied resigning and says that he fled in fear of his life. Article 111 allows for impeachment if a specific set of procedures take place. This did not happen so I think that a political coup on the back of violent protests is the best way to describe his departure.

        zorro

  16. Iain Moore
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    Neither the EU nor the British state will allow English people to express their identity, why? What is it in common with the British state and EU that are so opposed to England?

  17. Ken Seakens
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    How do you square your belief that a “NO” vote to leave the EU would result in UK leaving the EU with Cameron’s unequivocal statement that he would ignore such a vote?

    Reply He would not ignore a No vote!

    • bigneil
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

      reply to reply
      Would not ignore it – – -but would he actually take us out? Stop with the wordplay john
      – given the record of untrust, lies, word twisting etc – -NOBODY believes Cameron. – -see Kens post below.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

      No he will not ever be in a position to.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      You know as well as we do that the whole thing will be rigged to continue our imprisonment in the EU, just as Wilson did in 1975. Cameron is not and cannot be trusted – he, along with most of your colleagues, is pro-EU and lacks the intellectual self-confidence to lead an independent country.

    • Posted May 13, 2014 at 12:46 am | Permalink

      I am not a closset UKIPer but I will not believe David Cameron is serious until he sets out clear and detailed red lines for the renegotiations and he states unequivocally that he will campaign to leave the EU if these are not achieved.

      All we have heard of so far is a smokescreen of fuzzy suggestions of possible policy ammendments that can be repackaged to look good when in fact nothing will have changed. It could so easily be just a repeat of the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty con job.

      Wh0 is going to hold him to account ?

      A very few Eurosceptic MPs like you, John, whose voices will be drowned out by an unholy alliance of Labour and Lib Dems MPs and the majority of Conservative members who will keep quiet in the hope of getting a government job.

      I fear that it will be all too easy for David Cameron to return from Berlin, smiling and clutching a piece of paper saying peace in our time or something similar, when he has actually achieved nothing of substance.

      He has to be pinned down to clear and unequivocal Red Lines before the General Election. Afterwards will be too late.

  18. Ken Seakens
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    What do Cameron’s posturings matter when he has already confirmed he will not take us out of EU even after a referendum so deciding? See below.
    “In an interview with the Spanish El Pais with the headline quote from Cameron; “The best solution for the UK is to stay in a reformed EU”, he was asked the following (via Google translate):

    ” In case of a Yes victory in the referendum that will organize on leaving the EU, would you be willing to withdraw from the Union?

    And Cameron’s response:

    I would not. (No me gustaría)”
    QED.

    Reply A wrong translation – better to translate as I wouldn’t like to, not I will not. He will have to if the people vote for out.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      That leaves me scratching my head. Cameron has lost the trust of the public and is beyond credible defence. Why should an ‘arch-Eurosceptic’ like you John, continue to afford him any credibility at all?

      Tad

      • APL
        Posted May 13, 2014 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        Tad Davison: “Why should an ‘arch-Eurosceptic’ like you John, continue to afford him any credibility at all?”

        The million dollar question.

        Reply Because he is our PM and offers us the best chance of an In/Out referendum which we need.

    • zorro
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

      Porque Cameron no quiere estar jefe de un estado que puede negociar libremente con otros praises en un mercado libre?

      zorro

  19. Neil Craig
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    The EU/NATO position on whether they believe in the principle of unity – that it is proper to kill to prevent secession – or the principle of secession – that it is right to use force to bring it about – seems to vary depending on whether they think east Ukraine or west Ukraine is in charge and the other the one wanting out. Currently, since Ukraine has no democratic government, there must be doubt which has, more, democratic legitimacy.

    Our principles were even more malleable over Yugoslavia which tends to make it difficult to treat Mr Hague’s moral pronouncements as having any connection to morality.

  20. oldtimer
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    FWIW my wholly unrepresentative straw poll of Scottish independence voting intentions (a few people in the W Highlands) revealed no desire for a split. The only pro resident I met turned out to be half English and half S Irish. After our lengthy and spirited discussion he said he might not vote after all! An elderly Scottish couple were very pro UK, thought a Yes win would cause a big migration from Scotland and were in complete agreement with Nigel Farage about immigration. They clearly resented the way that Salmond had rigged the electorate. An English resident thought a Yes would result in financial disaster and that Salmond would quit immediately following the vote – the Scottish couple thought the same.

  21. Posted May 12, 2014 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Maybe identity is one question that the British public can answer correctly!

    see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html

    And that’s without asking any questions on economic issues!

  22. Robert Taggart
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Indeed – identity means much to most folks and more to some.
    But, where to draw the line ?…
    Parish, Borough / City / District, County, Province, Country, Nation, Continent, Planet ? !
    The Cornish have recently been granted recognition (within Blighty) regarding their ‘special’ identity – without a vote – what would happen if the Tykes wanted the same ?? !!

    That said, one wishes the Basques, Bavarians, Bretons, Catalans, Chechens, Corsicans, Dagestanis, Laplanders, Tartars… well !

    • Vanessa
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      Yes, the classic case of how the EU loves Divide and Rule. We are so much weaker the smaller we are but so much stronger together. They have not really changed their spots.

  23. Ale Bro
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

    One consequence of a Yes vote in Scotland is that David Cameron would surely have to resign as Prime Minister.

  24. forthurst
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    “The western powers are right to say that yesterday’s referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk was neither legal nor properly conducted. Those wanting out may have voted more than once in some cases, and those who wished to stay in the Ukraine may have taken the advice of the Ukrainian government to stay away from the polls.”

    The idea that democracy is only legitimate if sanctioned by an entity which claims an over-arching authority, in this case, by one which itself is wholly illegitimate and undemocratic having been of putschists externally selected by neocons in pursuit of Euroasian hegemony, is flawed; the people of Donetsk and Lugansk have clearly expressed a desire not to be ruled by the Kiev regime. That the Kiev regime or the ‘West’ might not honour that wish does not make it illigitimate. Furthermore, if the Kiev regime actually believed the referendum self-evidently lacked legitimacy and therefore authority, why did it bother to send in armed men to disrupt the polling by blocking polling stations and shooting at bystanders?

    As to the conduct of the polling, it is not reasonable to refuse to send monitors and then claim subsequently and without evidence that there were irregulairites.

    Reply It is a matter of law, and under Ukrainian law the vote was illegal. If these states succeed in detaching themselves illegally from Ukraine, then of course they can set up their own legal system and renounce the law of the old state. The UK has made Scotland’s referendum legal by consenting to it and legalising it, which is what Ukraine should do but does not wish to do.That places the rebels in a difficult position. This ios why we are seeign a power struggle going on in East Ukraine over whose law will rule in future.

    • forthurst
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

      “Reply It is a matter of law, and under Ukrainian law the vote was illegal.”

      Under the Ukrainian Constitution, was it lawful to employ Pravyi Sektor thugs to create a parlimentary majority and vacancies for the roles of PM and President?

      • zorro
        Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

        No, it wasn’t legal.

        zorro

  25. sjb
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    JR wrote: If they [Scotland] decide Yes to the Union they will understand that has to be for a considerable time, [because] unions should not be made and broken too often.

    Do you think that proposition should also apply to the In/Out EU referendum?

    Reply: Yes. If we win for Out we want to stay out.

  26. Vanessa
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know why you keep peddling the lies about a referendum. If you read what Barrosso has said in his “swan song” there isn’t a chance of any proper changes being made to Britain’s membership of the EU. Read it here. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84935
    It really is time for the conservatives to start telling the British public the truth about what the EU was set up for and what it intends to become. Britain cannot be a special case; a new Treaty (needed for renegotiation) needs all 28 countries to agree the terms and that could take 5 years or more. The “ever closer Union” is embedded in all the Treaties and especially the Lisbon Treaty – Our Constitution, whether we like it or not.

    Reply In which case we have the In/Out referendum to vote for Out if we have a Conservative government.

  27. Stuart Saint
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Another excellent article.

    John, I would greatly value your thoughts on the economic effects on England after a Scottich Yes vote. It seems to me we are being deluged with hysterical comment and dire predictions that we have always seen over Brexit from the EU and now applied to the scottish question.

    Reply There would be little effect on England’s economy, assuming both sides negotiated a trade agreement which continued free trade across the border – and assuming the EU allowed us to do that. The lomnger term fiscal position for RUK would improve, as Scotland is very dependent on oil revenues which are likely to run down as the oil fields are exhausted.

    • Posted May 13, 2014 at 12:26 am | Permalink

      I believe that this is a deeply flawed and complacent answer which is extremely dangerous for both England and Scotland.

      We know that no kind of currency Union is going to be on offer and nor should it be but a Yes vote will create a dangerous vacuum. The one thing that causes financial markets to panic is uncertainty.

      If the answer on 18th September is Yes there will be a mass exodus of Financial Services companies rushing to protect the greater part of their business which is in England and a rapid run on Scottish banks which will bankrupt them without unlimited support from the British Treasury.

      In fact the panic will start as soon as the polls start to predict a Yes vote and nothing other than English Politicians conceding a Currency Union will stop it.

      If they don’t give in, and England is forced to bail out the Scottish Banks again, it will then be impossible for Scotland to become Independent.

      England will be carrying a lame duck Scotland for years while relationships between the two countries will deteriorate dramatically as there can be no doubt Salmond will blame the English for ruling out a Currency Union in the first place.

      There has to be a viable financial plan in place before the polls start to go in favour of Independence.

      For far too long all parties at Westminster have been quietly crossing everything in the hope that the polls will continue to show a clear majority against Independence.

      Well, thanks to bluster and disinformation by the Nationalists and wishful thinking and ignorance on the part of the Scottish electorate, the likelyhood is that the polls will turn in Salmond’s favour through the summer.

      A plan is most definitely needed sooner rather than later.

  28. waramess
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I guess we should never take the EU at face value or assume we are privy to its motives. For sure there are people with considerable power lurking in the shadows and pulling most of the strings. Perhaps they want to see regions as forming an integral part of the empire but need some inter-regional control.

    My own guess is pretty fanciful but I see at the root of all this an Empire being built which is lacking in natural energy resources and that is dangerous, for the obvious resolution is to aquire the resources of others by force.

    So far as Scotland is concerned, I hope it gets it’s independence and finds a market niche in which it can operate succesfully. The world is changing and no longer is big good; it didn’t work very well, small is better.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

      ‘For sure there are people with considerable power lurking in the shadows and pulling most of the strings.’

      Waramess, we could start with the minister without portfolio!

      Tad

  29. REPay
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

    The self-determination of peoples was one of the key political idea of the 20th century. As JR points out it is not in vogue in Brussels. The “Europe of the Regions” was what they promoted until recently, when they seem to have decided that the did not really want the old nation-states to breakup (more competition for jobs at the Commission perhaps?)

    Ukraine brings out not only the EU’s imperial tendencies but also our own incoherence. The correct response would be to work with Russia to ensure that fair referendum takes place where there are clearly a majority or large minority of Russians. Ukraine is, as are most nations, an artificial construct…we should not invest a lot of political energy defending it, although we should pressure the Russians to behave respectfully.

    I heard a rather underwhelming Welsh MEP saying on the radio that the EU was a benefactor to Wales and that she would expect EU nationals to learn welsh to compete for jobs in the public sector. There are some 30,ooo Welsh speakers, about the size of Canterbury…I suspect many are not native level.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted May 12, 2014 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

      It does kinda make you wonder where these people come from.

      Tad

  30. Monty
    Posted May 12, 2014 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    “If they decide Yes to the Union they will understand that has to be for a considerable time…”

    They have been given to understand no such thing.

  31. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted May 13, 2014 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    Identity, yes, and it has to be said that nations are about people. Change the composition of a population too quickly and the sense of identity either vanishes or changes. In this situation, it is not surprising that EU leaders and would be EU leaders are on a collision course with David Cameron, not to mention Nigel Farage, over the issue of the UK controlling its own orders.

    The EU say that freedom of movement between Member States is an essential component of the EU. David Cameron has said that he will veto the Accession of any new Member State to the EU (including Scotland??) until this is resolved in the UK’s favour.

    There is talk of an average per capita income test. If a country’s average income is well below that of the UK, freedom of movement is denied. That test could, of course, be applied to nations outside the European Union.

  32. Posted May 15, 2014 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    You write, The EU that has played an important part in fomenting regional identities which may now affect not just the individual member states but also EU policy itself.

    I respond, the dynamos of creditism, corporatism and globalism are winding down on the failure of trust in the monetary policies of world central bank to provide investment gain and global economic growth.

    Clearly bible prophecy of Revelation 13:1-4, and Daniel 2:25-45, where regional economic governance replaces democratic nation states is being fulfilled, as the singular dynamo of regionalism is powering up economic activity.

    The age of floating currencies, and the age of credit, is history with the trade lower in the Euro, FXE, the Swiss Franc, FXF, and the British Pound Sterling, FXB. The rule of Wall Street Bankers, RWW, and City of London Bankers, PUK, LYG, BCS, HSBC, RBS, is diminishing. Said another way the role of what Doug Noland terms wildcat finance is history.

    The age of debt servitude is dawning, with the rise of undollar, regional bartering agreements. The rule of regional fascist economic leaders is increasing. Said another way, the role of wildcat governance, where regional leaders bite, rip, and tear one another apart to see who will be top dog, is the new normal.

    God’s foreordained plan is unfolding. There be no longer any citizens having national identity; rather all be residents of regional panopticons of debt servitude.

    Zero Hedge posts Hedge Russia Holds “De-Dollarization Meeting”: China, Iran Willing To Drop USD From Bilateral Trade. And Business Insider posts Forget Sanctions Over Ukraine: Russia Scores Massive Gas Pipeline Deal With China.

  33. Posted May 17, 2014 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    If all else fails as put forward above, the people can do a couple of things. They can use the general election in 2015 as the REFERENDUM they were promised and-as they know-without doubt all three major Political Parties want to remain in the EU, (With the exception of a few) only vote for those organisations that want out of the EU.

    If the Lisbon Rules prevent them from coming out of the EU, then the people can either do as proposed above or -withold ALL TAXES UNTIL WE ARE FREE FROM FOREIGN RULE. To remain in the EU betrays all those that gave their lives for our Freedom. Perhaps we may then only vote ‘in’ those that actually want to Govern this Country by our own Common Law Constitution as it remained before ANY changes were made, by those that wanted foreigners to govern us all along.

  • 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