Leaving will be good for farmers and fishermen

When the UK leaves the EU it will carry on paying all the current grants to farmers.
We will have our own money to spend, and will have all the money we had to send to the EU to pay for our farm subsidies back under our own control.
A Conservative government will guarantee existing subsidy levels and will discuss with farmers if they need more or if they want the money paid in some different way.

Outside the EU the UK will be free to buy more of our own food in the UK without the problems of EU procurement laws.

We will be free to adopt modern technologies and innovations we think will help farmers and their customers.

The UK will regain her seat on The International Plant Protection Convention, and will have a stronger voice in combating plant disease worldwide.

OUR OPPONENTS WILL CLAIM WE WILL LOSE SUBSIDIES AND INFLUENCE

They are wrong on both counts.
We will have more of our own money to spend, and will guarantee current subsidy levels

We will have much more influence when we can say what we want and make our own decisions, instead of having to live with compromises with 27 other countries as our official view.

FISHING
Out of the EU the UK will regain control of our fishing grounds.
The Common Fishing Policy has done huge damage to our fish stocks and has allowed factory ships from the continent to come and take so much of our fish. A UK domestic policy could be more successful at husbanding our fishing grounds and giving priority to UK vessels. Norway, Iceland and Canada show how.

The Common Fishing Policy ranks alongside the Euro and the common energy policy as one of the great disasters of the EU, costing us jobs and environmental damage on a large scale.

ENVIRONMENT

Outside the EU the UK will be able to set her own environmental standards, and reward farmers and landowners for looking after our precious landscape and allowing others to enjoy it.

The UK will also be free to modify the water and planning laws which have assisted flooding and got in the way of good water management.

The Water Directives have worsened flood problems.

The UK can have a rural policy that looks after rural areas and is sensitive to UK needs.

OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THE UK OUT OF THE EU WILL INTRODUCE LOWER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS

That is not the intention of the current Conservative government. Parliament will be free to set higher or more effective standards if it wishes.

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

115 Comments

  1. DaveM
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    Once again, a great summary, and containing facts that most farmers and fishermen no doubt understand.

    However, it’s the people who didn’t suffer from flooding, the people who aren’t affected adversely and directly by mass immigration, and the people who actually DO try to buy British that need to hear this.

    In other words, the safe and mundane middle classes who think that “oh well, it’ll probably be better all round if we don’t rock the boat too much, and I’d like to buy local stuff but it’s a bit dear”. They’re the one’s who’ll sway a close referendum and the ones who need to be told.

    Likewise, all those who are now unemployed due to the demise of the fishing industry should be made aware that, although you can’t make promises as such, they’ve got a far better chance of a job if we leave the EU than if we stay in.

    • John Ashworth
      Posted January 29, 2016 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

      While I want to see national control of our fisheries which Parliament has given to the EU, more so than most, it will not be easy.
      There are not many of us left in the industry, most ancillary trades have gone, it will take time to rebuild, but it can be done, and what an industry is in the offering, the sooner we start, the better.

  2. Mick
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood I think you should be the figure head of leave the dreaded EU campaign

    • DaveM
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      I’ll second that.

      • A.Sedgwick
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        Me too, it’s a no brainer.

        CAP and CFP have never made any sense for the UK, but it is no surprise successive governments have meekly acquiesced to their imposition, cost and damage. I suspect the only reason De Gaulle gave way to the UK joining was when Heath accepted the concept of CAP i.e. bailing out inefficient French farmers.

    • alan jutson
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Liam Fox MP gave an excellent presentation at a Go meeting last week as well.

      Funny the BBC did not make it, because of heavy traffic (their excuse apparently)

      We have lots of people with excellent talent, but they just need to get their act together, and work together in a more cohesive way.

      I certainly think the situation is improving for the out cause, they are slowly beginning to get their message across, but it desperately needs more exposure to the masses.

      The Social media sites are very slowly picking up the message at last.

      Hence the reason Cameron thinks he is in with a chance, if he goes for the Referendum early.

      We need some Government Ministers to go public, get in on the act and speak up for out.

      Certainly it is clear the stay campaign is all about fear, and the out campaign is positive, and all about looking forward to the future.

      • Bob
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        There is a debate on Tuesday 1st March at London University 19:30 GMT

        The Great Brexit Debate
        By: London University Brexit Society

        Motion:
        This House believes that the negotiations with the EU are unlikely to provide sufficient concessions so as to protect the sovereignty and economy of the British people.

        Chair:
        Phil Sheppard, Chair of London University Brexit Society

        Eurosceptic speakers:
        Jacob Rees-Mogg
        Peter Lilley
        Alex Nieora

        Pro EU renegotiation speakers:
        Stephen Gethins
        Tania Mathias
        Student speaker to be confirmed

      • Lifelogic
        Posted January 29, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        I honestly think Cameron will struggle to win this referendum his side have no valid arguments. His renegotiation is a joke. His best chance is to rush it through but even then he will surely struggle.

        This especially as even those in favour of staying in would be far better to vote “out” and wait for a better offer and second referendum.

        As we see today the NHS simply cannot cope with all the extra demands put on it by open borders and increases longevity. Not helped by the absurd way it is funded and run. Schools, police and social services are under similar pressure.

  3. Dame Rita Webb
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    “A Conservative government will guarantee existing subsidy levels and will discuss with farmers if they need more or if they want the money paid in some different way.” Why should their businesses be propped up? If there were any still left, why should not the coal mines be subsidised as well? If there is a surplus in milk production so much so that the farmers cannot make a living from it thats their problem to sort out. Its not for the taxpayer to provide a crutch.

    • Mick Anderson
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      “Why should their businesses be propped up?”

      Farming and farmers are a big part of environmental care. If they can’t survive then the land won’t be managed properly which will cause problems in everything from wildlife conservation to helping protect towns from flooding.

      ” ….why should not the coal mines be subsidised….”

      Perhaps not subsidised. Maybe just reducing the tax cost of the environmental lobby would make them viable again. Even if they need some sort of assistance, wouldn’t it be worth it to have energy security? It is crazy to import less clean coal from abroad because the British mining industry can’t compete.

      “If there is a surplus in milk production… that’s their problem”

      As our patient host has observed, just paying the farmers from the UK instead of diverting the cash through the EU will save money. The only losers are amongst the army of paper-pushers on the continent, and I see that as a good thing. Farmers need stability; it takes a lot of planning, investment and time to adjust the milk yield (or any other crop). I’d far sooner have any support for UK farmers decided in the UK.

      • dame rita webb
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

        Mick sorry but you obviously do not live in the countryside. I )know of a farmer who ed) is no custodian of the environment. His farmyard is full of scrap metal and there is slurry and waste all over the place. Being a subsidy junky he also blots the landscape with windmills. Also the mega barns do not fit into the idea of what the CPRE thinks the countryside should look like either. Go anywhere near it and you will also be forcefully reminded “to git orf moi laand!”

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      Quite right Dame Rita. They get enough subsidies already. All the farmers around us own numerous properties which they rent out and hundreds of acres of farmland. If we can’t subsidise our other industries why should be subsidise farmers anymore than we do now. We definitely should not give any subsidy to farmers with numerous wind turbines on their land. They already receive money from them (around £20,000 – £40,000 per turbine) and this comes from our energy bills. So in effect we already subsidise them on top of the farming subsidy they are already getting. We could save ourselves some money that way.

      As one of our local farmers told us “Why should I worry about my cows and sheep when I have these on my land?” Pointing at the 12 turbines he has. We should spend any extra money helping fishermen get their jobs back and get back to work and other industries that could be lucrative once again.

  4. Mark B
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    The prblem with EU regulations is, is that it is a one size fits all. As we all know, Europe is all shapes and all sizes and having say, Austria and Luxenbourg vote on issues that will not affect them is insane. Equally insane is having a Commissioner negotiate on matters that will not affect the ‘country he or she knows best’ that does not know the issues surrounding a problem and can make decisions that, whilst they may be good for the EU as a whole (you can bet the Germans and French will work hard behind the scenes to protect their interests) for the UK it could prove quite harmful.

    We need to leave. One good thing though, a very young man at work yesterday remarked; “We recived our first piece of EU propaganda yesterday !” Needless to say he will be voting to leave 🙂

    • Mitchel
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:24 am | Permalink

      Talking of propaganda,is everyone aware of David Lammy MP’s claim ,on camera,yesterday that one million Indians died in WWII for the “European Project”?The video clip is on The Spectator website if anyone is interested.

      It’s obviously beyond outrageous but a more sinister thought crossed my mind – this isn’t what our schools are teaching…is it?

      • Yosarion
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

        Yes it could well be true, there was an Indian contingent that allied themselves to the Nazis and Japan, I never realised it was any where near one Million though.

        • Mitchel
          Posted January 28, 2016 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

          @Yosarion.Nowhere near apparently but my point was not the number but the claim that they died for the “European Project”.Fortunately,in the clip the UKIP MEP,Steven Woolfe,takes him to task over it.

          • Yosarion
            Posted January 28, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

            I would read my point again,I think I was taking the P*** that there was Indians who allied themselves to the Nazis to defeat the British Empire.

          • Jerry
            Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

            @Mitchel; I think the first problem is what David Lammy MP did and didn’t mean by the phrase “European Project”, then if we are actually talking about the EU one would then have to define whose ‘project’ it was, what we know of today was in no way an invention of the Nazis (as @Yosarion seems to be suggestion above) as it was first suggested by a pre war French prime minister in about 1937, which later gained traction due to a speech given by Winston Churchill at Zurich on 19 September 1946 (many Indians died in WWII serving for our ‘commandeer and chief’ who appears to have had ideas about a ‘United States of Europe’ since 1930)…

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#European_Unity

            Anyway, can those wanting a Brexit keep personality out of all this, people will make comments that are miss-spoken, misinterpreted or what ever, and it will happen on all sides of the argument – don’t allow the ‘Vote Leave’ camp to be held to ransom when the inevitable happens.

            Reply Yes, but Churchill at Zurich and Fulton Missouri made clear he did not want the UK to join. His vision for us was in a union of the English speaking n peoples, as recorded in his History of the English Speaking Peoples. he did not write a history of the European peoples.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps, but it seems that most schools have long ago given up teaching our children anything much about the British Empire beyond a general idea of its wickedness. So first they would have to find time in a crowded curriculum to explain that we used to run India and that was why they got involved.

      • miami.mode
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        I believe David Lammy was totally muddled in both his thinking and statement. I don’t think he is the sharpest tool in the box of Labour tools as he once demonstrated in a Mastermind quiz.

        According to various records British India suffered 87,000 military losses in WW2 fighting for the Allies and somewhere around 2 million due to war related issues such as famine and disease. Much of this of course was due to the conflict in the Far East and nothing to do with Europe.

        I believe Margaret Thatcher once commented that it was always English speaking people who came to the rescue of Europe and it would still appear to be true by the number of European politicians who currently say that it will be a disaster for Europe if we leave.

    • DaveM
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      Mark B: “Austria and Luxembourg vote on issues that will not affect them is insane.”

      What, kind of like having Scottish MPs voting on English matters?!!

  5. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Subsidy Dependency is loved by Labour. They use it to harvest us of votes. Frighten the old and vulnerable receiving welfare benefits that “The Tories” will stop vital money. They love EU Subsidy Dependency. Right out of their political debilitating repertoire. They trump handouts from Brussels:-
    “Would you refuse this money from Brussels? ” Not mentioning the subsidy is OUR own money.

    Big Government. That is the EU. Knows all about farming. Sheep farming. We are its sheep. See how the “extreme left” party Syriza forever waving the Greek flag (the Blue-White Κυανόλευκη ) knuckled under when push came to shove. Doing what you are told is actually the slavish mentality of The Left despite their grey beards and mardy stamping of feet.
    The end result paradoxically of Left revolts against authority is their own subservience. The British Labour Party under Corbyn are different. Historically they never waved our Union Flag but a red one, a Russian look-alike flag. But they pawned that to Brussels in exchange for a few joss sticks, scented wax candles, jesus sandals, permission to have grey beards and corduroy jackets and some blue piece of recycled organic renewable cloth with stars on it. And, a subsidy of a handful of beans ( organic ).

    • stred
      Posted January 29, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      Christopher. If I were an English teacher, I would use your piece to teach modern English. But , unfortunately, the content is unacceptable and anyway, I would never have survived teacher training college.

  6. Richard1
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Yes this issue at least seems to be a no brainier – no-one in our debate in the UK seems to be arguing there is anything good for us in either the CAP or CFP. I would have hoped however that out of the EU a sensible UK govt would take the opportunity to cut farming subsidies. There is no more case for subsidising farmers than there is any other industry.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      So what would you do with the farms when all the farmers had gone bankrupt? Let them return to wilderness, use them to build houses for immigrants, what?

      • Richard1
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

        Same argument as has been used over decades about every subsidised industry. There will be plenty of people willing and able to own and run farms at breakeven or better without subsidy. Land prices in many parts of the country have increased 3x over the last 15 years. Nor is there any need for intensive farming of every square inch of land in the way that happens now – the countryside would look better without it.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted January 29, 2016 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

          In part it’s the same argument, and it’s sometimes a valid argument, but it’s also a very different argument because of the vast tracts of the land area which are using for farming compared to other activities. It seems from your reply that if you found farmers were going bankrupt across the country once subsidies were withdrawn you would indeed let most of it return to wilderness. And how do we then feed an ever increasing population without more imports and therefore larger trade and balance of payments deficits? Just on a quick look, in 2009 food imports cost £33 billion and food exports brought in £14 billion; in the worst case scenario that would become £47 billion imports and zero exports, £28 billion added to the trade deficit while potentially productive land remained idle.

      • stred
        Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:00 am | Permalink

        Plant windmills. Build homes for child refugees.. Open hen stroking centres and health farms for the BMI challeged. Stop growing rapeseed for diesel. Stop murdering and eating fellow methane farting animals. Get Green. Starve, freeze and save Mother Earth.

        (Mz C. Lucas is my MP and I need some help regarding a £90 fine for entering and immediately exiting a Lidl car park.)

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      hear,hear.

    • Anonymous
      Posted January 29, 2016 at 12:06 am | Permalink

      Richard 1 – There is a case for subsidising industry.

      So long as we subsidise unemployment we should subsidise industry.

      There are better reasons for subsidising industry than there are for subsidising unemployment:

      – security of national provisions

      – self sufficiency

      Take steel. We are about to lose hundreds of jobs in Scunthorpe. Will those communities be allowed to wither ? No. They’ll become benefit hotspots like the mining towns.

      If we are to subsidise unemployed steel workers then we may as well subsidise working steel workers. And let them make the rails for HS2.

      The same goes for food production. Especially where unscrupulous companies such as Tescos abuse suppliers.*

      We have been through the sacrificial, to-the-death, version of Thatcherite capitalism and away has gone vast swathes of our manufacturing. The privatisations have left us woefully uncovered in energy and infrastructure.

      I thought I’d never say it. But we went down a road of half hearted Thatcherism and might as well have not bothered – because we subsidised Thatcherism with welfarism and the welfare bill went up and we became a full on welfare state eventually.

      Had we been more ruthless the British might have adapted fully and turned this country into an economic white dwarf rather than a welfare black hole.

      We may as well have stuck with subsidised industry instead. Apart from all else it seems a pragmatic idea anway – to remain skilled up and tooled up, and independent.

      *John Redwood once told us what an excellent business model Tesco was. Well I’d say it’s far more difficult to run a farm than it is a shop. And what goes around comes around.

      Reply It did brilliantly under Leahy then got into difficulties.

      • Anonymous
        Posted January 31, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        Reply to reply: It would bullying suppliers and encouraging car use at a time that towns were banning them.

        When real competition came along Tesco couldn’t hack it.

        • Anonymous
          Posted January 31, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

          ‘was’ instead of ‘would’.

          Thanks.

  7. Jerry
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    “We will be free to adopt modern technologies and innovations we think will help farmers and their customers. [plus the point about having our own seat on the IPPC]”

    Those wanting a Brexit need to play this point carefully, many a Europhile will claim the above is reference to GM foods, not that I believe there is anything wrong or bad with GM crops or products per se but a lot of people have been fooled into hating even the concept of GM by the (rather silly) “Frankenstein Food” label.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

      It’s not so much a problem with GM food but the way a few chemical companies monopolise the crops. The crops cannot be saved for next years harvest as the seeds are infertile. This means that the poorest countries are tied to a handful of predominantly American companies. Yet another route to world government US style.

      • Jerry
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:46 pm | Permalink

        @Ian wragg; “The crops cannot be saved for next years harvest as the seeds are infertile.”

        But that is largely due to the needs of GM technology, after all the process of natural or horticulture (forced) evolution is a form of natural GM, something that is not necessarily a good thing if science is trying to eradicate a natural disease.

        What does need to be guarded against though is were seeds or crop might be modified to only accept a monopolised type of fertiliser or treatment – perhaps that is what you meant Ian?

        “This means that the poorest countries are tied to a handful of predominantly American companies.”

        But is that cause or effect, if European companies are continually being put off by the over burden of EU regulation or the damage caused by anti-GMO protesters criminal damage to research fields etc. then there will only be a handful of predominantly American companies!

  8. Anonymous
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    THE OPPONENTS WILL GET UNINTERRUPTED BBC AIRTIME

  9. Cheshire Girl
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    I’m sorry, but I have to go off topic again:

    Suprise, Surprise – David Cameron has agreed to give sanctuary to an ‘undisclosed amount’ of unaccompanied children from war zones (BBC website just now). That was totally predictable. It is said that they wont include any of those now in Europe, so thats alright then. You really couldnt make it up!

    • DaveM
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      For “children” read anyone under 18, as opposed to those little children you see on the BBC.

      • Ben Kelly
        Posted January 29, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

        Bearded children

    • Anonymous
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      A) Some of those children will not be children at all

      B) Their families will be entitled to follow

      Had it not been for decades of asylum system abuse we might be more sympathetic. As it is we are going to need an amnesty to absorb the millions already living here unofficially. That or we face the inevitable uprising when they rightly demand to be treated like human beings.

      Stop the rubber boats. Build EU ferry services to make the transit safer. It is clear that mass immigration is what the elites want.

      Use the money saved by scrapping the governments that no longer serve us and the military that has no borders to defend. There really is no need for either if this continues.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        If the Greek government is going to use its coastguard and navy vessels to facilitate rather than prevent illegal immigration, and if it is going to stand by and knowingly allow its citizens and assorted foreign do-gooders to actively welcome illegal immigrants onto Greek beaches, aiding and abetting illegal immigration and helping to boost the illegal business and ill-gotten profits of the people smugglers, and if the German government is going to issue a public invitation to all those illegal immigrants who fancy the idea to trek overland through various countries until they reach the paradise of Germany and the rest of Northern Europe, then, yes, there is no point in the other continental governments resisting the inevitable.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      I don’t think we have much choice on this even if it’s just on moral grounds.

      We all probably feel that these children are the “vanguard” for the rest of their families and relations to come at some stage in the future. Certainly a good move to claim that the UK will only accept children from countries and camps near Syria rather than northern France.

      Had relations that came here in 1938 on Kinder Transport, I really can’t have an issue with this policy.

      Clearly a policy devised by a “bunch” of MPs 🙂

    • lojolondon
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:05 am | Permalink

      Even worse – anyone who SAYS they are under 18. British headmasters are having a nightmare with immigrants over 20 years old, claiming to be 13-15 years old, our people want to put them into school with young British children – this is a real disgrace, and the government and media are pretending it is not so – until (something bad happens ed).

      • Jerry
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

        @lojolondon; “immigrants over 20 years old, claiming to be 13-15 years old”

        Utter and total nonsense, as a very quick medical inspection will soon tell, but should any immigrants over 20 years of age be able to pass themselves off as teenage adolescents then they are in need of NHS treatment not education!…

        • Edward2
          Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:52 am | Permalink

          “utter and total nonsense”you say
          A very confident claim Jerry.
          There are many examples of adults claiming to be under 18 who have turned out to be over 18 to gain easier entry to the the EU or the UK
          The authorities find it difficult to disprove their claim.

          Very quick inspection you say
          Well perhaps you can tell us and the authorities what your invention is.

    • miami.mode
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      CG

      According to the latest reports the traffickers are deliberately sending unaccompanied children with the expectation that they will be treated sympathetically and their close relatives will then be allowed to follow.

      • hefner
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Which latest reports? Be a bit more specific: you know, not everybody believes the DM, the Sun, the Telegraph, the Guardian, the Spectator … or JR for that matter. A proper citizen tries to check their sources, otherwise people are just subjects. Oops! That’s what we all are in this country.

        • Edward2
          Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:55 am | Permalink

          Do you refuse to accept that currently at least 3000 children are trying to be allowed into the UK?
          Or is that a myth too?
          It was on the BBC

          • hefner
            Posted January 29, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

            No, what I dislike is non-referenced claims, talking about reports when it might simply be any journalist eructing the bias of their editor’s propaganda. I just want to know where the news come from, whether DM, DT, BBC , think tanks or academia. It should not be too difficult.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 29, 2016 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

            Do you accept Harvard referencing?

          • hefner
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

            No problem if reference is made to who in Harvard has said what. There is diversity in most universities.

          • Jerry
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2; No need to use Harvard referencing, a URL to either an original Reuters or Press Associations news-wire will do, even then it will not be proof but either will have more weight than a ‘story’ printed in a eurosceptic newspaper.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

            Thanks Jerry
            I forgot you were an expert on this as well as everything else.

    • stred
      Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:07 am | Permalink

      While they are alive, the children should be a number -not in a pile.

  10. FrankH
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    “A Conservative government will … discuss with farmers if they need more…”

    That won’t be a very long discussion, will it?
    “Do you need more?”
    “Yes, lots more.”
    🙂

  11. Antisthenes
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    The arguments being put forward for remaining in by the Europhiles are spurious at best and blatant distortions of the truth at worst. Do they actually believe their own rhetoric and propaganda or do they just accept that the means justify the end. If the former then they are seriously deluded as all the evidence points to the fact that being a member of the EU is not a benefit to the people of the UK. It points to the opposite being true.

    Reading your articles it can quite easily be seen how damaging it is and how wrong the reasons given for remaining in are. Not one of their arguments hold up under scrutiny. The reasons for leaving however all point to the fact that in this case divided we stand united we fall. The EU will never get it’s house in order and will never justify it’s existence.

  12. Lifelogic
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Indeed, do the IN side have a single, rational argument for staying in? I have yet to hear anyone putting any forwards. They usually just blandly state that it will be a disaster and very damaging but fail to give any reasons that make any sense what so ever.

    They put forward the “50% of our trade depends on our membership” drivel and the EU members will gang up and bully us to discourage and others from leaving (like a bitter and spiteful divorce).

    They even make absurd claims that the EK will have to pay the same fee in order to trade with the EU and we will still not be able to limit immigration or control our borders. Also that it will break up the UK. No Scotland has made its decision. When they see how well the UK will do out side they would be very foolish indeed to want to leave the UK and join the EU and they certainly could not do it retaining the £1 (as they suggested when they lost last time).

    But the main advantage of leaving is we will be in democratic control and can then, once again, take decisions in UK interests rather than being dictated to by bureaucrats with little interest in the UK. Cooperation yes but control by unelected bureaucrat (that have proven to be such a disaster in almost everything they touch) no thanks.

    Farming, fishing, agriculture, trade, competitivity, fewer regulations, jobs, wages, real “human rights”, the environment, the control of our borders, democracy and cheaper energy – all will benefit from leaving this disaster zone.

    It is our moral duty to show other the way.

  13. alan jutson
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Thank you for the above post today John.

    I wonder how many of our farmers, fishermen and indeed the supporters of wildlife are aware of this suggestion/policy promise.

    I wonder how many of the population are aware this is all possible, and all at no additional cost, because we will not now need to send huge sums of money to the EU any more, which is far in excess of the amounts highlighted.

    Indeed I wonder how many of the population are aware that our so called flood/water resource controls are managed by EU policy, and the fact that we work under their directives.

    Food for thought !

    • lojolondon
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      One of the tragedies of the EU takeover of Britain has been the devastation of our fishing fleet – I doubt that our fishing industry can ever recover, especially because some people now make more sitting on the dole than they do going out on a boat!

      • Jerry
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

        @lojolondon; The EU’s Common Fishing Policy has been a disaster but the UK fishing industry was already in trouble before we joined the EEC, before Heath even signed the dotted line. Also other nations boats will still fish in all but our recognised territorial waters, if we object are we prepared for another “Cod War”?

        • Edward2
          Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

          They won’t be able to fish in our territorial waters if it becomes illegal Jerry.
          Our fishing industry has been destroyed by the EU
          It was thriving.

          • Jerry
            Posted January 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2: They won’t be able to fish in our territorial waters if it becomes illegal”

            Of course they will, unless the RN can stop them, and even then what are our internationally recognised territorial waters, 12 nautical miles.

            Oh and how do you propose to tell the fish not to swim beyond our virtual seawater fence even if non UK fishing boats do keep out of our territorial waters?!

            “Our fishing industry has been destroyed by the EU. It was thriving.”

            To young to remember any of the so called “Cod Wars” Edward?

          • Edward2
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 9:29 am | Permalink

            So we cannot stop it even though it’s the law.
            Your attitude leads to chaos.
            Our Navy will have to police our waters.
            We will have to take legal action in the international courts.
            Bullies and lawbreakers must be faced up to and robustly challenged.
            Ps
            If the fish are in international waters then that means any boat can try and catch them
            Pps
            It wasn’t the cod wars that ruined our fishing industry it was the CFP of the EU.

      • stred
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        Some recent documentaries on tv shown just what incredibly hard and risky work fishing is. Most said their children did not wish to take over. The catches are hit and miss, as just outside the limit for small boats, the sea bed has been turned into a desert by the many large foreign beam trawlers. Even if the limit were to be extended it would take a long time to recover and the big foreign boats would still dominate in the grounds further out, often damaging thousands of pounds worth of nets and pots. Still, better to make a start.

  14. mickc
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    The UK does not support its farmers to the extent other EU countries do at present. It won’t in the future, no matter which party is in power.
    The only “industry” the UK actively supports is financial services, at considerable cost to the taxpayer.
    QE for the people, not the banks is likely to gain resonance as Osborne’s mismanagement becomes more apparent, unfortunately.

  15. Mike Stallard
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood.
    Everybody – including M. Juncker – knows that the EU needs reform very badly. Immigration, the Euro crisis, relations with Russia and also the economic decline leading to unemployment are challenges which have to be met somehow.
    The problem is how?
    M. Juncker and his allies think that more Europe is the answer. The problem, to them, is lack of power. If only the Commissioners could get to work! If only they had permission to fix it!
    Then there are people who want to reform from inside, like Mr Cameron. The problem here is that nobody inside the EU wants to make even small (to them very big) adjustments. They all want to strengthen the EU so that it follows the pattern of M. Juncker. That is why he was elected on such a crushing majority.
    Those of us Brits who want to leave are leaderless at the moment. And we are suspicious. There are an awful lot of “Eurosceptics” who are paraded on Newsnight and Radio 4 who are no such thing. When referendum time comes round, they will be the very first to vote REMAIN.
    In these circumstances we badly need people (like yourself) to state firmly that you are going to vote LEAVE. Can you do that?

    Reply For goodness sake. Yes of course I am voting Leave. Why do you think I have devoted so much energy to securing a referendum and to making the case for out? I do wish people writing in to this site would stop arguing with me on this matter and get on with helping us win this referendum.

    • Mitchel
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink

      “There are an awful lot of “Eurosceptics” who are paraded on Newsnight and Radio 4 who are no such thing”.

      Well,of course!Every PPE graduate -and many more besides -knows the essential truth of Lenin’s dictum:”The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”.

    • Jerry
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      @Mike Stallard: “There are an awful lot of “Eurosceptics” who are paraded on Newsnight and Radio 4 who are no such thing.”

      That will be an argument for later should a Brexit not be the outcome, and only then if such people choose to make public how they voted – until them your claim is just hyperbolic speculation. I bet you have no names nor that you would accuse such people in public if you had such a list, even if our host or some other website owner would allow you to make a comment that basically accuses (unnamed) of lying.

      • matthu
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

        “Eurosceptics” who are paraded on Newsnight and Radio 4 who are no such thing.

        That will be an argument for later… and only then if such people choose to make public how they voted – until them your claim is just hyperbolic speculation.

        Really?

        How would you judge William Hague? Or Boris Johnson? (To mention just a couple – I am sure you could think of a few other names if you really tried hard.)

        • Jerry
          Posted January 29, 2016 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

          @matthu; You KNOW how they will vote?… As I said, your assertions are hyperbolic speculation.

          • Edward2
            Posted January 29, 2016 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

            All assertions are hyperbolic Jerry
            Its in the nature of all future predictions
            even yours.

          • Jerry
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

            @Edward2; Do feel free to actually read and understand the context before jumping in with both feet, my point was about the naming (and thus the public shaming) of people, stating as a fact that they will be doing something in the future – that is why such suggestions are “an overstatement or exaggeration” (hyperbole) [1], making a general assertion that some people might act in such a way is not.

            Once again you demonstrate your wish to try and rubbish or argue almost every point or opinion I make, it is getting very annoying (almost troll like) and must be causing a lot of extra work for our host.

            [1] if it’s not hyperbole then it is pure crystal ball speculation that has no more place than hyperbole does here

          • Edward2
            Posted January 30, 2016 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

            Thanks Jerry I will feel free to read through all the other posts of yours.

            All predictions are speculative.
            That was the straightforward point I was making after your criticism of matthu.

    • The Active Citizen
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      Reply to Reply “For goodness sake. Yes of course I am voting Leave.”

      I understand your frustration JR. I also know that you aren’t interested in the details of the Leave campaigns and will support whichever gets the nomination by the Electoral Commission.

      I think that one of the reasons you keep being asked your intentions is that whilst you are firmly committed to the UK’s exit, prominent leaders of Vote Leave are not. This makes people cynical.

      If the three prominent directors of Vote Leave would announce that they want to exit the EU in the event of a successful referendum Leave vote, I’m sure many people would be a lot happier.

      However while Messrs Elliott, Cummings, and Hannan continue to talk about a renegotiation, seeking ‘improved terms’, and then a second referendum, and whilst they will not categorically state that they are campaigning for a full exit, I fear some of your newer readers will always want to be certain where you stand.

      In any event I have no doubt of your full commitment to Britain leaving the EU at the earliest opportunity. You have stated it many times, unequivocably, and your current series of articles should leave no-one in any doubt.

  16. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    Paper Rounds…if only!

    Big deal by the EU again?

    • Anonymous
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Kids aren’t allowed part time jobs in shops either. No wonder employers are finding them useless when they leave school.

    • graham1946
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      We had a fantastic paper boy and he used to come really early, because he wanted to be up and about and as we live in a village and he has to go to school on a bus about 20 miles away . Some lowlife saw him delivering papers before 7 am and reported him and the council jobsworths stopped him and threatened the village shop with a fine for employing him. Now this lad sees that there is no value in self reliance and enterprise and that officialdom only exists to stop things happening, not enabling. In case anyone is wondering, we are not talking about a small lad of 10 or 11, but a strapping lad over 12 who is nearly as big and certainly stronger than me. The shop can’t find a replacement. The lady who runs it says when she asks those who come in they mostly say their parents give them their money anyway and they don’t like getting up. When I was twelve I had 2 paper rounds morning and evening and developed a taste for independence and was self employed and an employer for over 40 years. We are not helping ourselves long term by mollycoddling.

  17. agricola
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    I know nothing on the subject of farming subsidies. I would only say that any business finds it easier to operate if there is continuity. This should be for at least five years after Brexit to allow farmers to prepare for changes. I am basically against subsidies except where there is a good environmental or strategic reason to have them in place. Subsidies can skew the market against the interests of the customer. The CAP results in us paying more for our food than is necessary

    With fishing, make sure you have the conservation programme in place based on lessons from our Nordic neighbours. Ensure that it is flexible enough to cope with new information and changing circumstances. Involve fishermen. You will also need to invest in more Royal Navy fishery protection ships and Royal Air Force maritime patrol aircraft to patrol our returned jurisdiction.

    The Environment agency, which I would prefer to see as a ministry with direct responsibility, will require re-direction to correct the neglect due to the so called green agenda of the failed EU.

    Our opponents will grab at any spurious device that perpetuates their existence, just blow them out of the water with logic.

  18. simon
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    Good post, I have been waiting for the fishing argument to be brought up. It should be obvious that we regain control……..but apparently the major UK fishing companies are now all owned by European companies who will still be allowed to fish in UK waters, being UK registered, but continue to land their catch in Spain being Spanish owned. Not much black and white here, all shades of grey!

    • getahead
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

      Sounds like there will have to be a new law made as soon as we gain independence. Spanish owned fleets to have their UK registration re-assigned?

  19. Bert Young
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Farmers have for many years been envious of the way the French have benefited from the CAP ; probably the reason DeGaulle said “Non” so many times was because he believed once the Brits were “In” we would do our utmost to curtail the level of distribution to the French.

    Our fishing industry has been decimated by the EU regulations and allowed others to adopt exploitation techniques hoovering fish from the seas around our shores – all this while our traditional trawlermen witnessed their boats rusting away and many traditional fish items disappearing from our menus . We have been idiots .

    I do hope all of the “Leave” groups will get their act together and distribute the detail we receive in Johns’ blogs through the letterbox of every household . I am concerned that the average person I speak to still say “I haven’t thought about it yet” when questioned how they will cast their vote . Meanwhile the BBC still orientate their interviews and commentaries with a noticeable pro EU bias .

    Reply I am passing my blogs for Leave on to those who are running the campaigns. I think Conservative for Britain are posting this material as well.

  20. Antisthenes
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    A sobering thought for us Eurosceptics. We humans are more likely to make decisions not based on fact but on emotion. The Europhiles know this so are exploiting it for all it is worth. They are feeding us FUD (fear uncertainty doubt)as they know few are going to actually query it. To counter that is horrendously difficult because the only case we have for leaving is fact and truth based. Fiction usually much more exciting than fact. Nobody would watch a Hollywood movie if it was not.

    Facts are dry stuff and not in the least bit interesting to most and although it is scary it is not scary enough except to the most discerning and they do not make up the bulk of the voting public. In fact they are in the minority. Sobering because we are going to lose the referendum to liars and cheats.

  21. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    In all fairness it must be said the Conservative Party has a split-minded attitude to welfare benefits or subsidies. I say welfare benefits OR subsidies, meaning that both terms can be one of the same.

    Why is quite okay in the short to the long-term for a farmer to receive benefits from the commonweal of tax-payers money be it in the UK Exchequer or that stolen by the EU?

    It does seem the UK farmer unlike farmers of differing nationality and ethnic origin throughout the world cannot produce even a pint of milk without help from the UK State’s sweet teat. It appears the UK farming community does not give a pig’s snout who their Mummy be it the British or the European. Just so long as it gets money for nothing and chicks for free.

    Reply Liberating our country from EU control is worth continuing to provide farmers and universities with the money they have grown sued to from Brussels.

  22. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Opponents to the UK leaving the EU never recognise that, freed from the shackles of that political interference, our elected UK government can implement whatever policies it chooses. For them life only seemed to begin after we joined what was then the EEC. To listen to them there was no foreign travel, no paid holidays, no farming…..Having got used to being told what to do by unelected people in Brussels they seem to have lost the capacity to think and act for themselves.

  23. roger
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    John. Many thanks for yet another excellent article.
    May I ask if you will be contributing to the debate in Parliament on February 4th.
    I do hope so.

    Reply Probably. I have made a good few speeches already in Parliament about the need to restore our sovereignty!

  24. Richard1
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    The governor of the Bank of England has said additional risk premia would apply to UK borrowers if the UK left the EU – mortgages and borrowing rates for business would be higher. Frustratingly though for those of us interested in a debate he didn’t say why. In Switzerland after all, borrowing rates are lower than anywhere in the EU. Surely what matters is what economic and monetary policy is, not whether or not we are in a political union?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      We got that kind of twaddle about what would happen if we didn’t join the euro.

    • matthu
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

      Most of the corporate chairmen and company bosses warning against Brexit are Davos types who chum up to Tony Blair and Cameron and Osborne.

      But rather interestingly, analysts at Barclays warned today that financial markets had failed to grasp the sheer “breadth” of the British vote, calling it one of “the most significant global risks of the year”, and one which could lead to the collapse of the whole European project.

      They even indicated that Brexit could in fact lead to the UK becoming a “safe haven” from a disintegrating Europe that could dissuade Scotland from seeking to break away from the relative safety of the UK.

  25. Shieldsman
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    In praise of the EU they keep crawling out of the woodwork. The green blob joins the bankers and the multinationals.
    ‘Brexit’ poses huge risk to UK’s countryside, experts warn. Independent’s exclusive: UK’s most eminent naturalists say pulling out of EU would encourage politicians to tear up ‘critical’ protections.
    Aren’t they trying to perpetuate all those useless green jobs created by EU directives and sponsered by the EU with our money?
    Amongst the list we have former Quango heads of Natural England, English Nature, RSPB, National Trust and Environment Agency.
    Now, Baroness Young of Old Scone, former chief executive, Environment Agency and the RSPB along with Lord Chris Smith, former chair, Environment Agency, have the unenviable record of being responsible for flooding on the Somerset Levels in the Winter of 2013/14. The farms, roads and houses were flooded, the birds flew away.
    Under EU legislation, dredging rivers is considered environmentally unfriendly because it takes them away from their “undisturbed”, “natural” state. It was Baroness Young who was over enthusiastic in implementing the 2000 European Water Framework Directive.
    Here in Surrey we are affected by the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, new housing must provide Suitable Accessible Natural Green Spaces (SANGS) in addition to standard open space requirements to prevent harm occurring.
    I call it the dog walkers charter and it was spun out of the Birds Habitat Directive by Natural England.
    Roll on Brexit, perhaps we can get rid of these non jobs and put some competent Engineers in charge.

    • Richard1
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:15 am | Permalink

      As I travel around Europe I find the country with the best preserved countryside is Switzerland – not in the EU, at least in part because there dont seem to be any wind farms there. So I dont think this argument for Remain flies.

  26. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Electors, not just those generally participating in a Referendum on EU membership, do have a responsibility.

    Two famous fishing localities of the North, Hull and Grimsby. Jobs directly and indirectly related to fishing. Their electorates have consistently and to date , elected Labour MPs. It was Labour’s Lord Prescott who led a strike of the Merchant Fleet and stranded its crews all over the world, many hailing from Hull and Grimsby. Inflicting financial burdens on crews trying to survive with money sent by relatives.
    It was Labour which sold its electorates in Hull and Grimsby down the river with the Common Fisheries Act. So many redundancies,. So many bankrupt businesses. The effect went all the way inland to Leeds and Nottingham with losses in warehouse, transport and packaging jobs.
    Yet Hull and Grimsby voters continue to vote Labour. A case of Stockholm, Hull and Grimsby Syndrome? Leeds, most inappropriately too, vote for Hilary Benn MP, an EU-er.
    The Labour Party has consistently exported and lost jobs for its voters whether they be trawler owners, trawlermen, packers, merchant seamen, and truck drivers.
    Well they all have one vote coming up.Will they continue to be the helmsmen to their own doom?

  27. Atlas
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Agreed John.

  28. hefner
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    According to ONS the 2010 figures for the contributions to UK GDP were:
    77.8 % from services
    15.2 % from production
    6.3 % from construction
    0.7 % from agriculture.
    I doubt more recent numbers be very different.

    a. Do you think that “the march of the makers” has/will change(d) these proportions?
    b. Is it worthwhile to make such a song and dance for the 0.7 %?
    c. Isn’t it true that services, specially financial, consulting, and the like are highly moveable entities, which could easily slip through the borders and find pastures new?

    JR, please explain what incentives a future Brexited government will provide the service industry to make sure they stay in the UK. Will the 10bn not going to the EU be enough to satisfy them?

    Reply They will stay to enjoy the UK domestic market, to use the talent of UK people and to benefit from the relatively benign environment for business compared to other countries.

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    I’m not so happy with the references to the Conservative party in this article, JR. This has to be a broad cross-party, non-party, effort to get us out of the EU and restore our national democracy, which democracy involves more than one political party.

    So it would be better to avoid slipping towards the usual party politics by saying eg

    “A Conservative government will guarantee existing subsidy levels … “.

    The obvious facts are that Parliament could and almost certainly would decide to simply maintain the existing payments as an interim measure until it later decided whether the system needed to be modified and if so how, and we could afford to do that because the UK would not be paying that money to the EU for it to be recycled back to farmers in the UK, minus the extra costs.

    Reply That is an unfair criticism. The reasons I cite a Conservative government are 1. We have a Conservative government and so what they do after exit matters 2.I have more knowledge of what a Conservative government is likely to do than what a Corbyn led Labour government might do, as that is work in progress and not a likely election winner anyway.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      Well, it can only be speculated that the current Conservative government would do the obvious and maintain existing subsidy levels after we had left the EU, because as we know the current Conservative government has openly said that it has no contingency plans for anything at all after we have left the EU, a policy of having no policy so to speak. Which is a point of difference from the last time we went through this charade of the government negotiating a New Deal for Britain in Europe, which amounted to next to nothing but was then inflated to a significant improvements in our terms of membership – then the Labour government did draw up contingency plans in case they lost the referendum, plans which are in the National Archives. But at least according to the Telegraph today Cameron like Wilson will be able to claim that the new improved terms are the fruit of his long, hard negotiations, as we are supposed to believe that there is now deadlock. Let us all hope and pray that our Prime Minister will stand firm in our national interest but he will nonetheless be able to find a way through this impasse.

      Reply I am very sure a Conservative government will continue farm subsidies on exit, and I expect some Ministers who join the Leave side to reinforce that view after the deal is announced.

      • turbo terrier
        Posted January 28, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

        Denis Cooper

        Let us all hope and pray that our Prime Minister will stand firm in our national interest

        That will be a first!!

        John and his 100 odd colleagues are the driving force to this whole referendum on the governments side.

  30. lojolondon
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    John, there is a really good news for Eurosceptics – john Baron has secured a planned debate for 4 February :
    ‘That this House believes in the importance of Parliamentary sovereignty; and that the Government’s EU renegotiations must encompass Parliament’s ability to stop any unwanted legislation, taxes or regulation.’
    This is great news, because if all the Prime Minister’s renegotiation points are fully conceded by the EU, Westminster remains fully subservient to the EU and the ECHR, amongst other unelected bodies, so this key point needs to be addressed.

    Reply. Yes, I do know that! We work together in the Commons, and backed John to get the debate, agreeing it is the crucial topic.A debate like that needs MP support to secure it. I have personally raised this very issue many times in the Commons before.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      February 4th, next Thursday, so there’s still plenty of time to set up some kind of

      “Guess the number of MPs who will vote for that motion”

      competition among readers of this blog, assuming there is a motion and a vote.

      Obviously the Tory, Labour, LibDem, SNP and Plaid Cymru whips will tell their MPs not to vote for it, instead they must either vote against it or abstain.

      Here’s my guess – 52 (not including the two tellers).

      That’s a bit higher than the 39 who voted in favour of the sovereignty of their own Parliament back in January 2011, Division No 161 here:

      http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110111/debtext/110111-0004.htm

      The proposed amendment would have inserted the words “The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.” into the European Union Bill, and it was Ayes 39, Noes 314, not including tellers.

    • matthu
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

      Not just Parliament’s ability to stop any legislation, but actively to propose legislation too.

      We don’t simply want another English veto (perhaps with the EU deciding whether a veto applies or not). And we certainly don’t want a yellow or red card system.

      We don’t want new ability to seek permission in certain circumstances to apply an emergency brake either.

  31. Vanessa
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    If we do, indeed, vote to leave the EU (highly unlikely) then Cameron will have to resign. As he is campaigning to stay in the EU his position will be untenable if the British people do actually vote to leave.

    • Sue Doughty
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      No, he need not resign.

      • Lindsay
        Posted January 29, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

        But he will be forced out.

  32. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    It may be that the UK’s continued membership of the EU will in the long-run benefit us all.By its failure.
    Sometimes in politics, it is necessary to give a political process and indeed public support in the widest sense, the chance to hang itself.

    In Germany, we see public services, fire, health service, housing,employment ,international relations, internal political stability hitting rock bottom because of its EU fanaticism. Germany, and no country to be honest, obviously cannot cope with a sudden influx of one million people. The pain has just begun in Cologne. It should be taken as a New Year’s warning.

    The UK Labour Party if in government under Mr Corbyn would have plunged our country into crisis. Wiped itself off the political map taking with it the last bleats of the Lib Dems.
    The Labour Party in whatever form and the Lib Dems owe their existence by the Tory Party being in power.
    So, they can whine on: We need to accept more refugees; we need to give more;we need to be compassionate; we should feed the world in line with the wisdom of a Wembley rock Concert. Knowing sensible people are in government,their Mummies and Daddies, the Labour Party and Lib Dems can cry crocodile tears until they get Oscars. But it would be nice if their generosity with other people’s money cut short their political careers once and for all.

  33. Original Richard
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    “OUR OPPONENTS CLAIM THE UK OUT OF THE EU WILL INTRODUCE LOWER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS”

    Our commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels is in fact tougher than current EU requirements.

    Indeed, Germany is currently building coal fired power stations whilst we are closing ours down, despite the fact that CCS technology does not yet exist.

    So there is no need to vote to remain a member of the EU in order to ensure there is no negative impact on our environmental standards as far as the generation of greenhouse gases is concerned.

  34. The Active Citizen
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Another excellent article JR.

    May I please make an appeal to those of your correspondents who cry “Why should farmers and fishermen get subsidies from the UK government after we leave?”

    My question to those correspondents is simple: “Do you wish us to win the Referendum?” Assuming your answer is “Of course”, then I urge you not to worry about reducing the artifical subsidies to farmers, fishermen, universities, or any other group which currently benefits out of our membership of the EU.

    JR is 100% correct to state that a Conservative government should continue the subsidies and even look at making them more beneficially-targeted.

    We’re paying these groups the money now, via the EU, and the EU is claiming all the credit as if it weren’t our money in the first place. We should guarantee to carry on the subsidies after we leave, or we’ll have many groups in the UK thinking that they should vote to remain.

    The most important thing is to win the Referendum and we need as many people on board as possible, to have any chance whatsoever.

  35. Colin Hart
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    Disappointing first sentence. It suggests nothing will change if/when we leave.

    Could produce the reaction – so why bother with this referendum?

    Reply As other posts show we will be £10 bn a year better off, and will b e free to control our own borders, energy etc. It will be a lot better.

    • hefner
      Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Yes, we will be 10bn better off, which according to the Chancellor’s summer 2015 budget would be 0.28% of the Total Policy Decisions for 2015-2016, and then taking the ONS projections for TPDs 0.11% for ’16-’17 and 0.091% for ’17-’18.
      Will I feel richer? I doubt it.

  36. Sue Doughty
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    They say it would be a leap into an unknown void. We could be as isolated as the USA, Canada, Australia and other countries that left the Empire. And as for being isolated in Europe 1940 springs to mind and we came out on top after that.
    The subsidies we get are taxpayers money and we are those taxpayers – it is our money to start with.
    I do not wish to share sovereignty with places that are refusing to help refugees.

  37. Bob
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    “Leaving will be good for farmers and fishermen”

    John,
    Does Mr Cameron know this?

  38. Colin Hart
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    Point taken. Maybe what I am suggesting is a blog on how food prices would be affected if we leave. I can just see Remain telling us how they will go up.

    Reply World prices are lower than CAP levels but we would keep in place farm prices and subsidies

  39. Margaret
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    A good positive article.

  40. Jon
    Posted January 28, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Do like these positive blogs on leaving the EU.

    George Osborne secured a tax payment from a global mega company that the EU had done nothing to assist.

    That made me think about the Netherlands, an early founding member and their corporate tax evading nature within the EU. I suppose outside of the EU we could take a more robust approach to the likes of the Netherlands and start taking Starbucks and Amazon more and as a result save more home grown businesses?

    Who knows but we woul not have to try and jump through all kinds of hoops to do it. It seems our taxation of Google is now to be investigated by the EU!

    • hefner
      Posted January 29, 2016 at 8:37 am | Permalink

      Yes, the EU is investigating why Osborne concluded such a puny tax deal with Google!

      • Ted Mombiot
        Posted January 29, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        Over £120 million more than Labour achieved in 13 years.

  41. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted January 29, 2016 at 2:04 am | Permalink

    Granted, if we continue farming subsidies, it is much better that the subsidies go to UK farmers than continental ones. However, why subsidise farming at all? We appear not to subside, or only subsidise to a limited extent, the steel industry and North Sea oil, which are adversely affected by dumping from China and Saudi Arabia respectively. Is the reason for farm subsidies security of supply?

    You may need to factor in some military (naval) expenditure to enforce full reclamation of our fishing grounds. Continental nations (e.g. Spain) won’t like giving up market share.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

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

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

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

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page