When will the Stay in campaign make the case for the EU?

We constantly hear those who want us to stay in saying it is time they set out the case. They regularly chastise each other for failing to make the case. They now have plenty of airtime, but each time one appears he or she soon seeks to  ridicule the Out cause, or seeks to spread misleading suppositions about what might happen if the UK voted to  be free.


Interviewers usually let them get away with this. Instead they should get them to answer some of these questions:


  1. Should the UK in due course join the Euro?
  2. Has the Euro gone wrong?
  3. Why has the Euro area spawned so many recessions and mass unemployment?
  4. What would have happened if the UK had joined as many of the pro European wanted us to do in the 1990s?
  5. What did they learn from their bitter experience of recommending the Exchange Rate Mechanism to the UK and seeing it destroy our jobs and economy?
  6. Do they think the UK should join Schengen?
  7. Has Schengen been a success?
  8. If Schengen has failed, what do they wish to replace it with?
  9. How would the UK be able to control her own borders outside Schengen if we still sign up to freedom of movement?
  10. Has the Common Fishing Policy been a success?
  11. Why has the UK lost most of its fishing industry under EU regulation and control?
  12. Why did it take so many years even to stop the absurdity of throwing dead fish back into the sea?
  13. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to guarantee to make the same payments to farmers, scientists etc when we come out of the EU? Isnt that within the UK’s power to do?
  14. If they do not like the Euro, Schengen or the Common Fishing Policy, what is the point of belonging to this institution?Why join a football and cricket club if you don’t like either game and don’t wish to play them?
  15. Do they really think Germany would want to start a trade war with us if we leave, given the fact she sells us twice as much as we sell Germany. Are the German government liars when they say they would not impose new tariffs on our exports to them as they don’t want us imposing tariffs on them?
  16. Why don’t they believe in democracy? Why don’t they want us to take back control?


  1. Leslie Singleton
    December 26, 2015

    Brilliant JR, but as ever I wonder whether we will see this list in the papers (I see no hope of interviewers using this list or anything like it, more’s the pity). Unfortunately I suspect not. Very obscure to me why not. Although as I say, brilliant, more could be added along lines of why cannot we be like the rest of the world, especially as our advantages are so obvious? Not aimed at you, but one such is that we should be trumpeting the City of London as the centre of global finance instead of being on the defensive about it all the time–apparently because of its success.

    1. Leslie Singleton
      December 26, 2015

      Postscript–When Cameron tells us about “fundamental change” is he delusional or just plain lying?

      1. Paul Hopkins
        December 27, 2015

        Lying. His background is PR. Plus he has the sense of entitlement and superiority that means he thinks the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for it (sadly and inevitably, true in some cases) but, in any case, his right-to-rule means he can brazen it out and suffer few consequences when caught out.

        1. matthu
          December 27, 2015

          I doubt that he is lying as such.

          By that, I mean that he knows and has known that fundamental change i.e. greater political unification for some members and a restructuring to allow others to exist alongside (second tier or associate membership or whatever) is on the cards.

          But not before the end of 2017, although some of the details will have been thrashed out.

          Cameron will try to take the credit for the new structure as being the outcome of his negotiations. Whether he calls “associate membership” or “the British model” remaining (in) or leaving (the inner core) is yet to be seen.

          The detail won’t be transparent, and certainly won’t be cast in stone. No doubt it would have been portrayed as a simple tidying up exercise – had the referendum not come along.

    2. acorn
      December 26, 2015

      Our own UK European Commissioner for Financial Services, Jonathan Hill, who is British and a former adviser to Cameron, said the City of London would suffer a loss of influence over the EU’s single market in the event of a ‘Brexit’. “I am very struck by the number of financial services companies who come to me and say the single market in Europe is extremely important for their business and they would like to remain a part of that,” Hill said during a visit to Hong Kong.

      Britain’s large financial services industry risks losing out if the country leaves the European Union and supporters of a “Brexit” are wrong to suggest it would mean business as usual, Europe’s top official for the sector said on Friday. Prime Minister David Cameron is trying to negotiate changes in the terms of Britain’s EU membership which he then plans to put to voters in an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. (Reuters Hong Kong)

      “There are some people who say that Britain could leave the EU and would still be able to have access to the single market on the same terms, or sometimes they say on better terms, than they currently have. I don’t believe that is true and people need to understand that.”

      At the same time, Britain would probably still have to contribute to the EU’s budget to have some kind of access to the single market, he told reporters on the sidelines of a conference. [Possibly equivalent to the UK current net net contribution circa £10 billion].

      “Also, if you are a part of something and you leave something and that breakup is protracted, difficult and acrimonious, you normally do not get better terms from the person you just left. It’s not how life works.” Hill said. Earlier this week, Cameron formally told Brussels of his priorities for overhauling those ties. He has said he wants Britain to stay within a reformed EU.

      Campaigners who want Britain to leave say the country would be better placed to strike its own trade deals if it were not part of the 28-nation bloc. However, the top U.S. trade official has said Washington is not interested in forging free trade deals with individual countries. (Reuters).

      Britain accounts for nearly a quarter of the EU’s financial services industry and about eight percent of national income is generated by banks, brokerages, investment firms and other financial companies.

      Reply Usual turned old scare stories which I have regularly answered here before

      1. libertarian
        December 26, 2015

        The clue to the total nonsense you posted is in the first sentance .

        I guess neither you or he know very much about the makeup of the INTERNATIONAL banking and financial services industries. I guess it escaped your and his notice that EVERY single bank and Financial Services companies have offices in EVERY EU country. Explain how Brexit would affect UBS, BNP, GS, CSFB Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan & all the other foreign banks that make up the City of London

        “However, the top U.S. trade official has said Washington is not interested in forging free trade deals with individual countries”

        Total BUNKUM the USA has more than 20 free trade deals with individual countries.

        Poor acorn, very poor

      2. Iain Moore
        December 26, 2015

        They said the same about us not joining the Euro and were proved wrong on every claim.

        London became the home of the EuroDollar market, not because it was in the US Feds control, but because it was outside it . Hong Kong became the most important Far Eastern financial centre because it was outside China but a gate way to it. As such there is a better case to be made for London as a financial centre being outside Brussels totalitarian control than inside it.

      3. Jerry
        December 26, 2015

        @acorn; “Britain’s large financial services industry risks losing out if the country leaves the European Union [upon a Brexit]”

        Well, if true, that will ensure an increased “leave” vote from the political left…

      4. Lifelogic
        December 26, 2015

        Complete drivel, most of these banks operate in much of the World with all sorts of regime. A Brexit would have advantages to them as the UK could be far more flexible to attract and keep them, without the bonkers and misguided EU straight jackets.

        1. Leslie Singleton
          December 26, 2015

          Please, Lifelogic, it is straitjacket

      5. forthurst
        December 26, 2015

        “At the same time, Britain would probably still have to contribute to the EU’s budget to have some kind of access to the single market, he told reporters on the sidelines of a conference. [Possibly equivalent to the UK current net net contribution circa £10 billion].”

        I see that Jonathan Hill has a record of association with Mssrs Kenneth Clarke, John Major and CMD. He would not appear to have had any kind of job outside of politics; personally I regard such people in very low esteem. Does he not know that we have a massive trade deficit with the EU? How can he seriously suggest that we should have to pay for the privilege of having our country swamped with German cars and other goods? As to the banksters, I personally would not wish to surrender my nationhood to benefit a bunch of mostly foreign spiv operations and nor would a necessarily believe those whose historical probity has been very low indeed.

        However, were the banksters to lose out from Brexit, there is always the fishing industry which could add £3 billion to our GNP and a like contribution to the balance of payments once we have recovered our ancestral fishing grounds and the sole right to husband them.

      6. Mark B
        December 26, 2015

        Continued membership of the EEA would circumnavigate that problem under freedom of money and service rules. If they stop us trading in FS then all trade, especially with Germany, and all Labour and freedom of movement rules which greatly benefit other EU member countries compared to the UK would stop !

        They need us more than we need them.

        1. acorn
          December 27, 2015

          Both HSBC, which announced a review of the location of its global headquarters in April, and JP Morgan are reportedly in talks about moving sections of their businesses to Luxembourg in part because of the threat of Brexit.

          Deutsche Bank, which employs 9,000 people in Britain, has set up a working group to review whether to move parts of its business from Britain in the event of a UK withdrawal.

          US asset management group Vanguard, which has a City office, has admitted that Brexit would have a “significant impact” on its operation across Europe and has already started planning for it.

          Many senior bankers are concerned that they would lose the financial services “passporting” rights enjoyed by fellow EU members.

          Most mainstream City analysts still believe that a vote to leave is unlikely. But if it did happen it could be followed by the biggest drain of jobs from London since the Big Bang reforms of 1986 and undermine the City’s status as the financial gateway to the world’s largest economic bloc. (Standard 27/11/15).

          Reply HSBC was considering switching to Hong Kong thanks to EU and UK regulations. I believe they have now decided to stay in London. There is no evidence of a great jobs drain from the City into the EU. We have already lost substantial business from the. EU passport system e.g. Most UCITs are based in Luxembourg or Dublin, not LOndon.

          1. libertarian
            December 27, 2015


            The phrase ” the biggest drain on jobs since big bang” tells me all I need to know about that pile of political drivel.

            The financial services deregulation “big bang” created huge numbers of new jobs, attracted banks and trading houses to set up in the city of London, catapulting London to number one spot in finacial centres and led to the building of Broadgate & Canary Wharf.

            US Asset Company Vanguard currently has offices and operates from Iceland, Norway & Switzerland too ( think you’ll find those countries arent in the EU)

            All companies, banks included will be drawing up plans for a Brexit of course as things will change. Please Acorn stear clear of business, you dont understand it at all.

      7. Denis Cooper
        December 27, 2015

        He’s not “our own” Commissioner, he’s sworn an oath to serve the EU.

  2. Jerry
    December 26, 2015

    Good morning John,and hope you are enjoying Christmas.

    Questions 1 – 9 are actually very dangerous ones to ask a Europhile as there is no reason why the Euro and even Schengen should not work once there is full political union (USoE), whilst asking why the Euro area has “recessions and mass unemployment” would be met with a comment along the lines of being cause by international banking issues and the such, just like the recessions (or at economic least slow-downs) and unemployment in non Euro and even non EU parts of the world.

    No one doubts the USD, even though there are recessions in the USA and the fact that certain states have been or are technically insolvent. No one doubts the rights of US citizen’s freedom to move from o9ne state to another within the USA without needing to show their passport, despite the fact that the US-Mexican border is porous, with the result that illegal migrants can be found in almost all US states (bar perhaps two).

    The question that needs asking is simple, and Kate Hoey (of the Labour Leave group) has come the closest to actually asking, does the UK want to become -eventually, what ever the current state of UK opt-outs come the referendum- one of the 28 plus member states of a ‘United States of Europe’, for that is what a vote to stay in will mean, if so why? This is also why Mr Cameron has generally seen, by all sides, as wasting his and the countries time.

    Oh and as for Q.16, to answer that one would first need to define what is meant by “democracy”, many might suggest that the EU is more democratic, after all even UKIP want PR, whilst others who accept the democratic deficit would no doubt point out that we are in a transition period (and have been since 1958) until such time as full political union.

    Best hope that the broadcasters keep to questions 10 to 15, then the Europhiles will have less room to make hay at the Vote Leave groups expense…

    1. Edward2
      December 26, 2015

      You miss the point Jerry.
      As Mr Redwood said in his opening comment, interviewers allow those who want to stay in, a very easy time by just allowing them to criticise those who want to leave.
      It is time they answered some actual questions about the benefits of staying in.

      1. Jerry
        December 26, 2015

        @Edward2; I did not miss the point at all, unlike yourself, with your evident lack of PR and/or media industry training & knowledge!

        Ask some of the questions John suggests and you’ll just end up with answers as to why those wanting a Brexit are wrong – never ask open an question if you don’t want it turned straight back on you, with interest. That is not to say Johns questions are not valid, just that they should not be asked, at least as set out in those terms!

        1. Edward2
          December 26, 2015

          Well I’m sorry Jerry I was not aware we all now need to go on a course before we are allowed to point out the weaknesses in your arguments.
          Still missing the point in my opinion.

    2. Leslie Singleton
      December 26, 2015

      Dear Jerry–You have a point on some questions and, on re-reading, perhaps it needs to be clearer who “they” are. Especially if “they” means Continental EUphiles, asking questions about what “they” want to do could backfire. Thus an obvious answer to why “they” don’t want us to take back control is, from “their” point of view, almost too obvious to need answering (” bigger is better”, “compete with other big countries and blocs”, “speak with one voice”, “solidarity in a dangerous world” etc) and such an answer makes a lot of sense from “their” point of view, but as always what has that got to do with us?

    3. waramess
      December 26, 2015

      Very incisive and cuts to the centre of the Europhile argument, for this USE is exactly where they believe they are heading.

      The issue will be whether the great British public want to be a part of the USE and more particularly whether they think it is as benign as painted.

    4. forthurst
      December 26, 2015

      “Questions 1 – 9 are actually very dangerous ones to ask a Europhile as there is no reason why the Euro and even Schengen should not work once there is full political union (USoE)”

      I accept there is a core of English haters that wants to abolish us so much that they cannot bear to mention our name or that of our country and who are as ready to bankroll the Remain campaign as much as the Conservative Party itself; however, there are far more Leavers with cognitive ability as there are those who wish to join the USE from choice.

      Why does the dollar work, more or less, whereas the Euro doesn’t?
      The point about the USA is that the country grew with a population distribution related to the competitive capabilities of different regions within one currency zone. That is not at all the case with the Euro where the population distribution is related to the historical distribution of real peoples living in real countries with their own real traditions and real currencies. Consequently, the Euro has wreaked havoc on the Mediterranean countries and put a high proportion of their youth permanently out of work.

      Of course, Kate Hoey is correct except that she does not develop the concept of 28+. The truth is far worse; this is because there are so many like CMD who wish to abolish our countries and cultures by expanding the EU to the Urals, incorporating Turkey on the way; however, there are even others like Peter Sutherland who write:

      “Equally important is international cooperation on migration. Last year, during the Arab revolutions, the EU missed a historic opportunity to begin weaving together the two sides of the Mediterranean. It failed to open its doors to young students, entrepreneurs, and other North Africans”

      When the multiculturalists drip their poison, they like to imply that the third world is awash with talent which is being held at bay in Europe by xenophobes; however, those that pen this propagandist filth are the xenophobes; they hate European culture and its people and want to (change it ed)This is why Schengen will never work under any circumstances: because there are far too many in Brussels and elsewhere who do not wish it to work.

      The task for the Leave campaign is to counter the lying propaganda designed to frighten the not so bright into agreeing to abolish their own country.

    5. forthurst
      December 26, 2015

      “Oh and as for Q.16, to answer that one would first need to define what is meant by “democracy”, many might suggest that the EU is more democratic”

      Well, they would be wrong; the EU Parliament does not make the laws; that is the privilege of the Council of Ministers and the faceless machinators of the Commission; furthermore, the latter can draft laws much faster than MEPs can peruse them before voting them through.

      1. Jerry
        December 27, 2015

        @forthurst; I note that you did not actually define what democracy means, nor comment for that mater on how many UK only laws get made by way of our own civil service and passed by the UK parliament ‘on the nod’ (or even without it needing to be placed formally before parliament.

        The point I was making is that an ambiguous question will allow an equally ambiguous answer, with the added risk of it being turned around. For example a question about the EU’s democratic deficit might elicit a comment from europhiles about how many UK governments are actually ‘democratic’, not just in the ways I’ve already noted in my paragraph above but by asking how many government have been elected with at least 51% of the (total) popular vote, the closest any UK government has become in modern times to that was in 1945 when Labour achieved 47.88% of the popular vote.

        1. libertarian
          December 27, 2015


          “For example a question about the EU’s democratic deficit might elicit a comment from europhiles about how many UK governments are actually ‘democratic’, ”

          Yes indeed Jerry but then anyone with PR/media training would demand that they answer the actual question which was about EU democracy, not UK, China or Outer Mongolia.

          So I am asking you Mr Europhile what do you intend to do to remedy the EU democratic deficit. You say less than 50% vote for a UK government. How many people have voted for a federal Europe?

          1. Jerry
            December 28, 2015

            @libertarian; Then they need to as closed questions, as I suggested, do try and keep up at the back! 🙁

  3. Mick
    December 26, 2015

    Merry Christmas Mr Redwood to yourself and family hope your having a good one, I truly believe the In campaign is in full swing now, don’t you think the Out campaign should go up a notch with you as the figure head to get us out of the dreaded EU

  4. Duyfken
    December 26, 2015

    Two more suggested questions for the “Remainers”:

    XX If the UK were not already a member of the EU, would you advocate joining? If so, what do you consider would be the crunch reason and benefit for surrendering and trading the UK’s sovereignty?

    YY Is the reason for your wanting to remain in the EU because of a fear it would be too difficult and expensive to extricate the UK from it? Would you regard that as a persuasive reason for subjecting the UK to the inevitability of full political union with 27 or more disparate countries on the Continent?

    1. Timaction
      December 26, 2015

      There is only one question really. The rest are only a consequence.
      Do you want to be an independent sovereign Nation where you can hold your politicians to account by electing or deselecting them , or do you want to continue and increase powers to foreign unelected dictators who will impose their laws on you and who cannot be elected or removed?

  5. matthu
    December 26, 2015

    When the PM announces the outcome of his “negotiation” it will be far-reaching and transforming.

    But it will not address the concerns he has previously raised e.g. CAP, fishing, the Euro, Schengen etc. It will either ignore or postpone those problems.

    Unfortunately, media attention will focus not on those areas but on what is different (and of course, not guaranteed since no treaty will have been signed). And as ever before, much of the devil will be in the detail i.e. what else we are secretly committing ourselves to that previously we weren’t.

    Because, make no mistake, much of what has been achieved has been done so by stealth and would never have happened had the UK electorate been kept fully aware.

    So be prepared for massive change that addresses none of the major issues but conceals many ratchet clauses and down the road gives up what few remaining opt-outs we still currently enjoy.

    If we vote to remain, we put ourselves firmly on a path to political and economic integration and ultimate ruin and disaster.

  6. Ex-expat Colin
    December 26, 2015

    Why is EU Central so big
    Why the unelected
    Why two parliaments …perhaps three?
    Why do they not sign off the EU accounts

    Why do they interfere in non EU countries

    Why so many lunches
    Why is Merkel the chief despite 5 presidents

    and so on

  7. agricola
    December 26, 2015

    An excellent questionnaire, you should send it to every media interviewer. Then after every patsy interview of a stay in mouthpiece the interviewer should be bombarded with questions as to why so many topics had been omitted.

    My greatest contention with the EU is its’ lack of democratic control. As constituted it is a dictatorship where the strongest make the rules but break them as their needs arise.

    There is, as a result of the above, a lack of financial control. The leaders of the EU break their own laws re. borrowing and money printing. National governments draw a veil over internal scams in agricultural subsidy and even the size of fish they take from the sea. At ground level I am asked to buy fake Rolexes and other goods as I sit in front line restaurants.

    The lack of control of external EU borders not only leads to an overload of services within EU countries, but is a direct threat to our security, as the citizens of Paris discovered. It has resulted in a rise across Europe of parties of protest both left and right. Immigration in many cases is the immediate raison d’etre, but if you look deeper it reflects a general malaise at the direction of the EU.

    Finally there is the sclerotic economy of much of the EU, brought about by socialist thinking that more and more control is the solution. There is then the negative effect of the Euro on many individual economies. The levels of unemployment that this results in is criminal.

    Overall the EU seems intent on creating a grey amorphous mass from a multi coloured group of nations by dragging them to the point of having less and less national control. It is a process reflective of the old USSR. The EU is likely to give birth to the very situation it was created to avoid. The waters have broken already.

    I can see no advantage political or economic in the UK continuing to be a part of the EU. Should we vote to depart we could become the catalyst for fundamental change within the EU or its’ break up and reversion to nation states.

    When you hear voices advocating that we remain in the EU, examine carefully their motives. My conclusion is that they have a personal or corporate vested interest, be it pension of corporate control of their market sector. Having read Bloomberg, it might be , in the case of David Cameron, a desire to be judged by history as the man who pulled the EU out of the fire. On reflection, he might better judge to get himself and his country out of the fire first. This might give other EU countries a more constructive map for the future.

    The next five years will be a stormy ride for the EU. We are better off in calmer international waters playing our part among equal nation states.

    1. Jerry
      December 26, 2015

      @agricola; “As constituted [the EU] is a dictatorship where the strongest make the rules but break them as their needs arise.”

      Wow, if that’s a definition of a “dictatorship” then there are very many “dictatorships” around the world, in fact many would suggest the USA is and the UK might well be one too!

      “Overall the EU seems intent on creating a grey amorphous mass from a multi coloured group of nations by dragging them to the point of having less and less national control. It is a process reflective of the old USSR.”

      ….or the USA, or any other country that is based on multiple cultural influences.

      “When you hear voices advocating that we remain in the EU, examine carefully their motives. My conclusion is that they have a personal or corporate vested interest, be it pension of corporate control of their market sector.”

      That is true of both those who want to stay and those who want to leave, that is why it is important for the debate to concentrate on proven facts, not opinions or suppositions. For example many on the political left and centre, who wish to stay in the EU, cite supposed USA (read large multi-nationals) and/or corporate self-interest as reasons why those on the right wish to leave – many of those of the ‘vote leave’ left also being against the likes of TTIP as much, if not more so, than many on the eurosceptic/phobic right.

      1. agricola
        December 26, 2015

        Muddled thinking that overlooks the democratic deficit of the EU.

      2. Edward2
        December 26, 2015

        I’m confused Jerry.
        Yesterday you said you were in favour of leaving the EU.
        Today you are arguing against those who write anti EU posts.
        So not only has everyone on here to be anti EU but also have the same arguments for leaving as you have to avoid your wrath.

        1. Timaction
          December 26, 2015

          Jerry must be the only one who voted for the Commission who make most of our laws. I don’t remember getting that vote as our unknown representative was appointed…………by Mr Cameron.
          I don’t remember voting for any of the 5 Presidents either. In fact, Mr Cameron opposed Mr Junker’s appointment but was out voted. A bit like his influence in his substantial renegotiation that would/won’t require Treaty change but not until AFTER the referendum. All that influence at the top table doesn’t seem to amount a can of beans.

          1. Jerry
            December 27, 2015

            @Timaction; “I don’t remember voting for any of the 5 [EU] Presidents either.”

            Of the UK’s electorate a majority don’t remember voting for either a Conservative government nor Mr Cameron to be the PM in May 2015, with only 36.81% of the popular vote it means that 63.19% of those who cast an eligible vote did not vote for the current government – many will consider that as undemocratic as the EU, perhaps even UKIP…

          2. Timaction
            December 27, 2015

            I didn’t miss any of the points Jerry and I am one of the 4000,000 UKIP supporters who have one MP and with more votes than the SNP/Liberals and a few other minority party MP’s in Northern Ireland combined. There are also no doubt millions of others who were frightened into voting Conservative, not because they wanted them but they feared a Labour/SNP coalition more. In some constituencies a vote fro UKIP would have been wasted. However, as people are learning, the establishment LibLabCon are essentially the …….same. They all merely impose EU law that makes up the majority and a growing number of policy area’s. Notice how the msm are not picking up on the dredging scandal in Cumbria and elsewhere. Whilst not wholly responsible of course, not dredging since EU laws from 2001 is having a devastating impact on swathes of our Country.
            The establishment are happy with fptp as it suits ………..THEM!

          3. Jerry
            December 27, 2015

            @Timaction; “I didn’t miss any of the points”

            Then you must be choosing to ignore them, but make no mistake, our opponents wont when asked to comment on the EU and its lack of democracy.

            “There are also no doubt millions of others who were frightened into voting Conservative, not because they wanted them but they feared a Labour/SNP coalition more.”

            Well can you blame then if they were, after all it was Mr UKIP who boasted long after the 2010 election result that it was they who had caused the UK to be saddled with our first coalition in 70 years, and where one party was (and still is) the most europhile political grouping this side of the Dover Strait, the LDs make the Greens appear distinctly eurosceptic! UKIP (supporters) do protest far to much.

            “Notice how the msm are not picking up on the dredging scandal in Cumbria and elsewhere.”

            Care to cite such a EU directive?
            In any case dredging is but one defence against flooding, it doesn’t explain why (seemingly) flood prevention pumps failed and the EA seems to have no back up plan, even though the Met-office had issued ‘Red Warnings’ to the public, meaning that the EA have been given such warnings much sooner, and in much greater detail, perhaps even being able to use computer models to predict the effects.

            Anyway, funny how after the Somerset floods, and indeed flooding near were I live, a few years back dredging was belatedly carried out, apparently illegally – or was it more of a case that the money to carry out dredging was found belatedly…

          4. Timaction
            December 28, 2015

            European Water Framework Directive (EWF) into UK law in 2000.

          5. Jerry
            December 28, 2015

            @Timaction; But as I pointed out it has NOT stopped such dredging, even if it has only been carried out post a flooding event, so unless you are suggesting that the UK government and EA’s actions have been illegal under EU law!…

            If there is an issue I suspect it is a result of the UK (once again) misinterpreting EU legislation and then gold-plating the misinterpretation – or of course the likes of UKIP somewhat gilding the EWF lilly and then using it as a brickbat against the EU, it would not be the first time UKIP have done so, nor their dutiful membership going on to sow such seeds in the political blogophire.

        2. Jerry
          December 26, 2015

          @agricola; If I missed your argument about “the democratic deficit of the EU” it might because you failed to demonstrate one, unless you are seriously suggesting that the USA (amongst others) also have a democratic deficit – perhaps they do (never mind the fact that the UK regularly have governments elected on less than 51% of the popular vote)…

          @Edward2; Unless you (try to) understand the arguments of your opponents you will fail in your own arguments. I’m not “arguing against those who write anti EU posts”, I’m exploring [1] why I believe the stated arguments will fail even though I agree in essence with the desired end point. Sycophantic ‘Me too’ comments tend to get a debate or cause nowhere, we are not here to give each other virtual slaps on the back, or at least I hope so?!

          [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

          1. Edward2
            December 26, 2015

            Sorry Jerry
            Plainly you should be in charge of the whole Brexit campaign as only your opinions and methods of winning are acceptable.
            Exits bowing stage left.

          2. Edward2
            December 26, 2015

            In your sarcastic reply to agricola Jerry, you failed to answer the question.
            Never mind the USA, did you get a vote for either any commissioner or its president?

          3. Jerry
            December 27, 2015

            @Edward; “did you get a vote for either any [EU] commissioner or its president?

            No more than I or anyone else (outside of the Tory party, and its membership) got a vote as to who the UK Prime Minister should be, and no more than anyone outside of UKIP, the Labour Party (or any other) should they have be come the elected government under our FPTP system – once again, thanks for proving that you still miss the point!

            People like you wish to criticise the “democratic deficit within the EU” and (for example) the fact that its President is unelected, whilst its commissioners are appointed, but then try and gloss over the fact that the post of UK Prime Minister [1] is unelected whilst whole swaths of the UK civil service are also appointed or full of careerists…

            [1] a post that, since Tony Blair (if not before), has become increasingly Presidential, with perhaps increased use of the Prime Ministerial privilege (especially in FCO affairs).

          4. Edward2
            December 28, 2015

            But I knew who the leader of each UK political party was before the election so if I had a particular dislike of one of them I could vote differently.
            And if a UK party feels their leader is very unpopular with the electorate they can remove them and replace them with another who is.
            No such democratic link to the EU

          5. Jerry
            December 28, 2015

            @Edward2; “And if a UK party feels their leader is very unpopular with the electorate they can remove them and replace them with another who is.”

            Exactly and that’s the problem!

            There is nothing to stop an elected majority governing party from engineering a by-election in a safe seat for a party chosen PPC, who once elected is elevated within the party to become their leader and thus the countries PM [1], then bring in a swath of policies that were never put before the electorate at the previous GE by way of the parties manifesto. All very likely done on less than 51% of the popular vote, at the GE, remember…

            I’m not saying that the EU is democratic, just pointing out that there are many many issues with our own (and our political contemporary) countries ‘democratic’ credentials for eurosceptics to start throwing stones towards others who also happen to live in houses built of glass.

            [1] I seem to recall that such a scenario was feared should the old Labour party be (re)elected at the time when the Militant tendency was active within the party.

          6. Edward2
            December 29, 2015

            Jerry…”There is nothing to stop an elected majority governing party from engineering a by-election in a safe seat for a party chosen PPC, who once elected is elevated within the party to become their leader and thus the countries PM [1], then bring in a swath of policies that were never put before the electorate at the previous GE by way of the parties manifesto.”

            And when has this ever happened in the UK Jerry?

    2. Douglas Carter
      December 26, 2015

      The subject of the EU is one of those main areas where competent media understanding of, and application to the relevant debate is declining in exponential measure.

      Where *specifically* Conservative Eurosceptics are interviewed on many outlets, the interview is almost invariably conducted in a manner where the interviewer is attempting to inveigle a ‘Tory split’ story. Equally commonplace is an interview setting where the only MPs in interview are those from the Conservative Party – Labour remaining safely insulated from any open public debate on the matter (as usual). So even if the relevant MP or MEP refuses to provide the headline, the ‘split’ story can be confirmed by the emplaced Europhile Conservative selected to go head-to-head. Hence we saw Dan Hannan set against Damian Green only a few days ago on the Daily Politics programme, a debate safely uncontaminated by any accountable Labour commentary.

      But actual discourse on the proper matter at hand is almost non-existent, and this has been the case for years.

      reply Indeed. an absurd idea that the EU is just a Tory split story of non interest to the other 62% of the voters. The BBC should now be taking balance by inviting Stay and Leave speakers on each EU story

      1. Jerry
        December 26, 2015

        I heard Kate Hoey on the BBC only the other day, sorry to say she made a far better case for why the UK should leave than any Tory or UKIP representatives has since before April, perhaps she was given a easy ride, but then perhaps the tone of her message is more measured and reasoned. My point, in the interview/panel discussion that I heard I don’t recall Kate Hoey being derogatory to anyone, least of all Mr Cameron [1], her message was simply her opinion as to why we need a Brexit without being dressed up in now irrelevant (inner) party politics.

        Oh and please stop making this a BBC issue, other broadcasters are equally at fault for having a lack of neutrality on this and other political issues.

        [1] which as member of the official opposition party she would have had every right to do with no strings or the fear of possible collateral damage

        1. Douglas Carter
          December 26, 2015

          Kate Hoey speaks for herself and presumably for her constituents. She most certainly does not speak for Labour policy – they have front benchers for that, who rarely, if ever, turn up for such interviews. Even if they are invited. Even the ‘official’ Labour Referendum Campaign to remain in the EU is led by a non-front bencher and without any tangible links to the current leadership strategy of that party.

          I mentioned only a BBC programme – not the Channel itself. I don’t recall any particular antipathy to the BBC I’ve expressed in the past – you may refer to any unreasonable or dogmatic antagonism I make or have made with regard to the BBC by link. I would be fascinated to see it. If you wish to create a caricature argument presenting views attributed to me without accountable evidence you are of course free to do so. But all you are left with is a debate with yourself. Do enjoy that.

          1. Jerry
            December 27, 2015

            @Douglas Carter; I was replying to Mr Redwood reply to you as much as your original comments. If you did not mean to make your comments BBC-centric then why mention a BBC programme when other broadcasters are as equally unbalanced and you could have easily phrased your comments to include all the broadcasters.

          2. Douglas Carter
            December 31, 2015

            …’ … why mention a BBC programme …’…

            That’s an extremely curious reaction? I mention a programme in which a specific interview convention took place. That’s why. It doesn’t need the insight of a forensic investigator. If it had been conducted so on ITV, Sky, RT, Channel Four or local Norwegian Current Affairs I would have made the same point. It’s your own weakness in presenting a caricature case which is your problem – not the source of my illustration.

            The basic substance of debating seems to be passing you by. Perhaps you need to take a little education in the matter?

        2. Ted Monbiot
          December 27, 2015

          Again Jerry, you miss the point about neutrality and the broadcast media.
          The BBC, because of its unique position is required to adopt a balanced output on this and other important topics.

          And it is rather pompous of you to demand others stop making this an issue just because you fail to grasp this is an important part of the BBCs charter.

          1. Jerry
            December 27, 2015

            Ted Monbiot; Sorry but it’s people like you who constantly miss the point about broadcast neutrality in the UK.

            All UK licensed broadcaster (and because it is carried on a UK licensed platform, and that actually includes the likes of FoxNews [1] have a duty to be balanced. few are, in fact the BBC is one of the few that are, Ch4 (News) tends to list somewhat to Port, whilst Sky News tends to list somewhat to Starboard…

            You have obviously read the BBC Charter, but have to also read the Ofcom (and before that the IBA and ITC etc.) broadcast code, both (should) have equal teeth, Oh and before you suggest otherwise, how channels or broadcast companies are funded is an irrelevance to the point in question.

          2. Ted Monbiot
            December 28, 2015

            The BBC has a charter that demands impartiality.
            They have a board og governors who have the job of upholding the charter.
            This is unique to the BBC
            All other commercial broadcasters have to follow OFCOM guidance on balance and decency etc.
            That is a big difference.
            And I agree with you they often fail to be balanced.

          3. Jerry
            December 28, 2015

            @Ted Monbiot; “This is unique to the BBC
            All other commercial broadcasters have to follow OFCOM guidance on balance and decency etc.”

            It is not guidance, they are the statutory rules, break them and Ofcom (if they did their job properly, rather than so often being a toothless tiger) could fine the broadcaster, even possibly shut the relevant channels down or have them removed from the EPGs of Freeview, Freesat, BSkyB etc. should the regulated broadcasts in question originate from outside of the UK.

            “That is a big difference.”

            Only to those who wish to bash the BBC for their own political reasons.

            It would be a lot better if the UK would adopt something like the US Fairness Doctrine (US FCC “balance” policy), it doesn’t remove bias, it allows US broadcaster to be openly biased and thus the audience knows and understands that what they are listening too might not be the whole issue… But this is going way off topic.

          4. Edward2
            December 29, 2015

            Ofcom has never and in my opinion will never, deal with any blatant bias among broadcasters so your point is not of any use.
            And the BBC is so culturally infected by Guardianism even amongst its Board of Governors who have a statutory duty to act on bias at the BBC that only a dramatic change to the funding method of the organisation will have any effect.
            Judging by todays post by Mr Redwood and all the comments following it, it seems your opinions Jerry are in a minority of one.

    3. Mark B
      December 26, 2015

      Good morning.

      This might give other EU countries a more constructive map for the future.

      It is my belief that if the UK were to leave the path to full unification would greatly accelerate. And it is this that I think Germany fears most as she will become the lender of last resort.

      The path is only one way – EVER CLOSER UNION.

  8. Denis Cooper
    December 26, 2015

    17. Do they want the British army to be absorbed into a European army?

    1. Bob
      December 26, 2015


      “Do they want the British army to be absorbed into a European army?”


  9. Graham Wood
    December 26, 2015

    Questions questions – they keep on coming but are never adequately answered by Europhiles because they know they have no sound political or economic arguments to make! Too embarrassing!
    It is significant that the “flagship” website of the Stronger in Britain campaign does not even possess a FAQs page. It never answers e mails sent to them on some of these important questions, presumably because they know their case is so weak that they cannot afford further the public humiliation of being exposed as the political quacks and charlatans they really are.
    IMO and as mentioned before on this blog – the central question which ought to take priority in any discussion is No. 16 as to why ‘Philes don’t believe in democracy?

    As one commentator has already suggested, the answer is that the EU is in fact a “soft” totalitarian concept, which is why it is so dangerous because it is not generally perceived as much a threat as, say, Germany was in WW2.

    To answer Jerry’s point above we do not really need to go far to answer the question -“what is democracy” Briefly, the answer must be obvious, namely to hold elections to place into power those that represent us in OUR parliament and no other.
    That is the whole point of a GE – and not to pass powers over to an unelected body of bureaucrats who cannot be held to account before a British electorate.
    In a sense that is the ONLY question!

    1. Jerry
      December 28, 2015

      @Graham Wood; “the answer must be obvious, namely to hold elections to place into power those that represent us in OUR parliament and no other.”

      Of course there is a need to define what democracy is, unless you do your ‘obvious’ answer above makes the USA appear totally undemocratic -perhaps it is!- considering each of those 50 States have their own state legislative (in effect their parliament), but which is subservient to both of the national legislative houses situated on Capitol Hill and their supportive federal civil service etc, never mind any presidential decrees emerging from the White House.

      The EU is not about 28 separate national countries (and never really has been), it is about 28 states who site in a (currently, quasi) political union, just as the USA is about 50 states sitting in a political union. Thus to understand the EU and than ask leading and/or closed questions of europhiles, one has to move away from thinking in Nationalistic terms, even though our aim is to reclaim our National status from the grasps of the forthcoming proclamation of a political entity to be know as the “United States of Europe”.

      1. Edward2
        December 28, 2015

        For the previous several decades politicians have always denied that it is going to be a united states of europe with nation states reduced to a minor role.
        Had they been truthful and plain the British people would have reacted very differently.
        You were obviously very far seeing decades ago Jerry.

  10. Denis Cooper
    December 26, 2015

    According to the Telegraph today there is a rumour that Merkel and Hollande might allow Cameron to withhold benefits from immigrants for three years, but not for four. I would suggest a clutch of questions around this:

    If a four year delay would threaten the principle of free movement, why would a three year delay not also threaten the principle of free movement?

    If Cameron thinks that a four year delay before the payment of benefits would reduce immigration from the EU, what would be the magnitude of that reduction, and how far would it take him to being able to cut net immigration to tens of thousands?

    And what are the answers to those questions if the delay is only three years?

    Would any delay to the payment of benefits also apply to British youngsters leaving school or university and trying to enter the workforce?

    If not, how would it be ensured that the EU’s Court of Justice would not declare the scheme to be in breach of the EU treaties?

    If to secure the necessary legal certainty it is intended to add a short protocol to the EU treaties – like the very short protocol allowing Denmark to discriminate against foreigners over the purchase of second homes – why cannot that protocol be agreed and signed by EU leaders before we have referendum?

    Will we be expected to vote on the basis of an unreliable promise of treaty change some time in the future, rather than treaty change which has already been agreed and signed and only needs to be approved by all of the national parliaments?

    1. Know-Dice
      December 27, 2015

      Spot on Denis…

      I always wondered why 4 years.

      Clearly CMD’s advisers said that the EU would reject 5 years out of hand, go for 4 years and compromise at 3…and come back waving his piece of paper – “peace in our time” style…

      It’s all a fudge, only solution is Leave…

  11. Denis Cooper
    December 26, 2015

    1a) Given that every EU member state is under a treaty obligation to join the euro, apart from the UK and Denmark, is it not inevitable that if we stay in the EU then we will find it increasingly difficult to remain outside the euro?

    1. Leslie Singleton
      December 27, 2015

      Dear Denis–No, I do not think that follows, precisely because we and Denmark have proved how easy, beneficial and successful it is to stay out. More likely would be another country finding a way to get out–but I agree that is unlikely, not that they wouldn’t wish to, but because it would be far from easy.

  12. Margaret
    December 26, 2015

    Those are all the unseen or foreseen bad points. If we were to fully integrate or with our changing relationship , being sucked into the giant phagocyte, there must be many other problems we would never had imagined.

  13. Douglas Carter
    December 26, 2015

    Best wishes of the season to you and your friends and family John.

    Many of these questions are less valuable directed to non-Parliamentary figures since they depend on an accountable source commenting on possible future policy.

    Lord Rose – for example – may give an opinion but it doesn’t provide an electorate with an authoritative answer. Some of these questions could be directed to known Parliamentarians to answer – so it would be reasonable for you to fire off these questions in writing to two of your HoC friends. I would suggest requesting written answers from Ken Clarke and from Alan Johnson (who is the voluntary leader of the Labour Campaign to remain in the EU – albeit an EU they seem to decline to illustrate in its future form)?

    1. forthurst
      December 26, 2015

      “Lord Rose – for example – may give an opinion”

      …that voting to abolish one’s country is the moe patriotic alternative. He needs to stick within his comfort zone of shirt shifting.

  14. Bill
    December 26, 2015

    Good questions. I would like to return us to a Common Market. All the rest – the huge bureaucratic superstructure, the pretentious to supranationalism exemplified by a ‘foreign policy’, the endless rule-making, the sclerotic decision-making – can be dumped.

    My personal bete noir happens to be the sheer ingratitude of countries like Belgium to whose rescue Britain came in two wars. Would you know this from the way the Belgian MEPs behave? Not at all. Belgians seem happy to mock the democratic traditions of Britain.

    In supporting the Common Market, I assume that rampant nationalism which led to war in the 20th century will be prevented.

    1. Mark B
      December 26, 2015


      I reality, there was never a Common Market. The plan all along was to create a European Superstate by stealth. Slowly but surely, treaty by treaty the nations of the EU would surrender more and more powers to the Centre and, in such a way that people over time would not notice. Unfortunately for the Europhiles they became somewhat over ambitious and allowed countries like Greece into the Euro. And the rest as they say, is history.

      1. Ken Moore
        December 27, 2015

        The arrogance of the Europhiles will be they’re downfall – it’s just regrettable that this wholly avoidable disaster they have created had to happen.
        When a society (like ours) or an organisation turns it’s back on facts and truth, bad things are going to happen sooner or later.

      2. Bill
        December 28, 2015

        I guess you are right. My memory of the reporting of the British Press at the time of the 1975 vote was that it was feeble and misleading.

        What annoys me as I look back on it is the way we were refused entry to the Common Market by de Gaulle at a point when we could have influenced the Market’s development. Britain helped France and Belgium during the 1939-45 war and received precious little thanks at the end of it. Churchill and de Gaulle did not get on with each other but, even so, it amazes me that post-war events turned out as they did.

  15. Bert Young
    December 26, 2015

    The “Stay In” case is built around and led by PRism ( who better than Cameron to lead it ?). All the , so called , “facts” can be faulted by the evidence we all have suffered and experienced during the years of our membership ; the Euro has no real monetary base and the Union is meaningless because of the different cultures and Governments . Laws that have been decided are , when convenient , disregarded .

    The leaders of the EU are deluded by a bureaucracy who feed them unattainable objectives ; without this army of support , there would be nothing . The questions Dr.JR has framed expose the fragility of the “Stay In” case and should be in the possession of every household at the same time as the threatened communique from the idiot Cameron .

  16. Vanessa
    December 26, 2015

    AND – if the EU is so important for jobs why are there so many of their citizens running to the UK to work i.e. the French, Spanish etc.
    Exactly where will the 3 million jobs we supposedly lose by leaving, come from? We seem to be losing an enormous amount of jobs by being a member – steel, aluminium, fishing, farming, etc.


  17. Know-Dice
    December 26, 2015

    Agreed, interviewers tend to let the “Stay” campaigners get away with rubbish and sometimes downright lies.

    I think that the “Leave” campaign will need to address those that are not necessarily interested in the esoteric issues put forwards on sites like this. There will be a lot of apathy and as the promised referendum approaches voters will get tired of this subject.

    How to keep them on board? and how to make sure they vote for Leave rather than the Status Quo?…

    Professor Minford says that the cost of living will reduce by 8% the day we leave

    A few more bullet points like that, that answers the question “What’s in it for me”?
    Might encourage the “Fence setters” to jump…

    1. Bob
      December 26, 2015


      “How to keep them on board? and how to make sure they vote for Leave rather than the Status Quo?…”

      Due the success of the BBC in dumbing down the electorate the Leave campaign would need major celebrity endorsement, like Justin Bieber, David Beckham or Adele.

      But of course any major celebrity wouldn’t be “major” for long if they dared to opposed the BBC’s position on the EU.

      1. Jerry
        December 27, 2015

        @Bob; “Due the success of the BBC in dumbing down the electorate [..//..]”

        What, and ITN, Sky News and, for perhaps far longer, the daily Tabloids have not?!…

  18. bigneil
    December 26, 2015

    Cameron wants his seat at the top table. He is willing to sell a whole nation to the devil to achieve it. A VERY dangerous man as future history books will show.

    1. Mark B
      December 26, 2015


      But it is not even that. He has to stand outside and wait for his masters, who are the only ones to sit at the top international table, to tell him what they have negotiated for him.

      They’re a joke !

  19. Original Richard
    December 26, 2015

    I would like the Europhiles to be asked :

    Why do you think the people of the UK would prefer to be ruled by a German-led EU rather than by politicians they elect themselves as they can only do if the UK was a free and independent country ?

    How would you use the £11bn/year saved by not being a member of the EU ?

    Do you think the UK and its people are ready for and willing to accept millions of migrants from the EU, especially one destined to include Turkey (75m), a country that is not even seen as a European country but yet whose admittance is Conservative Party policy ?

    How do you see our generous welfare benefits, schools and “free” NHS coping whilst millions more migrants and their families come to the UK from the poorer parts of the EU ? From where in the UK will the money come ?

    And, if you say these migrants will all be of benefit to the UK :

    a) Do you have any proposed limit to the UK’s population, bearing in mind that England is already the most densely populated major EU country ? Where will the new houses be built ?

    b) Do you think it is morally right for the UK to suck in all the highly trained and valued people of a poor country, the very people who are needed to improve the living standards of this country ?

  20. Lifelogic
    December 26, 2015

    You will never get such questioning from the BBC. I assume they have all been to BBC EU indoctrination & lobotomy classes. Probably called “balanced reporting on the EU issue”.

    Interesting to read about all the fuss over Quentin Letts and the “What is Wrong with the Met Office programme”. A very mild programme aim at the joke “climate alarmist” Met Office that the BBC, for absurd PC reasons, felt it had to pull. It seems the BBC staff there were ordered to go to more “indoctrination” classes.


    When I hear Prof. Dame Julia Slingo OBE FRS on the radio she seem to me to be a disgrace to real science and scientists. More of a politician and scaremonger in chief than a scientist. When the Met’s endless predictions on the warming issue and so much else have been proved so very wrong you might have expected her to come to her senses about what can and cannot be predicted. Their multi million pound computers just mean they can come to the wrong answers more quickly and more precisely, as most real scientist could tell them.

    1. Lifelogic
      December 26, 2015

      I see that even now, after all the expenses scandal and years of the freedom of information act, “lefty” people such as Baroness D’Souza speaker in the Lords (elevated by Blair) still seem to have a complete contempt for voters & use of taxpayers money. Especially when it is spent on themselves. They clearly do not even care if the public know this.


    2. Jumeirah
      December 26, 2015

      LifeLogic: I have always understood that ‘rational’ and ‘real’ Scientists never ‘assume’ anything – it’s not in their code of practice. Scientists base their ethic on facts proven not on assumptions. Nothing personal you understand however you on the other hand would appear to infer that you are a ‘rational’ Scientist and yet in many comments that you make the words ‘I assume’ creep in somewhere whether it be in reference to Organisations or religion. First rule in science always prove never assume.

      1. Lifelogic
        December 26, 2015

        Scientists make reasonable assumptions all the time, they have to. You cannot never be completely sure of anything. They might perhaps be proved wrong in these assumption in which case you adjust them (unless you are a government funded climate scientist it seems – where they just seems to fiddle the figures and change the agenda from “warming” to “change” to “any extreme events”).

        I assume, for example, that I will be alive and fit and well tomorrow and the laws of physics will probably not be modified by some higher being overnight, but who knows for certain?

    3. hefner
      December 26, 2015

      I would think Dame Julia, as the voice of the Met Office, had rather pretty good forecasts of the various floodings now occurring over parts of Britain.
      And if she is “a disgrace to real science and scientists”, I hope you are not comparing her to Matt Riddley, the HoL aristocrat who is so critical of climate research while having open coal mines on his hereditary domain. I am wondering whether such a person can be an impartial observer of science.

      1. Richard1
        December 26, 2015

        It is not reasonable to critizise Matt Ridley’s writings on environmental issues on the grounds he has coal mining on his land. He always discloses this and argues his point of view rationally and on the merits of the case. If you don’t agree with him then take on his arguments which are, broadly: there has been some global warming late C20th, although the rate of warming has been c. 0.1-0.2C per decade vs forecasts in the models of 0.3C, & we have not seen The catastrophic weather events forecast by the models, therefore the problem appears to have been exaggerated; and, the measures adopted to attempt to cure the global warming, such as subsidising windmills, are irrational and incapable of making a material difference. He also points out the immorality of preventing development in poorer countries by seeking to block access to cheap energy. If you’ve got good arguments against him – I mean against his arguments not some personal attack – I’m sure our host will welcome you to set them out.

        1. hefner
          December 27, 2015

          Unchecked allegation left out ed

          I agree on the 0.3C vs 0.1-0.2C but I am not sure that the Northerners with their feet in water consider this winter to be the season to be jolly.
          And reporting the measures to cure climate change as a few windmills is not well informed to say the least.

          The point is that there is more to the world than just the UK, and in tropical countries, specially those without a grid, solar energy (used to fill up smallish reservoirs during daytime, and allowing them to empty in the evenings) is already shown to help development in terms of giving more light hours to children for their education.
          If you have ever travelled in Africa or Asia, you might have noticed that electrical grids are very limited. This type of small scale solutions is unlikely to figure high in the FTSE100, but it has a noticeable impact.

      2. Lifelogic
        December 27, 2015

        Why on earth does having some small coal mines show you are not an impartial observer of science? You may or may not be, lots of people have all sorts of financial and other interests. Even having no money or investments might bias you in your view of science.

        Those with a particularly large interest are the state or charity funded researchers and warming alarmists – whose projections were clearly rather wrong for the past 17 years. They too may or may not be biased, but they were clearly very wrong in their recent projections. In one hundred years the temperature rises by .7C and yet the Met office seemed to be predicting a 0.3C rise in just ten years! A back of an envelope guess from me would have been far more accurate than they £Millions of garbage in, garbage out computers.

        I would have guessed it will probably be about the same as the average for the last ten years and would have been roughly right.

        Perhaps Peter Lilly put it best from the now banned programme:-

        Asked – Does he get lobbied by the Met Office?

        Peter Lilley: I suppose we do get lobbied by them. They come before the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, on which I sat, and tell us they need even more money for even bigger computers so they can be even more precisely wrong in future.

        Quentin Letts [laughing]: That’s one way of looking at it – they would say it’s going to help them to be ultra, um, long-termist and being able to tell us what the weather’s going to do and also what the climate’s going to do.

        Peter Lilley: Well, in 2004 they put out a very glossy document –

        Quentin Letts 2004, so 11 years ago…

        Peter Lilley: – called “Forecasting the Next Decade”. So they say the Met Office Hadley Centre has pioneered a new system to predict the climate a decade ahead. “We’re now using the system to predict changes up to 2014” – this was in 2004, they made this prediction. “By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Centigrade, compared to 2004”. That’s a huge increase, because in the previous 150 years, the increase was about 0.7 degrees, so it’s nearly half as much again in the next decade, was what they were expecting – and they were 90% sure that it would be within 0.2 and 0.4 degrees.

        Quentin Letts: And what actually happened?

        Peter Lilley: Nothing. Zilch. There was no global warming over the ensuing decade.

        Quentin Letts: Are you a total sceptic, on man-made climate change?

        Peter Lilley: No, I studied physics at Cambridge, so I accept the basic thesis that a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere, or a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, will marginally warm up the Earth. But I’m what’s known as a “lukewarmist”, one who thinks that there won’t be much warming as a result of it, and that’s the scientifically proven bit of the theory – anything going on the alarmist scale is pure speculation. The sad thing is that they’ve become committed to a particular pseudo-scientific doctrine and now are unwilling to change their doctrine when the facts refute it.

        Quentin Letts: By that, you mean man-made climate change.

        Peter Lilley: Alarmist man-made climate change – there is a certain amount of man-made climate change going on but not very much, and they’re pretending that there’s a lot and going to be a lot. And when their predictions turn out to be false, then they don’t change their theory. Dame Julia Slingo, the Chief Scientific Officer of the Met Office, now says that the heating must have taken place but it hasn’t shown up on the surface of the Earth because it’s been swallowed by the deep oceans, a sort of new version of “the deep oceans swallowed my homework” thesis.

        Quentin Letts [laughing]: Does this lead you to think that the Met Office should be privatised?

        Peter Lilley: I’m not sure anyone would want to buy it.

  21. Ian wragg
    December 26, 2015

    Today’s papers indicate that France and Germany may give Dave a 3 year moratorium on in work benefits. As we see from Germany the ECJ has decreed that although Germany has a contributory system immigrants are entitled to a minimum subsistence allowance. This will override any agreement.
    As France and Germany only have 1 vote each how will they coerce the other 25 countries into agreement.
    We all know a remain vote is for eventual full political and economic union. No more lies please. Let’s just say it how it is.

    1. Lifelogic
      December 26, 2015

      3 years benefit delay even if granted is totally worthless and irrelevant we are taking about UK democracy or becoming a undemocratic regions of an appalling and incompetent EU.

      Cameron is not even asking for anything of any consequence, it is a complete and utter choreographed joke but not funny.

      Just like all his other childish PR stunts and fake promises. The N H S in three letters priority, cast iron, “no if no buts”, Immigration & Heathrow, £1M IHT thresholds, a low tax conservative at heart ….

      1. Leslie Singleton
        December 27, 2015

        I can scarcely credit that Cameron genuinely believes that changes, no matter how big, in mere benefits, can be described as “fundamental”. We need a way (not easy I know–but maybe something like the Privy Council being brought back to life and telling him to shut up??) whereby we close down his hyperbolic and deluded claims. Is he now saying (else how “fundamental”??) that he is going to win more (many times more) than is in his wretched and embarrassing letter? Essentially NO immigration and essentially a complete return of sovereignty is my idea of fundamental.

  22. Peter Davies
    December 26, 2015

    Here’s another question

    Where’s the benefit of being in a single market for products which the UK is a net importer when the things we are stronger at which are services related are not part of the market scope?

  23. Richard1
    December 26, 2015

    Yes the case for IN has yet to be made with any persuasiveness. Arguments which the In campaign come up which will need good answers are: 1) even if there are not tariffs to UK-EU trade post an exit there could be non tariff barriers – eg regualtory or no requirement for fair competition, therefore Brexit is a threat to jobs and investment; & 2) the UK will ‘lose influence’ as we have more as part of the EU.

    1. Original Richard
      December 26, 2015

      The answers for those who wish the UK to return to being a free and independent country are :

      1) No change to the existing situation.

      2) The UK will have more influence as an independent country as it will be able to have its own seat at the global trade meetings which decide trade terms and product specifications etc.. As a member of the EU, and just one of 28 countries, the UK has no seat and hence no influence at all at these global meetings. Even much of the EU legislation is produced from these global meetings.

  24. Bob
    December 26, 2015

    “Interviewers usually let them get away with this.”

    The MSM, especially the BBC are like the puppeteers in Plato’s Cave.

    They will play a huge role in keeping us imprisoned, in the same way they persuaded the voters in 1975 that the EEC was a free trade agreement and would not lead to diminution of our sovereignty.

  25. Iain gill
    December 26, 2015

    You are correct. But the media give lots of people an easy time. The NHS supporters for one
    Never any of the obvious tough questions. The are allowed to provide the worst healthcare in the developed world with nobody challenging the pain and suffering they themselves causse. Here I sit watching the state funded media telling us not to use a and e, where exactly do you take a child screaming in pain from earache in this country when every other form of healthcare is shit down? Why such massive regional variations in rationed care? The whole institution is rotten from top to bottom yet no politicians will state the obvious and the are treated like some kind of religion beyond challenge. We can do a lot better.

    1. Iain gill
      December 27, 2015

      Shut down I meant sorry

  26. English Pensioner
    December 26, 2015

    Another question.
    Many major companies and business organisations claimed that if we did not join the Euro, many businesses would leave the UK in favour of moving within the Euro zone. Perhaps we should be told how many actually did so? I am aware of a few who moved some operations to poorer EU countries, but this was solely because of cheaper labour costs and is not very different for buying-in from the Far East.
    So, did any businesses actually move their operations to a country within the Euro zone because we failed to join the Euro?
    Logically, it follows that if these doom-mongers were wrong on this issue, why should they be right with their predicted disaster if we left the EU?

  27. Nig l
    December 26, 2015

    Personally I would like to know why we benefit from being in a massive wealth redistribution system where, especially, the ex eastern bloc countries see us and the other wealthier countries as a bottomless money pit. Wherever I go in Europe there are massive signs proclaiming this or that road or falling down old buildings as an example are being rebuilt with the help of European (our) money. Why is Cameron not negotiating a reduced contribution and no further increases. He and Osborne trumpeted in a previous parliament that they had vetoed an increase etc but the Eurocrats got found it and we coughed up anyway and again recently our deficit grew assisted by a £1billion plus increase in our contribution.

    Why he solely concentrating on migration when, if he was serious, he would sort out the massive numbers on non E U people that are let in and get rid of the hundreds of thousands that are living illegally?

    Why is he not getting our fishing industry back, sorting out the C A P etc. Why talk about something as unmeasurable as decreasing Red Tape or Human Rights legislation, when if we left, it would stop st a stroke.

    Why Mr Redwood are you, and the other ‘exiteers’ non banging on on a far wider front than the narrow one Cameron and Osborne want to engage.

  28. Ron
    December 26, 2015

    If UK votes to leave but Scotland votes to remain, will this hasten the break up of the UK?

    1. Wonky Moral Compass
      December 26, 2015

      Who cares? If one part of the union wishes to go one way and the other another way, who are we to stand in the way?

    2. Mark B
      December 26, 2015

      No as it is a UK decision and not especially a Scottish one. The SNP are playing the old game of trying to separate the UK by any means. The SNP should be told that this is a UK matter and not exclusively a Scottish one.

      Once the people of the UK have found their freedom I think many Scots will come to like it too. And if the SNP becomes a pro-EU party it will have some serious explaining as to why it wants independence from the UK but is happy to surrender itself to an even worse regime.

    3. fedupsoutherner
      December 26, 2015

      Ron, It is a fallacy that all of Scotland wants to remain in the EU. It’s just something the SNP want and because they think they speak for the whole of Scotland then that is what is going to happen. They will call another independence referendum eventually, come what may, but we will only split from the UK if the people vote for it. Thankfully, that did not happen last time but being bribed to stay in the EU to keep the UK together is not an option. Sturgeon could call and independence vote anytime soon.

      1. Leslie Singleton
        December 27, 2015

        Dear fedup–I very much doubt there will be a second referendum anytime soon if ever. Sturgeon understands well that any second referendum will be the last, so she needs to be sure she will win; but how can she possibly believe any such thing? Apart from all else, it is as manifest to the Scots as to anyone else that the EU has shown that it would by no means be able to maintain Scotland’s solvency. The Scots I know are beginning to feel a bit sheepish about all the dreampt up fuss.

        1. fedupsoutherner
          December 27, 2015

          And the Scots I know are ashamed to be Scottish. Only talking to one last night. Time will tell if there is another referendum but it is what the voters of SNP except.

          1. fedupsoutherner
            December 27, 2015

            Sorry, my last entry should read expect not except.

  29. Antisthenes
    December 26, 2015

    Very pertinent questions. Ones if asked would certainly produce answers that the remain inners would not like to be be made public. So of course the media the BBC, Guardian etc do not ask coupled with the fact that the rest of the media do not have the wit to tackle any aspects of EU membership and they do not understand them anyway. They prefer instead to feed off the coming referendum to dish up salacious and sensational stories that have no relevance to and contribute nothing to the in out debate. Therefore depriving the voting public of the information they really need to make an informed choice about which way to vote. Naturally the remain inners like it that way and will continue to strive to never have those questioned asked. Preferably not even asked.

  30. Yosarion
    December 26, 2015

    For the EUSSR-Philes it does not matter how many times the Country is bankrupted or even whether the political union has any benefit to anyone outside of their political idealism, all that matters is to enslave 400 Million People under their perverted yoke.
    Mandelson referred to the post democratic society some years ago, if you get the opportunity John, ask the meaning of this Quote.

  31. matthu
    December 26, 2015

    Why exactly does the UK lose track of so many thousands of failed asylum seekers before finding the opportunity to deport them?

    If this is because we are being frustrated by EU legislation, how will this change?

    If this is instead because of our own lax procedures, how will we tighten up these procedures?

  32. lojolondon
    December 26, 2015

    Merry Christmas John!
    Question 16 is the key – the act of recognising any power superior to Westminster, and the punishment was the death sentence, until conveniently abolished by Tony Blair – almost his first act upon taking power. Everything else stems from this – our capability to behave in the best interests of British citizens, the power to create (and delete) laws to reflect British best interests, etc.

  33. hefner
    December 26, 2015

    On the 16th question, with the U.K. out of the EU, will our host actually take the lead for us to get a more democratic (proportional) voting system?

    1. Richard1
      December 27, 2015

      Why would that be more ‘democratic’? It would be likely to lead to Minority parties such as the Libdems and the SNP acquiring vastly disproportionate influence.

  34. Maureen Turner
    December 26, 2015

    1. Should the UK in due course join the Euro? No. It takes no account of the different
    levels or the different stages of the other 27 countries economic/financial development. The currency is too rigid to accommodate this.

    2. Has the Euro gone wrong? Yes, mostly as a result of the above.

    3. Why has the Euro area spawned so many recessions and mass employment? No ability to borrow money other than through the ECB because of fixed borrowing rate which was too high for many.

    4. What would have happened if the UK had joined as many of the pro European wanted us to do in the 1970’s.? We would have been unable to QE ourselves out of our
    problems and bail out the banks.

    5. What did they learn from their bitter experience of recommending the ERM to the UK after seeing it destroy our jobs and economy? Nothing. The ERM should have been a bellwether for the Euro.

    6, Do they think the UK should join Schengen? Don’t know but if they want ALL
    EU States to be part of the proposed new EU border control agency I would imagine they may insist. We are told the EU’s external borders are porous and need tightening up but you can bet being an island won’t exclude us from a financial contribution.

    7. Has Schengen been a success? No.

    8. If Schengen has failed what do they want to replace it with? The EU Border Control Agency.

    9. How would the UK be able to control her own borders outside Schengen if we will still be signed up to freedom of movement? We couldn’t as this is one of the EU’s founding principles. This is what we hoped would be top priority in the PM’s renegotiation requirements for the UK.

    10. Has the Coomon Fishing Policy been a success. No. It has been a disaster for much of the NE side of the country. The UK prior to the EEC had the largest and most prosperous fishing fleet in the entire world.

    11. Why has the UK lost most of its fishing industry under EU regulation and control?.
    Quotas. The EU specified the size of catch which was set too low for our trawlers to make any profit.

    12. Why did it take so many years even to stop the absurdity of throwing dead fish back into the sea? Again Quotas. Certain varieties of fish had to conform to EU rules re the tonnage landed and therefore had to be dumped back into the sea.

    14. Sorry, don’t understand the question.

    15. If they do not like the Euro, Schengen and common fishing policy what is the point of being in this institution? Why join a football an cricket club if you don’t like either game or wish to belong to them? Perhaps they do very much wish to belong in the EU.
    What else can we read into it? Most of us don’t know what or who is driving for a Federal State of Europe but personally I find it scary stuff. I doubt Mr. Juncker/EU are the power here more likely it is the UN.

    16. Do they really think Germany would want to start a trade war with us if we left given the fact they sell us twice as much as we sell Germany? Are the German government liars
    when they say they would not impose new tariffs on our exports as they do not want us imposing tariffs on them? I don’t think Germany is lying but this Project is even greater than any one country – even Germany.

    Why don’t they believe in democracy? Why don’t they want us to take back control?
    I would imagine attempting to govern 28 disparate countries is a bit like herding cats so the necessary control needed had to involve dispensing with the UK’s understanding of democracy. This is by far the most worrying part of being in this club.

    If our PM had really wanted to achieve worthwhile concessions returned to the UK he would have listed what would be acceptable to the UK – and left the ball in the EU’s court.
    It serves the country disgracefully if when we go to vote Remain/Leave we are merely voting for the status quo when our nation’s very sovereignty is at stake. Does he care how much we value it? Obviously not one hoot.

    Apologies for answering, or rather attempting to answer, your questions one by one but to condense so many aspects into a succinct reply is quite beyond me.

  35. willH
    December 26, 2015

    As other posters have said an effective tactic might be for prominent people like yourself to write the the BBC to ask why these questions aren`t being asked and then publish the answers or the lack of them, then hopefully expose to more people the way they suppress things they don`t want discussed.

  36. Anne Palmer
    December 26, 2015

    It is time for all Members of the British Government, Parliament and House of Lords to make up their minds whether THEY want to Govern this Country, according to our very own Common Law Constitution, and thus ‘According to Law’” rather than continuing contributing to foreigners to make the laws we ALL-and THEY- have to obey, which may be FOREVER of course. If the intention is to remain in the present European Union, it is noted that ALL the EEC/EC/EU Treaties they, The Government and Parliament, between themselves have ratified, without ever putting one of the EEC/EC/EU Treaties before the people and before ratification of them? Are the people’s contributions re Taxes helping to pay towards EU Contributions? Noted also that our once united, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has been divided into EU REGIONS so desired by the EU..
    Whilst the people elect Members of the House of Commons to Govern this Country, many know that the Governing of this Country should be by and through this Country’s very own long standing Common Law Constitution, for so very many gave their lives in the saving of it in that last War (1939-1945) rather than allow foreigners under Hitler at that time, govern us, which may well have been-forever if we had lost that War. Allowing foreigners now to Govern us through the Treaties our own MP’s have ratified, is a deep betrayal of all those that gave THEIR lives for our FREEDOM TO GOVERN OURSELVES-for that was what that WAR was about. That WAR was also about fighting to keep our very old ancient Common Law Constitution, and as the People of this Great Country fought and died with so very many ordinary people (children and babes as well as older people killed in the bombing of this Country) I repeat for all those that want to change or get rid of parts or all of our Constitution-to destroy our Constitution is indeed TREASON. A deep and permanent betrayal for some have paid the high price in loss of life in and after that last war.
    For those in that wonderful Building that want foreigners to Govern us forever, I suggest they stand down to allow other British people to take their place and let them take us out of the European Union so that they can freely Govern this Country “According to Law”. The very words they repeat as each so swear on the Bible before they may take up their seats in the House of Commons, even though some of the people of this Country have freely elected them in the hope that they can indeed truly Govern by and through our very own Common Law Constitution and “ACCORDING TO LAW”.
    What I would truly like, even though a REFERENDUM used to be-we thought-honest and true and the right decision to make in what is before us, and Iwould prefer the present Government to make the right decision and take us out of the EU them selves. That is the only WAY the people of this country MAY begin to respect those we used to elect at one time.

  37. The Active Citizen
    December 27, 2015

    Firstly, Merry Christmas to you and your family JR, and a reminder that your readers like me are appreciative of all the effort you put into posting interesting diary entries and allowing us to comment. I’m sure I speak for all. Merry Christmas also to my fellow commenters.

    Your first questions about the Euro… How about a slight variation or two:

    “26 of the 28 EU countries are either in – or are committed by Treaty to become – part of the Eurozone. The 5 EU Presidents have set out a roadmap to full economic (and therefore political) union by 2025. (Read it here.)

    “Isn’t it true that by 2025 the UK would be a second-class country within an EU which will be all about the Eurozone countries? Isn’t it true that, regardless of any treaties, the UK will become completely marginalised?
    “And why would the UK want to stay in the EU when many City financial people are already starting to contemplate the failure of the Euro within a few years? Isn’t it the case that a Euro meltdown would represent a catastrophe for the UK if we were still a member of the EU, albeit outside the Eurozone?”

  38. Ken Moore
    December 27, 2015

    All very good and pertinent questions which highlight the many contradictions and failures of the Eu project. Supporters of the In campaign largely control the parameters of the national debate so I doubt answers will be forthcoming. The BBC has a way of making these sorts of difficult questions go away.

    Perhaps we should attack the motives of the Eu support industry a little more closely by reviewing political history.

    The call from the leader of the Communist party after WW2 was :-
    ‘Don’t join us. Work hard, get good degrees, join the Establishment and serve our cause from within.’
    He was taken at his word and today there are many people holding high office that have extremist anti -British views that are more than happy to support ‘the cause’.

    From the diary of Anatoly Chernyaev, the Soviet insider, we know Labour were colluding with Russian communists to overthrow the ‘common enemy’ Mrs Thatcher. Michael Foot addressed the Soviet leader as ‘Dear Comrade Brezhnev,’
    Sympathy for anti–British causes hasn’t gone away – it has just shifted it’s emphasis to support for the European Union and political correctness.

    Labour used to be anti EU/Common market ..until they realised it could give them what they wanted – socialism by the back door.

    For me, the whole point of the Stay in campaigner is to conceal the true nature of the Eu To discredit or sideline those like John Redwood and thus avoid the difficult questions.

    They wish to transform Britain into a socialist politically correct state by stealth . We are fighting an ideology of hatred for ones own country.

    To the Europhile, national bankruptcy, overcrowding, an industry lost here and there are just minor setbacks in they’re quest for an elitist ‘global government’.

    Of course many will say this is just nonsense and it is a taboo to mention any of this.
    But has anyone a better theory as to why the establishment are supporting Eu membership?. Nobody with a rational mind, after reading John Redwoods article, should be in any doubt participation in this folly is anything but an act of national sabotage.

  39. l'Esprit
    December 27, 2015

    I am a regular follower of this excellent column and, for the most part, comments are well-informed and reasoned. For the most part I read rather than contribute.

    However, as a LEAVE supporter for reasons of sovereignty, while at the same time running a manufacturing business with at least a third of our sales in EU countries, I need to be sure that the LEAVing does not prejudice our business. So I am a little concerned at the inadequately reasoned ripostes to Acorn’s well-put points of view. Also, Mr JR, while it is true that you regularly reply to the types of points which Acorn raises, I believe that LEAVErs do not actually have a convincing enough standard reply to Acorn’s points, not so much because of their logic, but because it is so difficult to argue and prove a negative.

    For this reason, too much of the LEAVE Campaign’s arguments fall back on the travesty of unlimited immigration. While I am a great admirer of what Matthew Elliot has achieved with both the Taxpayer’s Alliance and his meticulously researched Better Off Out tome, this campaign does not appeal to the great common man, and especially not outside the home counties.

    With Mr. JR’s clarity of thought and incisive logic, I think he should play a more direct part in getting the country to the nub of what people really want fixed – sovereignty; who governs us? Sovereignty is such an enormous concept, that it does not resonate sufficiently widely. Immigration does, but thinking people have to wrest it away from xenophobic so-called right wing elements. So much so, that the Prime Minister looks as though he may command the moral high ground. We LEAVErs look as though we will let him get away with it. After all in my business, we are very happy with our highly university-educated Polish, Spanish and Rumanian graduate employees.

    There is too much back-slapping and tut-tutting in our movement, where we need more incisive direction with 2 or 3 simple concepts hammered ceaselessly that the man in the street, especially in the North, can understand. Immigration must be clearer on the control aspect, and must eschew xenophobia. UKIP are rather tarred with that brush, as much as Douglas Carswell might try to wrench common sense immigration control from Trump-like populism.

    1. acorn
      December 28, 2015

      The good bit about this site is it gives a heads-up on “xenophobic so-called right wing elements” as you say. I have never had a cool, calm, reasoned reply to anything I have posted on this site, just right wing ranting of preferences, that let slip knowledge base deficiency, let us say. JR says the likes of “… I have regularly answered here before …”. I usually give up trying to find where.

      Immigration “control”. Taxpayers money; and frequent but not too loud mentioning of the feckless and indolent welfare recipients, will be the three card trick for the leave campaign, everything else will be too complicated for a referendum.

      The UK, England in particular, covertly operates a version of “ethnic” nationalism not “civic” nationalism, which is why it frequently elects a right wing government.

      PS. Try Tax Research UK, the Taxpayer’s Alliance has migrated to the right wing and does not understand fiat currency accounting. Happy New Year to all corporate Accountants and Auditors, thanks for the past number-crunching work.

      1. Ken Moore
        December 28, 2015

        ‘Why it frequently elects a right wing government’.

        Erm compared to electing say Karl Marx recent governments might be classed as right wing.

        I must have missed that then. What right wing governments are these ?. Cameron’s Conservatives are a continuation of the radical left wing New Labour project.
        Mrs Thatcher ramped up public spending – hardly right wing.
        Major wanted to turn Westminster into a rubber stamp for the Eu socialist state and in the process destroyed his party. Prominent politicians on the right of the party were called b******* and are unwelcome to this day.

        Playing the your a ‘xenophobe’ etc. card reflects more upon the threadbare nature of your argument than the character of the ‘right wing elements’ that you allude to.

        Like many I admire the work ethic of Poles, the quality of German cars, the design flair of Italians…I just want to trade and have friendly relations with them but not share a bank account and parliament. What is the problem with that ?

    2. The Active Citizen
      December 29, 2015

      Reply to L’Esprit
      “with 2 or 3 simple concepts hammered ceaselessly that the man in the street, especially in the North, can understand”
      Firstly, I couldn’t agree more about this. Simplicity and repetition is key.

      I also agree with you about sovereignty, but I’m afraid that it will prove difficult to engage and enthuse the man on the Mancunian or Clapham omnibus about this. I would be delighted if anyone could prove me wrong.

      On this sovereignty question, I currently believe the best we can hope for is to clarify some wording around nationhood. It’s clear from EU Treaties, Directives, Presidents’ Reports, and Press Releases, that the EU is headed for a united nationhood. Maybe we can stress this as the clear and ultimate direction and perhaps this will bring the sovereignty point home more easily?

      For example, would the man in the street be happy to be part of an EU which sees the nations of France, Italy, Germany, etc disappear and be replaced by ‘regions’ within a United States of Europe? Much more importantly, would he be happy to be no longer British? Would he be happy to become an EU citizen living in the northern-british region (in your case)? It would be easy to back this with some short quotes from EU leaders to prove that this is unequivocally where we’re headed.

      Turning to your business question, I too am a businessman and trade globally. I believe that sovereignty, whilst it’s vital to you and to me, will not win the argument. Business and personal prosperity and financial security might.

      I currently despair about the lack of simple messages from the main Leave campaigns about what I believe are fundamental to the debate – financial/job wellbeing, a stronger and more prosperous country, and overall improved quality of life for us and our children.

      Like me, you post late about JR’s articles and therefore few will read this. The next time JR posts an article about business and the EU I’ll comment further on the economic arguments for Brexit, from the point of view of ‘the businessman in the street’. I hope you will too.

  40. Lindsay McDougall
    January 3, 2016

    Many of the Stay In campaign don’t want the UK to exist as a nation. They want us to be a province in a German dominated European Super State.

    When are we of the Vote Leave campaign going to strive to increase our support in the 18 to 35 years old age band? That’s where we need to win the case.

Comments are closed.