Leave means leave

It was good to hear the Prime Minister confirm that if we vote to leave the EU that is exactly what we will do. I know some of you worry that you could vote to leave, win the vote, and then be cheated out of leaving. I have always said leave means leave, and that is now official.  The  sooner the better, when you look at the current very high cost of remaining a member, and look at the shambolic immigration, energy and currency policies the EU core is pursuing.

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

55 Comments

  1. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    John, how nice to see something in writing confirming this. I too can’t wait for the day we get to vote. Looking at the latest debacle on the issue of illegal immigration today in Slovenia I shouldn’t wonder that it will not be too long before many countries will want a vote on leaving or staying. I couldn’t help noticing that the vast majority of immigrants shown on the news this morning were young men. Not families, but young, verile, well nourished young men whose backgrounds we know nothing about and who don’t know anything about our culture or our way of life. A worrying factor when you consider what is happening in Germany right now regarding the expectations of the masses of illegals there. I am concerned also about the defeat in the HOL regarding subsidies for wind. Can you elaborate on this issue please?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      Well, you won’t see it in writing here, where it most matters because it will become the law of the land not just another one of Cameron’s “cast iron” pledges:

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2015-2016/0060/lbill_2015-20160060_en_1.htm

      “European Union Referendum Bill”

      • Lifelogic
        Posted October 25, 2015 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

        I do not even trust cast iron, no if no buts, we will not stop in work benefits Cameron to hold a fair referendum at all. Nor to respect the result. Nor do I trust Iht ratter pension and landlord robber Osborne. Why should we?

        • matthu
          Posted October 26, 2015 at 7:05 am | Permalink

          It is clear that Cameron now realises he will need to resign immediately if he fails to take the electorate with him on remaining in the EU.

          But Cameron has also promised to publish his “negotiation” demands within days.

          He cannot risk publishing demands that will never be met by the EU, nor can he risk publishing demands that are so weak that they are immediately rejected by the UK.

          So one should assume that he will present his outline for “two-tier EU” or “associate membership” or whatever, although he will probably call it something else.

          If he does so, this will be a positive move because it will bring the debate right into the open, calling the bluff of all the INners. If he fails to present a realistic option, he may as well pack up now.

          • Graham Wood
            Posted October 26, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink

            Matthu. I agree with your points, and as many are now discussing, it is likely that Associate Membership may well be offered as an ‘EU lite’ option, which presumably DC thinks will be acceptable to the British people.

            But that option is not catered for in a ‘leave’ vote should that be the choice of the electorate in the referendum – now that it is confirmed that ‘leave means leave’.
            But we now learn that Mr Cameron wants to put pressure on the “leavers”, challenging them to set out exactly what kind of relationship Britain should have with the rest of the Europe if the country votes to leave the EU.
            That is a mistake on his part and a needless distraction from the main business of the referendum which will result in a leave or remain decision. Perhaps such a distraction is intentional in order to confuse the electorate?

            In any event it is the business of government and ministers to work out all possible options following the referendum, not campaigning groups. That is what we vote them into office for and why we pay ministers to do the necessary research and come up with answers!

    • Victor
      Posted October 30, 2015 at 1:46 am | Permalink

      Merkel has lost her mind (politically at least) to decide all refugees wellcome. Reversing her policy will not make her recover her common sense.

      Europe will split and give up the Euro, returning to a free trade zone.

      The Germans are unpredictable at critical moments or are predictable to screw up. Somehow they throw out the window all their famed planning skill and attention to detail and consensus building before acting. Come to think of it, VW leadership also shows amazing lack of attention to detail and of consensus seeking discussion before deciding to essentially to risk losing the company.

  2. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:24 am | Permalink

    Agreed, but the business of you’ll do as we require (told) stuff is all too pervasive.

    Portugal, Greece, Germany, France, Sweden, Ukraine, Serbia all off my visit list. And there are others…just say Europe then.

  3. agricola
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Okay, you believe the PM, I believe you. Let us now start thinking about exactly what we want having left. Trade as it is now, useful, but on the decline. Do we move under the EFTA umbrella for this purpose and what are our obligations if we do. What about our own Bill of Rights/Responsibilities as citizens of the UK. Should this be part of a written Constitution or is this a separate matter.

    There are many areas where we already cooperate very successfully, air and maritime law for instance, and aspects of the law apart from the EAW, unless we build into it a preliminary hearing in a UK court to establish whether there is a case to answer of sufficient gravity to warrant extradition to an EU court.

    We do not want to awake on D+1 with no map of where we are going.

    • Vanessa
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      Agricola – if you read “Flexit” on eureferendum dot com you will see exactly what we would have and how we would get it.

    • bluedog
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

      The first and most important requirement is the adult mindset of self-reliance.

      For centuries the UK, firstly through England, Wales and Ireland, built up a body of law and democratic institutions that even today provide all that is needed for a prosperous civil society. There is no need to defer to any supra-national institutions at all.

      Note that the leading nations of East Asia (formerly the Far East) are completely independent, prosperous, socially harmonious and also mono-cultural and mono-ethnic. Is there a message there?

    • Peter Parsons
      Posted October 27, 2015 at 7:57 am | Permalink

      If we move under EFTA to remain part of the EEA, we get to:

      1, Continue to trade freely with the EU.

      2, Continue to be bound by the EU’s regulations, although now with no voice in shaping them.

      3, Continue to be bound to make a financial contribution to the EU, but with no opportunity to apply for funding.

      Avoid 2 and 3 means not just leaving the EU, but the EEA as well.

      • Ben Kelly
        Posted October 29, 2015 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        This isn’t an accurate assessment of the “Norway/UNECE” option.

        Norway IS involved in the consultation process at a European level, but more importantly it influences standards and regulation at an international level before they are drafted and handed down to nations and the EU.

        It is an attractive transitional arrangement fro the first stage of Brexit, hence whey Cameron is worried about it.

  4. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Take note: “leave ” is defined as:
    1. “go away from”
    2. “allow or cause to remain”

    Plus an assortment of variations:. Cameron-speak. “no ifs, no buts” ( “yets” certainly allowed )

  5. Antisthenes
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Every day the EU resembles a chimpanzees tea party than a orderly well managed government. Although the latter is a misnomer as no government ever attains that particular position. At least the UK government gives the impression that it knows what it is doing and is making the right decisions. Of course we know that our government can be shambolic and often gets it wrong especially when Labour are at the helm but at least it is our government which we have some control over it at the ballot box. That cannot be said of the EU. It is all but a unaccountable dictatorship that with lordly disdain imposes it’s will on all of us. Impervious to the damage it is doing to it’s member states and non member states who are daft enough to be influenced by it.

  6. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    When did Cameron say that, and why isn’t it in the Bill for the referendum?

    Clegg’s Act for the AV referendum explicitly laid down what would ensue if the result was in favour of changing to AV, and also what would ensue if the referendum went the other way, so why does the government’s Bill for the EU referendum not say what would ensue if the vote was to leave the EU?

    It wouldn’t be difficult to insert a clause with similar effect to Section 8 in Clegg’s Act:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/section/8

    “8 Commencement or repeal of amending provisions

    (1) The Minister must make an order bringing into force section 9, Schedule 10 and Part 1 of Schedule 12 (“the alternative vote provisions”) if –

    (a) more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, and

    (b) the draft of an Order in Council laid before Parliament under subsection (5A) of section 3 of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (substituted by section 10(6) below) has been submitted to Her Majesty in Council under section 4 of that Act.

    (2) If more votes are not cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Yes” than in favour of the answer “No”, the Minister must make an order repealing the alternative vote provisions … ”

    How about something like this:

    “If more votes are cast in the referendum in favour of the answer “Leave the European Union” than in favour of the answer “Remain a member of the European Union” then the Minister must as soon as may be practicable formally notify the European Council that the United Kingdom intends to leave the European Union under the provisions of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union”.

    That should do it, shouldn’t it?

  7. Duyfken
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    Thank you JR, since I have been one doubting that LEAVE would actually mean leaving. Of course we can now trust Cameron …

    • Vanessa
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

      What “cast-iron guarantee………” and “no “ifs or buts……..”

      Of course we can trust him !

      • matthu
        Posted October 26, 2015 at 6:13 am | Permalink

        That is exactly why Cameron would resign in the event of vote to Leave.

  8. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    For information, here is the text of Article 50 TEU:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012M/TXT

    “Article 50

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

    3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

    4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”

    Reply I see no reason why we should proceed under the rules of a Treaty the British people had just voted to leave! Let’s get on with a negotiation and with amending the 1972 Act

    • forthurst
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      “Reply I see no reason why we should proceed under the rules of a Treaty the British people had just voted to leave!”

      Please correct me if I’m wrong, but there are two ways to LEAVE the EU: their way (Article 50) and our way (Repeal 1972 Act). If we were foolish enough to use their way, presumably the 1972 Act would become ineffective at the end of the rigmarole unless and until a future government were to decide without further ado to rejoin.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 25, 2015 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

        It doesn’t work like that; the UK is a “dualist” state, and “international law is only part of British national law once it is accepted in national law”:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monism_and_dualism_in_international_law

        I’ve reproduced “their way”, Article 50, above, and if you read that you will see that there is nothing in the process which changes UK law.

        The change is that at the start of the process the UK is signed up to the EU treaties, which the UK has fully ratified after approval by the UK Parliament through a succession of Acts, while at the end of the process the UK is signed up to some new treaty but it has not yet been fully ratified by the UK because the UK Parliament has not yet approved it through a new Act.

        As far as the present Acts are concerned they remain on the statute book until Parliament repeals them, which will probably be part of the new legislation, and they will remain fully effective until such time as the new treaty has been approved and finally ratified and come into force to replace the present treaties.

        So that Article 50 process is entirely on the international plane, not on the domestic plane, whereas if we adopted “our way” of simply repealing the ECA72 and subsequent Acts then that would only be on the domestic plane and would have no direct effect on the international plane.

        The UK would still be bound by the EU treaties but would no longer be able to meet their terms in the absence of the Acts to approve them, and so it would become necessary for the UK government to act on the international plane by revoking the previous instruments of ratification through which the UK gave its final consent to be bound by the EU treaties.

        If we want an orderly withdrawal we should start on the international plane, Article 50 being the exit route provided by the EU treaties and accepted by all the other EU member states, and then Parliament should legislate on the domestic plane; while if we would actually prefer a chaotic withdrawal we should start on the domestic plane with Parliament repealing the present Acts, then the government abrogating the EU treaties, and only then starting to talk about new treaty arrangements with the other member states.

        • forthurst
          Posted October 25, 2015 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

          Surely if we use the ‘chaotic’ route we would be able to continue to trade with the EU according to their terms during the period of treaty negotiation whilst negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world as an independent nation; would the EU want to put up barriers to trade when they have a surplus with us? Do we have any evidence that the Article 50 route would be orderly? There are other pressing issues which need to be addressed such as those of our rapidly declining power generation capacity and the consequence of EU passports being dished out to the all those (millions) who have left a neocon war zone and marched in column into the EU which should not be delayed.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted October 26, 2015 at 10:47 am | Permalink

            Well, I think it’s going to be hard enough to win the referendum without promising people that if they vote to leave then there will immediately be a period of chaos, legal chaos which would impinge not just on trade but on the multitude of other things which now spring from the EU treaties, all of which would have been sorted out and restored to some kind of order through new agreements to replace the existing EU treaties. And why do that? If you are looking for a definitive, decisive, irrevocable step to immediately follow on from a vote to leave the EU then giving the EU formal notice that we are leaving would be just such a step, and could easily be written into the referendum Bill, and would ensure that withdrawal from the EU was an orderly and smooth process, with some uncertainty during the course of the negotiations but not with immediate outright chaos. I say that it would be an “irrevocable” step because Article 50 makes no provision for a country to change its mind and rescind its formal notice that it intends to withdraw from the EU; once the notice has gone in under that exit route it’s gone in and can’t be recalled, the process has started and has to run its course.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      We don’t have to make our exit through Article 50 TEU, even though some say that it has been kindly provided by other member states primarily for our convenience and it would seem churlish to cast it aside without having tried it out.

      We are a sovereign state and could simply abrogate all the EU treaties, including that article on the withdrawal of a member state, and we should reserve the right to do that if the other member states muck us about during the negotiations. However that would not be the orderly withdrawal which would be best for all concerned.

      You could of course draft an alternative clause to be put into the referendum Bill, specifying some other course of action including perhaps the repeal of the ECA72. But that in itself would not take us out of the EU, it would just mean that the UK government would no longer be able to fulfill its obligations under the EU treaties and would be forced to withdraw from them, and how would it do that?

      The most obvious step then available to the government would be to put in the notice under Article 50, which they would be directly, not indirectly, compelled to do through my suggested new clause in the Bill.

      You say:

      “if we vote to leave the EU that is exactly what we will do”;

      well then, put exactly that on the face of the Act for the referendum and so remove all doubt about what would follow from a vote to leave. Otherwise we will only have Cameron’s word for it, and we know how much value to put on that.

    • Graham Wood
      Posted October 26, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      Reply (from JR to Dennis Cooper) ” I see no reason why we should proceed under the rules of a Treaty the British people had just voted to leave! Let’s get on with a negotiation and with amending the 1972 Act”
      Precisely, and once that amendment has passed through our parliament that begins the process of immediately dis-applying all EU rules, directives & etc in relation to British law and domestic policy.
      Once that essential step has been taken then the longer process of disentangling the UK from over 40 years of complex EU and international treaty obligations can begin in an orderly fashion.
      In practical terms there is nothing that the EU can object to in such a process – for the clause in Art. 50 states clearly that : “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”. Thus a sovereign Act by a British parliament in amending or repealing the ’72 Act is most certainly “constitutional” .

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 26, 2015 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        It does say that, and then it goes on to say “A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention”; so under that article the EU could and no doubt would object if the UK Parliament rushed to repeal its approval of the EU treaties before the UK government had even given the EU formal notice of its intention to leave.

        And why do that, when under Article 50 the formal notice that the UK intended to leave the EU would be irrevocable, and in practice it would be even more irrevocable than repeal of the ECA72?

        Because if there was a change of government the UK Parliament could then simply repeal the Act rushed through to repeal the ECA72, and reinstate it, whereas in contrast the notice given to the European Council could only be cancelled if all of the EU member state governments agreed that they would act outside the terms of Article 50.

        I can see where this will lead, to the Act for the EU referendum still saying nothing at all about would ensue from a vote to leave because some of us don’t want to exit the EU using the exit clause provided in the EU treaties, and no alternative course of action is put into the Act, and then after a vote to leave the government will find some excuse for not leaving.

        • forthurst
          Posted October 26, 2015 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

          Denis, do you trust a Europhile Government with a Europhile parliament to deploy a team of Eurosceptics to negotiate our withdrawal under Article 50, or would we have a team of dyed-in-the-wool Europhiles (Nation-haters) negotiating in secret for an outcome which would bear a remarkable resemblance to IN?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted October 27, 2015 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

            No, I don’t trust that Cameron would appoint a strong team of negotiators, and nor do I trust that Parliament would be kept properly informed about the progress of the negotiations and then be able or willing to say that some item which had been provisionally agreed was unacceptable, but that is the same whether the negotiations are being conducted within the framework of Article 50 or outside that.

            As JR has implicitly accepted above, with his “Let’s get on with a negotiation and with amending the 1972 Act”, there would have to be negotiations, and I don’t see that this could be better achieved by eschewing Article 50.

            More to the point, I don’t trust Cameron to take us out of the EU even if there is a vote in favour of leaving. He’s as slippery as an eel and I can easily imagine him reacting by coming out with excuses not to start the process of withdrawal. That is why I want the Act to say on its face that if the vote is to leave the EU then the government MUST immediately take some definitive action to that end. I would prefer that action to be putting in the formal notice that we are withdrawing under Article 50, as a quick and simple and irrevocable step, but I am open to suggestions for alternative actions which could be written into the Act.

  9. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    British people to be kind are the most placid people in Europe politically. To be accurate the most ill-educated, inert, and ignorant. Our university students give the game away.Every book on satire they read has to accompanied out of sheer necessity by a Companion Book explaining every phrase, term and sentence. Like explaining a joke.

    If they vote to Leave and Cameron does not, most people will be unaware of it, many will not care a jot and a number will believe we have left when we remain. In the third year at university, the penny may just drop if their professors are Corbynistically bearded and have advocated and forced their students to learn by rote.

  10. alan jutson
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Good to hear.

    Lets try and make sure we get a no vote.

  11. Old Albion
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Sorry JR. I still don’t believe it………………

  12. Excalibur
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    All academic, JR, although I wish it were otherwise. I am convinced the apathetic British public will vote to stay in……

  13. Vanessa
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    Some of us are still not persuaded that Cameron will abide by a “leave” vote.

    Juncker is talking about having only one seat on the IMF representing the European Union (which he will fill) thus denying all 28 countries their seat on the IMF which some have had since the 1940s. If Britain votes to stay IN the European Union and then perhaps needs a “bail-out” (not unimaginable) – not being a member of the Eurozone or the IMF – would Juncker and the IMF give us favourable terms or even agree to a bail-out?

    • ian wragg
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

      As ewe are a large contributor to the IMF I don’t think our seat will be lost if we leave the EU. I doubt if Junckers plan will be adopted but then again another reason to leave.
      Next he will be wanting to represent the EU on the Security Council. See… how many nuclear subs does he have.
      Reading a comment on Breitbart I was amuse to see one commentator refer to the immigrants as gimmegrants. Good description and duly adopted.

      • Hefner
        Posted October 26, 2015 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        As large a contributor as 4.52 percent … Maybe a more realistic view on the weight of the U.K. in the world.
        All the rest is the usual huffing and puffing.

        See “IMF members’ quotas and voting power, and IMF board of governors” on IMF.org

      • Vanessa
        Posted October 26, 2015 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        Ian Wragg – I said if we vote to STAY IN and therefore lose our seat to Juncker would we be treated fairly without being in the EUROZONE.

        If we leave we will, of course, either take back our seat (if Juncker has already implemented his idea) or resume it and keep our influence in the IMF.

  14. Martin
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    “energy policies” and the EU?

    I thought these days that the Little Britain SAR of the PRC had its energy policy decided in Beijing.

  15. waramess
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    As Denis Cooper says this is a promise by Cameron and not apparently by the party and certainly not set in stone.
    Too much to ask?
    Take a look at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/speeches/2015/euboe211015.pdf (which I am sure you have) just to see quite how snake in the grass-like this has become.

    Statements like “to the extent that” and words like “might” “should” and “could” pepper this so called study and what on earth is economic and financial openness? And so on and so forth.

    Just reading the first couple of pages is a bit like marking a bad essay which dwells on vagaries rather than fact even though a raft of well paid economists have been paid to put it together and reading the whole leaves one feeling that so little is added to the debate that it might have been worthwhile to shelve until some other time.

    It is no more than a political paper designed to mildly appease the out campaign whilst endeavouring to influence those in the centre ground that might be influenced by such a group of grandees.

    If the Europhiles have a hidden agenda then shame on them. If they have a good stout argument then they should make it but, attempting to deceive, even by obfuscation, is to do no more than illuminate the fact that they should pause and reflect on their own opinions

  16. Peter Stroud
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Good news, I believe what you say JR. IF we vote OUT, we will leave this ill managed collection, and be able to regain our sovereignty, and run our own affairs again. But what of Scotland? If the pro EU support is as firm as suggested by the SNP, Scotland might insist on another referendum for independence. What is the government’s stance on this? Such a move will, surely, over complicate the issue.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted October 25, 2015 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      Peter Stroud

      If the pro EU support is as firm as suggested by the SNP

      Here in dictatorship Scotland the only people who believe the suggestions and any other twaddle put out by the Scottish parliament are card carrying I bleed blue blood members.

      The truth is that the vast majority of the Scottish population do not have a scooby do about the real impact on being in the EU. The “I hate the English and blame them for everything” culture has been ingrained in them from birth. It is only those who have travelled not just to the Costa’s and Florida, worked abroad, have professional academical careers that have a real life insight to what the real world is all aboutsee it differently. Lots of true Scottish people are ashamed of how and where their country is going. England ignores them at its peril. They are the future of Scotland.

      The debacle of the mines, ship building, steel and fishing are all perceived to be the fault of the English and now very little gets done at a local level without the F word. FUNDING. Matched, Cross or European it is all the same. The Scottish people have been sold a pup. The community funding from windfarms is basically paid by the bill payers. 50 million of which reside in the rest of the UK.
      If and when Scotland gets it independence then the true cost will be driven home to those north of the border. That is why the Scottish Government want to remain in Europe it is one hell of a safety net. Mind you after Greece to some it seems more like the hangmans noose.

  17. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Off-topic, except that it once again shows why we should get out of this madhouse:

    https://euobserver.com/justice/130824

    “Leaders of frontline states on the Balkan migrant trail are planning to deploy hundreds of extra border guards to “slow down the flows” of refugees.

    The proposal, seen by EUobserver, was put forward by the European Commission ahead of a mini-summit on the crisis, being held in Brussels on Sunday (25 October).”

    Also:

    “They will also “commit to refrain from facilitating the movement of refugees or migrants to the border of another country of the region without the agreement of that country.”

    I’d say that the Italians and French should take note of that, even though they were not invited to this mini-summit (which has caused some annoyance).

  18. ian wragg
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

    John, it is becoming increasingly obvious that Cameron is trying to con the electorate.
    There are no negotiations as we well know and the Associated Membership is a smoke and mirrors device to fool the public
    Please read the following
    http://con4lib.com/the-cameron-deception-associate-membership-of-the-eu/

  19. Anonymous
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

    We are not leaving the EU.

    We are not allowed to.

    China, America and Germany want is to remain so remain we will.

    The sooner we dismantle our own parliament and be honest about who we are (or who we are not !) the better.

    A symbolic act would be to allow Big Ben to go into permanent disrepair and for it never to ring again. An even more symbolic act would be for eminent Eurosceptic politicians to stop being politicians and admit publicly that the situation is hopeless.

  20. MPC
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Not sure why as a Tory MP you are saying that the EU Core is ‘pursuing a shambolic currency policy’ when the movement to banking union/common treasury within the eurozone, I thought, has been advocated by both David Cameron and George Osborne?

  21. margaret
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    I feel it is too late. I went to well known store yesterday . Every person/ couple who went past me spoke in a foreign language. Every European language was all around/ every eastern language was resounding. I couldn’t hear English anywhere.

  22. margaret
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    If it doesn’t happen , we won’t be able to pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off again.

  23. JoeSoap
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    My take on this is that he means that we will be on course to leave pending a further referendum on the terms of departure, which will basically be cached as a choice for us to be cast into the outer darkness or to remain members after all.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 26, 2015 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      The UK government wouldn’t be in a position to offer continuing EU membership on the existing terms as an option in that second referendum, unless all of the other EU member state governments had already made an hoc decision to allow that despite Article 50 TEU having no provision for a country to revoke its formal notice that it intends to leave the EU. I suppose they might all agree to say “OK, let’s just forget all about your silly notice that you were leaving and carry on as before”, but it seems very unlikely they would do that. More likely they would be asking for some price to allow the UK to stay in the EU when it had told them that it was going to leave and put them all to the trouble of negotiations about the exit terms.

  24. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    Talking of shambolic energy policies of the EU and the UK I was sent this link today. It is well worth looking at and hope you get enough time to John and put it on your site.

    http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/lord-christopher-moncton-quickie/

  25. petermartin2001
    Posted October 25, 2015 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    “Brussels really has created a monster.” So wrote Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph recently over the disgraceful anti-democratic behaviour of the Portuguese President at the behest of his EU masters.

    Many on the left have hitherto been ardently pro the EU. Now many are saying it should jettison its preposterous neo-liberal ideology, and make the third pillar, the Social Chapter, be the real guiding principle of its existence. There’s not much chance of that. IMO. The chances of taming the beast are slim. But, there is still some false optimism on the left. When that dissipates, many will move over to the idea that Labour should campaign to come out.

    President Anibal Cavaco Silva has handed the “Leave” team an absolute gift. It’s an own goal by the EU too. Hopefully he has done the same for those of us arguing against the idiocy of neo-liberalism, as exemplified by the nonsense of Osbornomics!

  26. Original Richard
    Posted October 26, 2015 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    The European Union in the past has not accepted referendum results it does not want and has always requested a second referendum.

    If the UK votes to leave, then we can be sure that the European Union will insist upon another referendum.

    So, those voters who would like the UK to remain in a “reformed” European Union should definitely be voting to leave in the first referendum to ensure that there are real changes made to the European Union before the second referendum.

  27. Ken Adams
    Posted October 26, 2015 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    There is no plan for leaving, we do not know what settlement Cameron might agree with regard to our future post membership relationship with the EU. All we will be asked is if we want to remain in as associated or second class members.

    Those who want to remain in will also want to try to demolish all post membership scenarios in order to sell the idea that to leave would be a leap in the dark. But to remain in would also be a leap in the dark.

    • Ben Kelly
      Posted October 29, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Precisely. The EU is changing, and is always looking to expand its power, and seeks to replace member states in all the places that it matters on the world stage. Staying in is s a risk.

  28. Bob
    Posted October 26, 2015 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    I read following in the Telegraph:

    “Anibal Cavaco Silva, Portugal’s constitutional president, has refused to appoint a Left-wing coalition government even though it secured an absolute majority in the Portuguese parliament and won a mandate to smash the austerity regime bequeathed by the EU-IMF Troika. “

    I haven’t seen or heard any mention of this in any other news media.

  29. Tony Day
    Posted November 3, 2015 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    The government are using the old scaremongering tricks to try to put people off voting for us to leave its Selfishness on there account they will only lose more and more British products and jobs by remaining in the EU Tories and some Labour and Lib Dems all want you o stay in they don’t seem to care about Immigration they don’t really care about the Environment but don,t think for one minute it will be an easy ride if we leave the EU we will all have to pull together and make this a great country again and it does not mean we will have to cease trading with Europeans altogether but we will save billions at the end of the day people should not think that it is a racist issue either listen to what Nigel Ferage says and let US rule our own country again

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • 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