How would the Stay in campaign tell us to vote in the second referendum if we do stay in?

 

The EU is on a wild ride to political union. Far from representing the status quo, the Better Stay in Europe (BSE) campaign wishes to sentence us to endless rows and uncertainties as the rest of the EU goes about its task of ever closer union.

The rest of the EU is working towards significant Treaty change to increase EU powers after June 2017. Were we still to be in the EU that would trigger another referendum for the UK under our EU referendum Act, agreed by all three main UK political parties in Parliament.

 

The 5 Presidents Report mapping the future of the Euro and the EU is quite clear on these matters. It states that in the first phase of completing the Union, up to June 30 2017, they intend to “build on existing instruments and make the best possible use of existing treaties” to increase central power and convergence by member states. In Stage 2 commencing in June 2017 they propose “concrete measures of a more far reaching nature…. The convergence process would be made more binding”.

 

Stage 2 is ambitious. It will include integrating the European Stability Mechanism into the EU law framework. It entails setting up a Euro area Treasury accountable at the European level. It means “integrate into the framework of EU law the Treaty on Stability, co-ordination and governance, the relevant parts of the Euro Plus Pact, and the intergovernmental agreement on the Single Resolution Fund.” This is jargon for saying the Euro now drives the EU, and the Euro’s needs must come to have a central part in the EU’s structure.

 

In other words, they intend major Treaty change to include the Euro Treaty, Euro area budgets, guarantees and transfers that the UK has expressly opted out from and so far largely kept out of the Treaties applying to all 28 member states. The medium term plan is to use the EU and its legal structures for all Euro activity, and to handle much more of the member states tax revenues and budgetary matters at EU level.

 

How would the UK keep itself out of all the costs and difficulties of the Euro in such a case? Stay in needs to explain how they might recommend voting on those major Treaty changes, as currently they claim the UK can stay free of the Euro and the tax bills it brings with it. How can you belong to a football club but refuse to play or watch football? The EU is  going to be driven by the needs of the Euro.

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

109 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    I do not expect much if any sensible explanation from Cameron types on how they will deal with these treaty changes.

    The choice is simple as you say a wild ride to political union or get out. I think they will vote out, unless the BBC can swing it with its absurd bill.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      unless the BBC can swing it with its absurd bias I meant, (and bill).

      • Bazman
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

        Foil hat time again.
        Absurd bias like asking if Britain would be better in than out? Or out than in? However they report it the likes of you will see it as bias. However you have little to say about other sources which are truly bias such as foreign owned newspapers whos proprietors live abroad,The licence fee argument is not enough. Advertising must produce bias and even more so. The right does not like C4 and the bais of SKY is not mentioned much if at all.
        Still waiting for your reply on more in many cases privatisation cost the stet more than when it was previously state owned such as social housing areas of the NHS, rail to name but a few. Worse services, lower benefits for recipients and more cost via less tax revenues, lower pay and other financial scams such PFI agreements in the NHS. Often the only way some of these private companies can make profits is by worse services and lower wages as the state was doing the job efficiently anyway.
        Reply and do not deny that this is the truth in many cases. Inconvenient truths for deluded dogma.

        • libertarian
          Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

          Bazman

          I can now see where your deluded ramblings come from you truly are in the same bracket as Corbyn, Livinstone, O’Connell, Abbott, Galloway and all the other Labour Party’s “opposition benches”.

          You haven’t provided one shred of evidence for any assertion you made in your post & nearly everything is factually wrong.

          Better check your facts before demanding the internet is closed.

          By the way remind us about all you rantings and predictions prior to the election, you know the election in which your party got wiped out.

        • Edward2
          Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

          Who says you are right Baz?
          Apart from you of course

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 3:02 am | Permalink

          PFI agreements were generally absurd but who is to blame for these but Labour & the incompetent state sector staff who agreed to them.

          Of course other publications are biased but they, unlike the state funded BBC, have no duty not to be. You can buy them or not as you wish and take you choice of bias.

          • Bazman
            Posted November 19, 2015 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

            The Tories are set to agree new PFI agreements probably to hide debt. The licence fee is a red herring. You get to say what should be reported on advertising funded TV or other publications you are telling me? Most of the Tory party outriders have come from the BBC so explain what bias maybe at work there. The BBC is not bias enough to the right is you argument and where is your outrage at the massive housing bill being paid to private landlords due to the state not building enough social housing. The private sector could never build enough and never has been able to.
            Socialism for the rich is OK to you? That is what it is.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:07 am | Permalink

          Well, “the right” may not comment on the bias of Sky but I do, and as I’ve repeatedly pointed out it’s on a par with that of the BBC.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted November 19, 2015 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

            I do not comment because I almost never watch Sky, other than in the odd hotel on occasions.

  2. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    I believe the world would need to stand still and the clock tick on, for a another referendum to hit the diplomatic tables.

    One week ago, France along with other EU bully-boys was threatening debilitating fines and sanctions against the Visegrad Group of countries. Their crimes were screening of migrants and barbed wire border controls. Yesterday France/President Hollande announced unilaterally he was having immediate border controls and barbed wire on borders. This of course has not been lost on Poland ,Hungary, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. Also Slovenia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria are also wide awake. President Hollande’s blatant arrogance and Mrs Merkel’s suicidal immigration policy has ended the EU bar the shouting.
    Less than a dozen Islamic extremists in a couple of hours have changed France’s foreign and domestic policy. When ISIS gets a full week in, then not much of the EU will be left.

    There’s more: Australia is having to adjust its adoption laws so it can import Polish, Latvian and Romanian parent-less kids. Odd to say, but even a Romanian poet has written of the children abandoned at rail stations as their mothers go off to work in Germany and England, never to return. Same with Latvia. Plus all the other more natural causes of being parent-less.

    One is reminded of World War Two when such children, including from the UK were sent off by the Churches to America, South Africa and Australia. And from there they were sometimes shipped off to third countries separating siblings. Horror. Native Canadian children joining them, forever lost to their real parents.

    The EU is a social, military, economic, political disaster. It is going through the aftermath of a European war which hasn’t happened.

    • yosarion
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

      Watching the interview between France and Belgium only hours after the Paris incidents there was something missing between the two premiers that I have not seen in many a year. The EUSSR flag was missing between the two national flags.

      • stred
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 6:28 am | Permalink

        Anyone noticed that the terrorists tend to come from Belgium and no-one mentions the more exact location- Brussels.

  3. Leslie Singleton
    Posted November 17, 2015 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    The country at large has not the slightest idea of the quantum jump that the EU maniacs are seeking to force us to take. As ever I cannot comprehend why we don’t see more in the media for I cannot believe the planned measures have even the slightest popularity. People should be asked how interested they are in more of their taxes being “spent at the EU level”. Even as it is I can never understand what we get back for the fortune we already pour in every day.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      Leslie – spot on!
      But there is hope, at last the BBC of all people produced a documentary on what is happening to our coal fired power stations. And it is chronic.
      Maybe they will relent and tell us the truth.

      • Chris
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        Such as the closure of our coal fired power stations is in response to the EU Large Combustion Plant Directive.
        From Wiki:
        “Under the terms of the directive, combustion plant built after 1987 must comply with specific emissions limits. From 2007, plant built earlier than that could either opt to comply with the emissions limits, or ‘opt out’.[4] Plant which opted out has been limited to a maximum of 20,000 hours of further operation, and must close completely by the end of 2015.[5] Across Europe, 205 plants have opted out, with Britain having the largest proportion of opted-out plant in terms of total capacity.[6]

        The Large Combustion Plant Directive will be superseded by the Industrial Emissions Directive on 1 January 2016…”[

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:09 am | Permalink

        Mike–Wish somebody could give me some clue how come we are getting rid of our coal fired entirely whereas Germany building new and with dirtier coal.

        • turbo terrier
          Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

          Leslie

          It is not just the Germans, what about China and India?

          They have no concerns about CO2 emmissions.

          Sadly apart from our host and a 100 odd of his collegues the rest of Westminster have all signed up as fully paid disciples of the religon of Global warming and Renewables.

          Any Government worth a rub would repeal the Climate Change Act and think and start again.

          For what we actually produce in the way of CO2 is three fifths of naff all in the big global picture. But the UK must be seen in leading the world. The majority of our politicians struggle with letting go of the days when the Great in Britain meant just that.

          The country needs new leaders and a new direction we cannot carry on as we are being dictated to by all those wishing to force more Greencrap, Lose Trident, Stop GM crops etc etc etc.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink

        All the engineers and sensible people working at these power stations seemed to understand full well what a complete insanity the “expensive, renewable, huge tax and bill payer subsidy, EU driven religion” this is.

        It is not even at if wind and pv save significant c02 anyway.

        • Bazman
          Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

          Does this apply to the nuclear station planned which are going to receive truly massive subsidy? How much CO2 will these save when the carbon trail is followed?
          In Australia the fossil fuel companies are saying green energy is receiving unfair advantages as the sun is free. You could not make it up.
          Green energy facts are not what you are about and when given any evidence for the advantages of green energy in given application just refuse to believe its true. How scientific is that? Thick anti scientific right wing religious beliefs pertaining as fact as per. Square that off for us please.

          • Edward2
            Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

            Please explain Baz, how we meet fast rising demands for energy in the UK, without coal and gas or nuclear.
            Forget the subsidies argument.
            Just which source or mix currently available would you use.

          • Bazman
            Posted November 19, 2015 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

            There is no rising demand. Got that and the rest off you? It’s a lie.

      • Timaction
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:11 am | Permalink

        UKIP is the only Party who is telling the truth. You won’t hear any of this from any of the legacy leaders or the msm. There is a combination of lies and spin by the establishment to keep us in the EU dictatorship. There are no benefits to the EU for the majority of British/English citizens. They pretend trade when our independent sovereign democracy means so much more. Our freedom trumps them every time.
        So why is Cameron seeking to bomb Syria again? What possible benefit will come from a few more bombs? Is it a fanatical need to establish his legacy? The war cannot be won from the air. The ground and the mindset will take far more.
        Remind me, what parties imported all these troubles?

    • forthurst
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      “… I cannot believe the planned measures have even the slightest popularity.”

      That’s the reason they are not mentioned. Why do people want to control the MSM? So that they can persuade people to believe what is untrue or want what is bad for them.

  4. bluedog
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    ”How would the UK keep itself out of all the costs and difficulties of the Euro in such a case?”

    Easy. Flatly refuse to sign and flatly refuse to pay if called upon to do so.

    The EU is all bluff and has no power to coerce. Look at what the French have just done in closing their borders and ramping up defence expenditure, which will trigger a budget deficit way outside the 3% limit. Look at what the Finns are doing, and they are traditionally very close to Germany, but not any longer it seems. There are reports of a movement pressing for Finland to leave the Eurozone.

    It really is time for the British political class to learn firstly how to recognise weakness in a counter-party, and secondly how to exploit that weakness to selfish ends. One shouldn’t have to explain these things.

    • matthu
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Flatly refuse to sign and flatly refuse to pay if called upon to do so.

      That’s no more than we expect (just like we refused to pay the “completely unacceptable” bill of £1.7billion to the European Union).

    • Timaction
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      But you do to our leading politicos as they are as stupid as you believe. Meet and talk to these people. They have no strategic thinking, they know nothing of any consequence but their egos are the size of Jupiter. They believe themselves born to lead!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:50 am | Permalink

      There is no chance that Finland will leave the eurozone while that means leaving the EU altogether. Even if the debate which has started up reached the point of the Finns being asked in a referendum they would certainly vote to stay in the euro once it had been made clear to them that the alternative was get out of the EU.

      I recall that at one point support for leaving the euro was rising in Greece, but that was rapidly reversed when it was impressed upon the Greeks that if they did that they would be cast into outer darkness.

  5. stred
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Do the Bull Sh.. Enterprise businesses realise that BSE means Bovine Spongiform Encaphalitis, or Mad Cow Disease. Still a burger eater so not sure of the spelling Lord Deben.

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:45 am | Permalink

    Indeed the EU is clearly going to be driven by the needs of the Euro and the desire to draw all almost all power to the antidemocratic centre.

    So why exactly are Cameron and the Tory leadership so keen on it? Keen to get the referendum over with very quickly too it seems. The longer they give it the more the out vote will grow.

    I am still not convinced Cameron will even give a fair referendum if he thinks he will lose.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:13 am | Permalink

      Off topic:

      As Amber Rudd is about to announce the end of coal power stations. We get the BBC line (this morning). They claim gas has trouble competing with wind and solar when the wind blows and the sun shines – as they are virtually free. Just how dim do they think people are?

      How can the BBC pump out this complete and utter innumerate drivel? Coal and gas have difficulty competing because the legal, subsidy and tax framework is absurdly sloped against them and hugely in favour of absurdly expensive and intermittent “renewables”.

      In another program they found a US global warming sceptic then asked her (completely out of the blue) if she believed in evolution? – she did not. It was clearly a pathetic & cheap BBC trick all designed to link being a sceptic with being hugely unscientific.

      It is of course the climate exaggeration alarmists who are unscientific and essentially pushing another hell fire religion at the Libdim types and our dimmer children. There is very little evidence at all to assume any dangerous, runaway global warming is very likely. A little warming anyway is, on balance, a rather good thing and extra CO2 and warmth improves crop yields and food production. The are far better ways of cooling the earth than saving CO2 anyway, should that ever be needed. 0.7 decrees variance in the last century is actually remarkably stable.

      Wait and see and adjust if needed is by far the most sensible strategy. Exporting carbon emissions and jobs is clearly daft. It is far from clear that wind farms and PV even save much co2 anyway.

      What is it that drives these absurd agendas of the BBC. Agenda’s like enforces “equality”, the non existent gender pay “discrimination”, the love of the anti-democratic EU, the warming alarmism, the dysfunctional free at the point of rationing NHS and a desire for an ever larger state sector, ever more taxation, happiness drivel and magic money tree economics.

      The BBC are just like the Libdims, wrong and unscientific & largely innumerate on almost every major issue.

      • Know-Dice
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:19 am | Permalink

        @LL

        But LL Gas is more secure… it must be, as Amber Rudd told us that at least twenty times in her BBC interview.

        Hasn’t anybody told her that the “Interconnect” or what ever it’s called can be turned off by the Russians at a moments notice (or even quicker) whereas with coal you can store at least a months worth on-site.

        It’s clear that politicians have no respect for the general public and think they/we will swallow any rubbish that they feed them.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:19 am | Permalink

        Now it seems a men cannot even have an international men’s day event at York University. Not that I imagine it would have been very interesting. Clearly for some “equality” just means “huge discrimination against white, hetrosexual, males”.

        http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/17/row-after-university-of-york-cancels-international-mens-day-event

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:46 am | Permalink

        Lifelogic. My thoughts exactly when I listened to the garbage being spoken by the BBC this morning when extolling the ‘benefits’ of renewables against gas. What don’t they get about extortion or security of supply?? The whole renewables farce is exactly that – a farce. I also see today that, surprise, surprise, smart meters are going to be a way of charging us extortionate prices for our energy at peak times. In other words when most of us need to use energy to cook and heat our homes or watch tv while relaxing after a hard days work. What an absolute rip off our energy system has become with greedy companies grabbing what they can and an incompetent government letting them continue to do so. I despair.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      One certainty is that Cameron will do everything he can dream up to try to find and exploit the slightest seeming excuse for ditching the Referendum–something maybe along the lines of, It’s not fair to have the Referendum now because the EU is going through a bad patch. Not cricket and all that. That said, or perhaps because of it, I would be happy for it to be sooner rather than later, this afternoon for example.

  7. Mike Stallard
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    The other bit which you forgot, Mr Redwood, to mention is that we are due to be offered Associate Membership which will, of course, be seen as a step towards More Europe in Europe and as a step towards the exit by Mr Cameron, no doubt.

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:09 am | Permalink

      You need to keep up Mike! You’re not supposed to call it associate membership anymore. Cameron is now calling it the ‘British Model’ and pretending he invented it rather those federalist Bertelsmann/Spinelli people.

      • Timaction
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

        I actually smiled when I read this comment. All the plans and intentions are in clear view on the EU website for all to see in the 5 Presidents report. You would have thought that our intrepid msm would have cottoned on by now and be putting it to our Prime Minister or Government. However, as always it will be left to us swivel eyed loons and the Leave.EU campaign to enlighten people who do lead busy lives and are not interested in their own independent sovereign democracy that was stolen from them by the legacies. When did our Westminster people ask us if we agreed to allow EU law to be supreme here? When was that explained to us?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 11:07 am | Permalink

          But I find there is no mention of “Associate Membership”, as such, in the Five Presidents’ Report:

          http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/economic-monetary-union/docs/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

          Which is a report by Juncker as lead author, “in close cooperation with” the other four.

          And today it is reported that:

          https://euobserver.com/institutional/131172

          “Juncker foresees two-speed Europe”

          “The European Union will have to develop a framework in which some core member states can do everything together and others will be less involved, Jean-Claude Juncker, EU commission president, said on Wednesday (18 November).

          “I think that, eventually, it will no longer be possible that 33, 34 or 35 states will proceed at the same speed with the same momentum in the same direction,” Juncker said in a discussion with citizens in Brussels.”

          Note that it is “33, 34 or 35” states, not 28; and if previous practice is continued those new states will automatically be put under a treaty obligation to join the euro bloc lined up against us.

          Note also:

          “Juncker added that the EU should reconsider its organisation to make sure members may share policies at different speeds, if they wish, Reuters reported.”

          but at the same time:

          “Juncker also reinstated his call for a European army and argued for a common defence policy in the EU.”

  8. Dame Rita Webb
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    If Britain votes to get out in 2017 and an EU friendly government is elected in 2020. What happens next? The chances of Cameron’s sucessor not coming from the pro EU liberal establishment are vitually nil. Presumbaly as one government cannot be hind bound by an earlier one all of this huffing and puffing is a waste of time? Is not the referendum a diversion by the powers that be to put the anti EU brigade on a temporary diversion and stop them causing more meaningful problems elsewhere?

    Reply The Conservative party in its current mood is likely to want a Eurosceptic leader whichever way the country votes. If the UK votes for Out it will have to be a PM who believes in Out to see it through. If there is a narrow majority for In then we will want a Eurosceptic to resist the next federalising treaty and lead us to Out on that vote.

    • DaveM
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      Rita,

      I wouldn’t worry too much – if the UK votes to leave all the other EU countries will want a referendum too.

      The GEs due all over Europe in 2017/18 will be the turning point .

    • matthu
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      Would that be a newly-turned Eurosceptic leader or a dyed-in-the-wool Eurosceptic leader (scant supply of those I fear)?

    • Dame Rita Webb
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      JR that assumes there will still be a Conservative government until 2020. It would be interesting to see if “The Economist” will do as it did with John Major. In that it hired an actuary to draw up a mortality table to see how long it would be before the Conservative majority literally died away. It would not not suprise me that at some point, like you had with Callaghan, that you see MPs being brought into vote on a stretcher. The only thing that you have in you favour, as long as you do not have anymore like Mrs Mensch packing it in. Is that standards in parliament are now so low, you can still rely on the votes of MPs, who have lost the whip, and who should be immediately out on their ears, declaring that they will not be going until the next election e.g. Eric Joyce in the last parliament.

    • Timaction
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      The last Eurosceptic Tory leader was Mrs Thatcher. The majority of the current political class in Westminster of whatever legacy label are EU federalists.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

        Thatcher asked some sensible question and resisted a little , but she still went along with most of the group think EU lunacy. Even allowing the UK to be pushed into the ERM (by Major and the Wet dopes) & against the sensible advice of her excellent economic advisor Professor Sir Alan Walters.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      Technically this will only be a consultative referendum, like an officially run opinion poll of the entire electorate, or at least that part of the electorate which chooses to participate by casting a vote.

      Even if the Act ordering the referendum said:

      “If you vote to leave the EU then we will leave the EU”

      – which it won’t, because the government’s Bill is silent on what would happen, and it’s very unlikely they will change that now – it would still be open to Parliament to pass another Act to amend the referendum Act and cancel that.

      If in the immediate aftermath of the referendum the government informed the EU that we intended to leave then that notice would be irrevocable under the terms of Article 50 TEU on the voluntary withdrawal of a member state.

      And even if the UK government didn’t explicitly say that the notice being given was that required by Article 50 TEU, the other member state governments might still decide that as far as they were concerned it was irrevocable.

      So there is every possibility that in the event of a vote to leave the government would wriggle around offering various excuses to avoid putting in that irrevocable notice while they tried to find an alternative solution to keep us in the EU, which might or might not lead to a second referendum.

      I expect that JR will once again say that I’ve got it wrong and if we vote to leave then we will leave, so once again I ask why that isn’t stated the Bill.

      Reply. Just get on with winning the referendum. Of course if the UK people vote for Out we will leave. The PM has said that. We are enough of a dem0cracy to ensure that if the people vote for something that important it will be made to happen.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

        There’s no “of course” about it. Anybody who thinks that if Cameron says we would leave then “of course” we would leave can’t have been paying proper attention over the past decade since he blagged his way into become Tory party leader. He’s just as slippery as Blair and Brown, if not more so.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 3:11 am | Permalink

          Much truth in that. He even claims to be a low tax Conservative at heart while putting taxes up hugely, he ratted on his Cast Iron promise, was going to get migration down to the 10s of thousands, claimed his priority and three letters was the N H S, that a Treaty is not a treaty once ratified and to be keeping the £1M inheritance tax threshold promise – just how stupid does he think the electorate are?

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

        Dear John–Did you really (seriously?) say that “The PM has said that”? You do amaze me a great deal

      • JoeSoap
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply:
        In other words shut up and get on with it?
        You’re being deliberately naive.

        It’s valid to state the likelihood that an excuse will be found to delay or deny the referendum (power cuts/terrorist incidents/bank problems/immigration issues), and even if by a 3/1 (?) chance none can be found then it is 100% certain the same types of excuse will be used as a delaying tactic before leaving. Cameron will have to be grabbed kicking and screaming out of no. 10 beofre we actually hand our notice in.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      What does this “mood” think of the Conservative deputy chairman Stephen Gilbert openly working for the remain in Europe campaign?

      • JoeSoap
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        Just another piece in the puzzle of the Conservative Party actually being pro-EU, of course

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        As it has been declared that the Tory party will be neutral in the referendum I should think that members would be entitled to strongly object to paid party officers working for either side, and possibly even take legal action.

        • Iain Gill
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

          Go on then

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted November 20, 2015 at 10:15 am | Permalink

            Why would you suppose I’m a member of the Tory party?

  9. fedupsoutherner
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    To a large extent, the public is in the dark over these changes. A bit like it has always been. We only get fed spoon fills of what they want us to know. I find your post very disturbing today John but am hoping that with recent tragic events the public decide with common sense to vote OUT. I don’t profess to know a lot myself about the inside goinging’s on in Europe but if other people took the time to read your posts and others like it they would be more informed. It is up to us to spread the word as well as we can.

  10. alan jutson
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Do Not worry John.

    If the BSE campaign wins and we stay in, the Government will find some sort of weasel words to avoid giving us another referendum simply by saying, no significant new powers are being passed on to the EU,

    Truth or not..

    Thats how much our political class have gone down in peoples estimation during the last couple of decades

    Far too much spin , corruption, and lies in the past, for us to attempt to believe much of what is said or promised.

    Its now, I will believe it, when I see it !

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Well, Hague made sure that the “referendum lock” gave the government quite a lot of wriggle room to avoid any referendum that it didn’t want to hold.

      From what JR has written, in this case it could once again rely on Section 4(4)(b), which says that no referendum is required for “the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom”:

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/12/section/4

      Note that the criterion is not whether the treaty change would or might AFFECT the UK, but just whether on paper it would APPLY to the UK.

      That is the loophole which Hague used to avoid a referendum on Merkel’s treaty change to legitimise a permanent eurozone bailout facility; the statement he laid before Parliament is no longer readily available on the internet, but here is the article that Lidington put on his blog on October 13th 2011:

      http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/davidlidington/2011/10/13/first-use-of-the-european-union-act-2011/

      “First use of the European Union Act 2011”

      “The Foreign Secretary has today made a statement to Parliament which explains the Government’s first use of the European Union Act 2011. This use of the Act is required by the proposed treaty change to enable Eurozone countries to set up the European Stability Mechanism, which aims to secure economic stability in the Eurozone countries (not including the UK).

      The European Union Act 2011 requires a referendum in the UK if this – or any future Government – agrees to a new European treaty, or an amendment to existing treaties which transfers powers from the UK to the EU.

      Our assessment, explained in the Foreign Secretary’s statement, is that the treaty change to enable the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism does not require a referendum in the UK, as it affects only the 17 countries which are members of the Eurozone, and not the UK itself.”

      Note here how Lidington quietly shifted from the word APPLIES which is in the Act to the word AFFECTS.

      Reply Of course there will be a referendum as the new Treaty will affect us, and the referendum will be politically binding, if not expressly legally binding

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        It’s unfortunate that Hague’s Section 5 statement is not longer readily available on the internet, and I find that his later statement ruling out a referendum on the accession of Croatia to the EU has also now been taken off the FCO website.

        But it’s mentioned in the Explanatory Notes to the Act to approve the treaty change:

        http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/15/notes/division/3/2

        “The Foreign Secretary laid a statement before Parliament on 13 October 2011 to the effect that, in his opinion, the Treaty amendment Decision does not fall within section 4 of the 2011 Act. The statement relies on the exemption in section 4(4)(b), on the basis that the Treaty amendment Decision applies only to Member States other than the UK.”

      • Timaction
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        I know what you are saying is right Mr Redwood but why aren’t we hearing it in the media??

        Reply It always takes the media time to catch up with the news!

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

        It’s not a question of whether it would AFFECT the UK, but whether the treaty provisions would APPLY to the UK on paper. If it could be worked that the treaty amendments only applied to the member states which had the euro as their currency then that would not include the UK, at that time, and so there would no requirement for a referendum. That’s what Hague said last time, with Merkel’s treaty amendment to provide a legal base for the ESM, as in the Explanatory Notes linked above:

        “The statement relies on the exemption in section 4(4)(b), on the basis that the Treaty amendment Decision APPLIES only to Member States other than the UK.”
        Reply The whole point of the 5 Presidents Report is to get it to apply to all 28!

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 19, 2015 at 11:38 am | Permalink

          The aim may well be that EVENTUALLY it would apply to all EU member states, but not necessarily at the point when the new treaty was agreed and required approval and ratification.

          It would have to be ratified by all EU member states, but its new provisions would not necessarily APPLY to all of them, at least as interpreted by the Foreign Secretary for the purposes of the “referendum lock” law.

          That is what we saw with Merkel’s amendment of Article 136 TFEU; because it added a new paragraph starting with the words :

          ” The Member States whose currency is the euro may … ”

          that was taken by Hague as meaning that the treaty provision only applied to eurozone states, and not to the UK, and therefore there was no legal requirement for a referendum in the UK.

          If it was a case of authorising the establishment of a common euro area treasury then instead of:

          ” The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism … ”

          it could be:

          “The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a common treasury … ”

          and the Foreign Secretary of the day could then claim that this was also covered by the exemption in Section 4(4)(b) and so there should be no referendum.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

        Dear John–“Politically binding”??? You have amazed me twice in one evening

  11. Ian wragg
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    A remain vote will be taken as tacit approval to integrate us fully into Europe. This will mean that by 2025 we will be in the Euro and fully paid up members of stupid project.
    Cameron and of course Gideon know this but have no interest in the voters just continuing their Bilderberger agenda.
    I see silly Rudd is getting worried about the lights going off. No movement on Gideons silly carbon floor price tax which is shutting down power stations apace.
    Why do you hate us so much.

    • bigneil
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      The program showing Ferrybridge power station last night on the BBC mentioned Germany was building coal fired power stations using new technology, but said “we” couldn’t afford to build them. We have already been warned of power shortages this winter, yet are allowing thousands more people in, who will up the need again. Are the German power stations being built using EU money? and if so – why don’t we get to build some on EU money – could it be that the EU only wants our money to spend on other countries, as we have known for years ? Cameron will sell our souls for his reward seat in Brussels, payable on our destruction. Shame on the traitor.

    • Richard
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:28 am | Permalink

      Michael Heseltine was publicly saying that we will eventually be in the Euro less than a year ago.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30495230

  12. bigneil
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    “The EU is on a wild ride to political union” – I’d call it a dictatorship.

    • Timaction
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      So would I. If you can’t elect or deselect those who impose the majority of our laws, it is a dictatorship! In the EU’s case its obvious a Germo/Franco led political union as they break the rules whenever they want, we don’t, or get surcharges and fines! Our politicos will go down in history as the quisling class they have become!

  13. Bert Young
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    The Euro is a sham currency . The pluses and minuses of those countries in the eurozone added to the overall deficit underwritten by the ECB emphasise the defunct state of the Euro . To use the Euro link as the basis for further integration is , therefore , cuckoo-land thinking ; were we to go along with this rhetoric would only expose our own weakness .

    I am very pleased to note in the reply to Dame Rita our host’s view on the succession to Cameron ; having a eurosceptic leader would enhance the standing of the Conservative Party and emphasise our determination to re-establish our place in the world . As it stands , we are obliged to appear shoulder to shoulder with insignificant figures – the recent G20 photos illustrate my point . Of course this leadership succession cannot be far away and it is timely for the Conservative Party to put the necessary wheels in motion .

  14. Kenneth
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    “Wild ride” is a good metaphor.

    The eu is in a constant state of crisis as at reels from the consequence of one bad decision followed by another.

    The problem is that it is a fanatic-, extremist-led outfit which is not moderated by democracy.

    We need to get out as quickly as possible.

  15. JM
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    The key point is that they intend to do as much as they can without treaty change. We have already seen how the rules can be manipulated when they want to do something.

    I just hope that when we have our debate on the referendum the issue is honestly presented this time. The question is do we want to become part of a United Sates of Europe or not. If we do, we stay in. If not, then we have to come out. It really is as simple as that. The consequences of each are immaterial against that key question.

    As for those who tell us we would lose influence if we came out, just how much influence do we have in. I may be missing something, but I see precious little of it.

  16. MPC
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:42 am | Permalink

    It will be: ‘This next EU Consolidation Treaty is confined to the Euro area and is merely a tidy up of existing arrangements; in no way does it invoke a requirement for a further referendum’ (Hilary Benn)

    and/or ‘David Cameron secured from the EU a binding statement of UK exemption from ever closer union. So now we have the best of all worlds – the EU Consolidation Treaty will strengthen the Euro area, prevent financial problems in Euroland Member States, increase their prosperity, and help reverse unemployment across Euroland. Our research shows that this in turn will help generate more UK jobs and prosperity through increased trade with the EU to well above 50 per cent in the next few years’ (The CBI)

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 19, 2015 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Well, if it could be presented as merely a tidy up of existing arrangements then the Foreign Secretary could make use of another loophole that Hague craftily inserted in his “referendum lock” law, Section 4(4)(a).

      That says there is no requirement for a referendum if the changes only involve:

      “the codification of practice under TEU or TFEU in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence”.

      But I think Section 4(4)(b), that the treaty changes will not apply to the UK while it is still outside the euro, provides a much wider loophole.

  17. oldtimer
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    You ask a pertinent question.

    The point needs to be made, over and over again, that the EU status quo is not on offer. The Five President`s Report sets out the aims and the direction of travel. The Remain campaign should be asked, over and over again, how they see the UK`s role and what powers will be left to it in the evolving world of ever closer union.

  18. Vanessa
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    It will be a disaster if we vote to stay IN. Juncker does not even believe that the EU policies are to blame for the immigrant crisis but wants MORE EUROPE ! If you read EUReferendum dot com you will read why Britain would be so much better and stronger out of the EU and able to trade with the WORLD again.

  19. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Should we be so foolish as to vote to stay in the EU that will be taken as an unequivocal decision to subservience to Brussels. I have written many times that adoption of the € would quickly follow and any referenda on further treaty changes if held at all would be with recommendations for acceptance. Any failure to accept such changes in a referendum would be ignored by the EU and we would be made to vote again, as has happened to other countries.
    In 1975 the confidence trick was to perpetrate the lie that membership was about trade and the economy and not about political sunbservience. This time the lie is that we are going to be part of an EU where we will be in a minority by not being in €urozone but will not be affected by decisions made by that group and have influence commensurate with the size of our economy and our contributions to the EU budget.
    This is a vital issue which transcends party politics and we must work to ensure that people are acquainted with the real consequences of continuing membership compared to the optimistic outlook for an indepenedent self-governing country.

  20. ChrisS
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    If Britain votes to stay in, a Europhile PM – Cameron or Osbourne, for example – will do everything they can to avoid a referendum on Treaty Change.

    You can already see the argument. It will go something like this :

    The new treaty applies to the Eurozone members only and there will be only “minor changes” to the existing Treaties to allow that to happen.

    Therefore there are no significant changes for the UK so we don’t need a referendum on it.

    Of course, they won’t really be minor changes because we will be talking about a fundamental change that will allow the EZ member states to take all future decisions without involving us.

    In other words, we will be permanently sidelined. Basically we are a nuisance that needs to be put to one side. As long as they get our net £10bn a year to squander, the EZ group will be running the whole show and will carry on as if we are not there at all.

    Whatever Cameron gets written on the piece of paper he waves from the aircraft steps at the end of his “renegotiation”, if we vote to remain in, the EZ states and the Brussels elite know they can do pretty well anything they like and there is not a thing a Europhile PM is going to do about it.

    At least the Out campaign has had a boost this week that even the BBC will not be able to ignore :

    A significant group of US politicians, including all the leading Republican Presidential candidates, has come out either in outright favour of us leaving the EU or have stated that they will want a trade deal and work with us to properly deregulate our mutual trade.

    This is really good news because if it happens, we can be one of the founding partners in establishing the blueprint for future World Trade deals that even the EU will eventually have to sign up to.

  21. Ken Adams
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    I think Mr Redwood is setting the scene for Cameron to win the referendum by offering a third way, a middle way. We already know the intention is to offer associated membership, that will supposedly protect us from the fears voiced here.

    Reply Then you do not know or understand John Redwood

    • Ken Adams
      Posted November 19, 2015 at 8:25 am | Permalink

      When someone offers false arguments that Associated Membership will seemingly address, they either do not understand or are doing so on purpose.

      Mr Redwood is leaving the door wide open for Cameron to come back with – look I feel you pain and agree but don’t worry we wont actually be members of the football club, I have negotiated a s[special “associated membership ” so we wont be responsible for “Euro and the tax bills it brings with it” Not only that but we will be the leaders of the non Euro group.

      Cameron is not interested in changing the minds of either side he is only interested in attracting enough people to the middle way.

      Reply What a silly comment

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        We would certainly be the leader of the non-euro group if we were left as the only member state of the EU which had not yet adopted its currency.

        • Ken Adams
          Posted November 20, 2015 at 7:34 am | Permalink

          That of course is one of the problems with the British model Cameron will offer, we will continually be loosing members as they adopt the Euro. Do we actually believe the EU will change the treaty to to make the EU a multi currency union?

          To Silly comment! Cameron knows he is not going to change our minds he is only interested in the waverers who would be attracted to a perceived middle way. Thus it suits his plan to have both remain and leave to be seen as extremes, all Mr Redwood is doing is aiding him, we need to be attacking the middle way the “British Model” not setting up straw men for Cameron to knock down.

  22. Belisarius
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    Your warnings are apposite, Mr Redwood. There is no status quo in the world of the EU (which has nothing to do with planet Earth). The grises eminances of Brussels believe in perpetual Cultural Revolution, in order that they may use the crises they create to justify further centralisation.
    On the domestic front, however, how can we trust the political judgement of a prime minister who actually thought that having a completely skewed referendum on membership, without proper timescales or roadmaps and asking for chimeras, would unite the Conservative Party, whatever its outcome? Mr Cameron’s functionary skills are no substitute for a complete lack of strategic vision.

  23. Denis Cooper
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    “The rest of the EU is working towards significant Treaty change to increase EU powers after June 2017.”

    I don’t wish to be contrary for the sake of it, JR, but how do you know that every one of the governments of the 27 other EU member states supports this proposal even in principle, let alone in detail? And what about the peoples of other member states; in countries where a referendum could not be avoided, would they all support it?

    I’m not saying that it definitely won’t happen, or even that it definitely won’t happen exactly as planned in that report; but as of yet there can be no certainty on either count and so I wouldn’t assume that it would necessarily be the British people standing alone against all the rest.

    In the past the governments of the smaller and weaker countries have tended to fall into line with whatever the German government wanted, in the absence of alternative strong leadership, but Germany’s stock has now taken a severe knock so that might not be the case to the same extent in the future.

    And that would actually be a kind of argument for the UK to stay in the EU and provide that alternative leadership, for the sake of those smaller and weaker countries, if we could have any confidence that the UK government would actually do that rather than also bow down to the German government, albeit maybe after a bit of fuss and bluster.

    In any case, the present UK government supports these proposals, does it not?

    Here is a question for the Remain side, as well as for the Cameron government, the two of them being pretty much the same thing of course. Do they believe that it would be right for countries which had originally joined the euro on one basis to be dragged along with these plans to fundamentally change that basis?

    Because Cameron conspicuously did not follow the Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte by saying that there should be EU treaty change so that a country which had joined the euro could later make an orderly withdrawal from the euro without also having to leave the EU altogether, and that is not on his list of “demands” to “reform” the EU.

    So even if it went to a referendum in any of the countries in the eurozone the side which opposed these plans would be at a huge disadvantage, given that the stated alternative to complying with them would be to get out of the EU altogether.

    In fact Cameron has not even spelled out that he wants the EU member states which have not yet joined the euro to be relieved of their legal obligation to do so at the earliest opportunity, an obligation which they incurred through their treaties of accession to the EU; the last case being Croatia, when Cameron did not object to another country being put straight onto the conveyor belt into the euro.

    • formula57
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      Might it not be that it is in the UK’s interests to see other EU countries within the Eurozone? If so, those who wish to save themselves from the wretched fate that awaits them post joining should look to their own efforts, not those of the UK, to effect escape.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

        I suppose it could have been argued that it was actually in Britain’s interests to have Napoleon conquer the whole of Europe and consolidate his Empire, and instead of sending an expeditionary force to the Peninsula we should have left it to the Portuguese and Spanish to save themselves by their own efforts if they really wanted to. It was just fortunate that if anybody did argue that at the time they lost the argument.

  24. ian
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    That’s better, if you stay in you must join the euro and handover your treasury.

  25. Howard Tolman
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Any government that cannot utilise the intellectual talent of someone like John Redwood does not deserve to be taken seriously. John is right: another treaty is coming which will trigger yet another referendum. Cameron’s position seems to be: let’s see how we can spin this when the time comes. I really do not understand him at more or less any level.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      Think Blair, get Cameron. Without the intellect.

  26. Pete Gardner
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    John Redwood, you are now saying in late November what was obvious in June and what I have been saying in various blogs since June. Glad you have caught up but why did you not say so in parliament and n the media in order to expose Cameron’s charade? He is not renegotiating or negotiating anything. He is merely responding to the EU’s initiatives. Cameron is not even in control of the timetable. The joke is that when Cameron holds the rotating presidency in the second half of 2017 the EU will expect him to steer the proposed treaty changes (to be implemented soon after 2019) for completing economic and monetary union by 2025 through the EU Council. Wonderful irony.

    But the question I would like you to ask Cameron as publicly as possible is what sort of prime minister wants to put his country in the position of having to choose between joining the Tier 1 members as a region of the Federal State of Europe, for that is the intended next step, and Tier 2 membership, a mere dominion of the EU empire still subject to EU law and liable for the full range of costs and risks of the EU driven almost exclusively by the interests of the Tier 1 members? Both Tier 1 and Tier 2 memberships are worse than the current status.

    Reply Anything on this site is a clear public statement! I have said on the media I want a democratic independent UK and the easiest way to get that is to vote to leave!

    • Timaction
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      I think the point is Mr Redwood is that the public need to be educated and informed as to what is actually going on as opposed to what they hear on the msm. That is colluding with your leadership and the other legacy parties to hide the truth! I stopped watching the BBC/Channel 4 news and current affairs programmes years ago as I got fed up shouting at the screen. It’s getting the same with ITV.
      It’s got to the point where Russia Today/Breitbart London is more informative than the msm!

    • JoeSoap
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply
      The problem is that it is all being hushed up. With all due respect to the latest episode in France, BBC spin is “we all stick together, one solid EU”. They don’t say France is now breaking all the rules which they and we agreed under EU auspices-3% budget deficit, Shengen APPLYING to them, and so on.

  27. Original Richard
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood, you are absolutely correct except that I do not believe that should we vote to remain in the EU as an “Associate Member” that we will be given the opportunity for any further referendums.

    The “Associate Member” status will be given as sufficient reason for no further referendums and all the legislation, problems and costs will never-the-less be applied to us in a clandestine way.

    I think we will just have to hang-on to a “wild EU ride” to ever greater undemocratic control from Brussels and Germany if the UK voters are stupid enough not to see that the only way to ensure that we stay as we are is to leave the EU as soon as possible.

    I am also sure that a vote to remain will be taken as approval to eventually join the Euro.

    But I am far more worried about how the EU will look in a decade from now if Germany, Sweden and the Eurocrats continue with their policy to allow uncontrolled immigration into the EU of economic migrants who not only do not share our culture but wish to change it.

    This economic migration will not stop even if in the unlikely event peace and stability comes to the Middle East and Africa. What is there not to like about moving from a poor country into Europe ?

    And even if the EU halts migration from outside the EU there will still be migration from within the EU when the EU expands to include Turkey (75 million people) and all the Eastern European countries as far as the Urals (both expansions still Conservative Party policy).

    • JoeSoap
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

      Associate membership isn t in the question, so shouldn’t have any part in this referendum. It’s like getting married then sleeping in different beds. It is in or out.

      • Ken Adams
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 8:33 am | Permalink

        Correct but that is what Cameron will offer, just like he did with the Scots, the new powers were not part of the referendum their either. Cameron will present this as the middle way the sensible option.

  28. majorfrustration
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    What is it that so seems to frighten the political glass and drives them to support the EU and its further development. Could it be that they lack the guts, brain power and ideas to run this country preferring to sub-contract government to the EU preferring instead to adopt the approach of “not me Guv” when things go wrong.
    Surely the time has come for our politicians to get ahead of the curve as to public opinion and the total waste of money that is the EU

  29. Atlas
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    All ye need to know is that ” All roads lead to (the treaty of) Rome “.

    I’m puzzled why Osborne is risking his future as leader of the Conservative party by being as pro-EU as he is? Surely he knows that ever-closer-union cannot be put off for ever whilst we remain in the EU?

  30. ian
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Stage two of the European dream is not even starter, As you have seen for last 13 years the euro does not need political union and at the 11 hour politician and the people of Europe will reject it and the dream will die but the euro will carry on. just like the dream of open boarders is now dead in the water.
    If you needed political union for the euro it wouldn’t of been around today.
    Of cos the UK is better off out of an institution call EU that was thought up by the usa Germany and France, it does not do to belong to any institution that make the rules up as they go along and if your country disagrees with the rules they can have private meeting and black ball your country for no other reason than they disagree with them over written words.
    Every country in the world should be able to operate as it wants with the consent of it people which is in short supply, banking and business should not have a say in the people decision making because it their money, lobbying politician should out lawed because it just away for them to get their hands on the people money with story of full employment which is a political dream and better standard of living which end up in companies coffer in offshore bank accounts, banker and business have to much say over the peoples money in telling the people politician what to do back up by the media.
    that’s why you people living on your streets and no money for the thing people want because media, banks and big business get first say.
    In this system the people will always come last as their money is funnelled to offshore business leaders and companies bank accounts.
    All because of the pretence of the people having a say in what happens.
    Media should made to keep to the facts when comes to the people money and referendum.

    • hefner
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

      History, history …. Winston Churchill was an advocate of a more United Europe!

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted November 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        Only to stop the continentals slaughtering each other; he didn’t expect that we would ever be part of it, we would just be relieved of the wearisome task of intervening in their wars to restore peace and liberty. But in any case there is a need for caution when quoting Churchill as he was not always right.

        Reply Churchill made quite clear he wanted the UK to enter a union of the English speaking peoples – and wrote a history of them to say so. The EU was for the continentals only.

    • hefner
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:38 pm | Permalink

      “Every country … money and referendum”: On which planet are you leaving? Are you a bleary-eyed teenager?

    • Chris S
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:28 pm | Permalink

      Ian :
      “If you needed political union for the euro it wouldn’t of been around today”.

      The only reason that the Euro is still in existence is that the leaders and Brussels elite have bent every rule in the book to keep it going. Had they kept to their own rules it would have collapsed.

      The reason that the Euro has caused so much trouble for countries like Greece, Ireland and Cyprus and is placing such a strain on the economies of France, Spain and Italy ( to name but a few ) is because there is no political union !

      Without a single treasury, centrally set tax and spend policies and massive transfer payments between successful and unsuccessful economic areas in the EZ, the currency will inevitably fail.

      The killer Question is Control :
      The national politicians currently in power appear to be willing, but are the voters of France prepared to accept full control of their economy being ceeded to Brussels, or rather, Berlin, and will the taxpayers of Germany be prepared to see massive amounts of their hard-earned cash being transferred South to keep ClubMed afloat.

      I think not.

  31. ian
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    No institution in the world should have the power to take away the voice of a country people just because of a country politicians signed a piece of paper.

    • hefner
      Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

      There is just a tiny problem here … we/you have elected these politicians, or more exactly even if you/we have not voted for them, we/you have let them go on with a crazy voting system.
      Wouldn’t it be much clearer if the pro-EU Conservatives and the anti-EU Conservatives were in two different parties, and letting other anti-EU right wingers be in their UKIP, BNP, or whatever other nationalist groupings?
      And don’t bring the weak excuse that a more proportional voting system would not work, a lot of countries have more proportional representation and they are not so much worse than the UK.

  32. Javelin
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    The answer given by the EU will always be further integration and more power for the centre. Give it a few weeks are will start to hear about sharing of police, army and intelligence.

    • Chris S
      Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:36 am | Permalink

      It has already started !

      Brussels never misses an opportunity to grow the power and spread of the EU.

      They are now trying to organise EU-wide controls over the sale of arms and calling for the sharing of intelligence of the type enjoyed by the UK and the US.
      Inevitably this will end up as a plan to build another brand new flagship institution.

      You can see it now : yet another gleaming mirrored glass palace, an EU duplicate of GCHQ and a further symbol of the United States of Europe to add to the EU military planning organisation which is steadily growing below the radar.

      Hollande has also envoked a clause in Lisbon providing for EU military support. Any kind of military assistance would have been far more appropriate and effective if it had been a call to NATO but, after all, this is France being led by a socialist President !

  33. DaveM
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Lords vote? Very predictable.

  34. Ken moore
    Posted November 18, 2015 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

    No doubt the stay in campaign will just ignore this question or answer it with facts that are invented. Their cupboard is bare .

    As an aside I note our extremely capable and wise energy secretary has announced the closure of all coal fired power stations by 2025…to be replaced by gas. More of the rampant intolerant political correctness that John Redwood refuses to discuss or even acknowledge.
    Britain must ‘show a lead’ on global warming by driving up energy costs but not be ‘judgemental’ about China and India opening a coal fired power station every week blah blah blah

    Coal Miss Rudd tells us, is dirty, old fashioned and has no place in ‘modern Britain’. My god the politically correct do love to parade a love of the modern and abhor what they perceive as being old..anything that might remind the people of what they once had or are are about to have taken away.

    This ‘dash for gas’ was felt by some to be lunacy when it was attempted by John Major..at least back in the 90’s we had a surplus of North Sea gas!.
    In the future affordable supplies of gas are far from assured. Or can we rely on the Chinese to give us affordable nuclear power…

  35. The Active Citizen
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    JR, firstly I have no doubt at all that you are firmly committed to the principle that the UK must leave the EU at the earliest opportunity. I say this partly because some people seem to continue to question this. You are an ‘Outer’ and your journal entries and replies to comments make this clear.

    Neither do you believe in the ridiculous notion that the Referendum should be the basis for a further negotiation with the EU (“to strenthen our hand”) and then to have a second referendum based on improved terms. This has been advocated by the directors of the ‘Vote Leave’ lobby and they must repudiate this completely and state categorically that a Leave vote means an immediate move to exit the EU permanently.

    I also understand that you don’t respond to some comments on here about the current management of the Party because of your Party loyalty as an MP, even if privately you might agree with certain things. I expect to see you back in Government with Ministerial Office at some point and you conduct yourself accordingly.

    Like others on here, I’ve been frustrated by the ‘wait and see’ attitude adopted by so many Conservative MPs to the question of the renegotiation being conducted by the Government. It was always perfectly obvious that this wouldn’t even begin to address a large number of the formidable issues at the heart of why the UK needs to exit the EU.

    Given that we now know the lamentably-small extent of the PM’s latest ambitions over renegotiation since the publication of ‘that letter’ to Donald Tusk, the stage has been open for 9 days for Conservative and other MPs to announce that they are firmly in favour of a ‘Leave’ vote.

    I’ve seen a statement from Owen Patterson MP, and from Bernard Jenkin MP, but I’m struggling to think of anyone else who has come firmly out of the closet in the last 9 days. Maybe I haven’t searched hard enough.

    None of us are fooled by some MPs who are keeping their powder dry and seeing which way the wind blows. However the conviction politicians such as yourself will gain enormous respect during the campaign and after we’ve won the Referendum. As far as the Johnnie-Come-Latelies are concerned, I sincerely hope their preferment ambitions flounder as a result.

    I was hoping that the meeting held by Conservatives for Britain 2 days ago would have produced many more MPs announcing categorically where they stand, now that they know the PM’s negotiations are irrelevant.

    However there’s nothing on CfB’s website about that meeting on Tuesday, nor on any MPs’ websites, and nor have I been able to find a report on the meeting on any of the major news sites I look at.

    Can you please tell us the outcome of that meeting? Maybe write a short report on it from your perspective? Or at least tell us when we might see a press statement?

    It’s very important that we start to get some more names firmly attached to the Leave side.

    Reply It was a private meeting for MPs to discuss the Out campaign with Vote Leave. It was never billed as a meeting to declare Out – and many more of us have made clear we want to leave than you acknowledge in your comment.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted November 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      Regarding your second paragraph, I repeat the same old question – if a vote to leave the EU means that we will leave the EU, why is that not in the Bill?

      And it is an old question, because it was first raised back in 2013 when James Wharton introduced his Private Members’ Bill.

      I could understand a government argument against it being put into the Bill that if the result of the referendum was a vote to leave the EU then the minister must very quickly give the EU notice that we intended to leave, because legal challenges to a vote to leave could be lodged for a period of up to six weeks and conceivably they could succeed in overturning the result, but once it had been sent the notice to the EU could not be revoked. However I’m sure that could be taken into account when drafting a new clause in the Bill, if the government wished to do so.

      As the Bill will be returning to the Commons to cancel the Lords’ amendment to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote there should be a fresh opportunity for MPs to rectify this and other defects in the Bill.

  36. Tim Chick
    Posted November 19, 2015 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    I doubt we would ever be allowed a second vote. Some tortuous explanation would be put forward to deny us this just as happened with the Lisbon Treaty and we become yoked to a floundering ship which will drag us down.

    I believe that at the very root of the current referendum debate is ‘confidence’. Do we ‘cling to nurse (EU) for fear of something worse’ or are we resolute and confident enough to say that we can break free and be open to the world.

    It will be difficult but the EU is only a small part of the world and as JR has said are they really going to stop selling us their goods?

    I do wonder about all these ‘great and the good’, the ‘captains of industry’ exhorting us to stay in. I wonder if the reason they favour this is because it’s easier to just think in terms of the EU and working to break into different markets around the world would make their brains hurt a bit.

    We need to be free to trade with the whole world, not just a bickering part of it.

    We always have been a world-trading nation and can be 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