Why the UK will have more influence in the world if it leaves the EU


Out of the EU the UK will regain her rightful place on world bodies. The UK will reclaim her own seat at the World Trade Organisation, in World Climate talks and similar fora.

Instead of having to broker a line with 27 other countries, the UK will in each case be able to form her own opinion and to advance it directly.

The UK will be free to make her own trade treaties with the USA, China, India and other leading countries. During 43 years in the EU the EU has failed to negotiate trade Treaties with these and other countries, and prevents us from doing so on our own.

The UK will retain her seat on the Security Council of the UN and her leading role after the USA in NATO.

The UK’s defence will continue to be assured by our own armed forces and by the NATO support.

Rule making for trade and related matters worldwide now occurs through world bodies. The UK does usually has to allow the EU to sit on these bodies instead of us. Out of the EU we will have our own seats on these organisations, and will have a more direct say in the world standards and rules that affect us.

Far from neglecting or ignoring us, out of the EU France and Germany will be keen to negotiate our support and agreement to various initiatives they will lead in the EU. We will have more influence over any common policy because we will effectively have restored our veto.


They ignore the fact that many decisions in the EU are now taken by majority vote, where the UK can easily be outvoted.

They are unable to explain how the UK can both influence central EU policies and stay out of the Euro which increasingly drives decision making in the EU

They claim the UK would have to adopt all EU rules outside the EU. This is simply not true. Outside the EU the UK would not have to adopt any EU rule it disliked for domestic or rest of the world activities. It would only have to adopt a requirement of the EU in order to sell a good or service to them, just as we have to accept customer requirements wherever we sell in the world.We meet US standards to sell to the USA, our biggest external market, but do not need to join their political union to do so.

They claim the UK will be sidelined outside the EU. On the contrary. EU states will want UK support for EU initiatives in the world. The rest of the world will take the UK more seriously once it returns as a full voting member to the main world bodies where it currently shares a representative with the other 27 countries of the EU.


    January 29, 2016

    Madness our Prime Minister listens to their humming and harring about how much of our own money we should give to people as benefits on our land.
    Just think the reaction if we ourselves wanted something?

    It is almost mathematically impossible to have LESS influence in the world, by leaving the EU. The Corbynistas and the career-politicians to the right of the Labour Party say we ( they mean the UK ) “would not have a say in things which affect us” . But we are outvoted in the EU. It has an in-built majority against us.

    One would have thought the Labour career-politicians might understand this concept immediately. They are outvoted by the Labour Party membership. They are in a minority. They should traipse around the country “negotiating” with their fellow members just as poor Mr Cameron traipses around Europe like an illegal immigrant without compass.

    Speaking of Mr Cameron, his eternal wanderings remind one of the journeys of Jaroslav Hašek’s “The Good Soldier Švejk ” He set off with purpose and histrionic determination seeming to be doing his duty but never actually achieved his mission in any part whatsoever. Keeping to the plan.Everything is in order.

  2. Duyfken
    January 29, 2016

    This series contains excellent reference material, thank you. I trust you do not object to my downloading the articles for use and reproduction.

    Reply This series is for wider dissemination and I am sending to various website for their use.

  3. Freeborn John
    January 29, 2016

    Good job on the radio this morning. Very clear and concise argumentation from yourself. Bravo.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      Indeed and on the TV news too, keep up the good work.

    2. Jerry
      January 29, 2016

      @Freeborn John; “Good job on the radio [Mr Redwood] this morning.”

      Indeed, and with a no compromising message, totally correct on the point in question, no country should have to go cap-in-hand as the EU’s solution seems to need, a point the interviewer couldn’t quite grasp!

      Not so good though at the 9am news which followed the ‘Today’ programme, all we heard was a one-sided opinion (of those who seem to want to accept the EU fudge) – complaint duly logged…

  4. Antisthenes
    January 29, 2016

    The question has be asked what is the EU actually for does it do anything that the UK cannot do for itself better and cheaper. It does not. Does it give us greater security. No we have NATO and alliances with other non NATO members for that. Does it enhance our democracy and freedom of choice. No it has done the opposite. It is bad enough that our own government is becoming more authoritarian but we have some checks and balances against that. The same cannot be said of the EU it is a dictatorship of an unelected few as they have powers over us given to them frivolously by us. Does it enhance out prosperity. No it practices protectionism and undermines competitiveness either to justify bureaucratic jobs and/or vested interests.

    It stops the UK from increasing it’s trade with the rest of the world and therefore benefiting from globalisation. Globalisation may not be liked by many but it is a fact, the future and the key to greater prosperity for all and the rules controlling it is not in the remit of the EU but resides in a number of world bodies outside of it. So trade wise the EU is totally redundant. As for the free movement of people well that is unstoppable but it at least has to be sensibly controlled. Recent events have proven that the EU is making a mess of that like so many other things it does. The euro-zone, Ukraine and the like other messes of it’s own making.

    The EU probably does benefit some of it’s members hard to see how but certainly the UK is not one of them.

    1. a-tracy
      January 29, 2016

      This is a genuine question because I don’t know, how does “It stops the UK from increasing it’s trade with the rest of the world “?

      Are we told how much we can export and to whom? By who?

    2. Peter Davies
      January 29, 2016

      I briefly read something last night about Bulgaria, the eu has resulted in prices rising to German levels but without the accompanying wage rises.

      The pm needs to stop these theatrics and be prepared to pull out

    3. Mark B
      January 29, 2016

      An excellent post.

  5. Lifelogic
    January 29, 2016

    Of course all this is correct.

    I see that Mark Carney has warned of financial instability, higher interest rates and capital flight should Britain voted to leave the EU. Saying the country could not depend on the kindness of strangers to fund the country’s deficits.

    Who is pulling his over paid strings? How can we have a fair referendum if various arms government is issuing statements like this? Also if Cameron is going to race into the referendum very quickly after his choreographed “triumph victory” in his farcical non renegotiation of anything of substance?

    A delay in paying benefits to migrants is totally insignificant, he clearly thinks the voters are complete idiots. We shall see if they are I suppose.

    Anyway with EU lovers like Cameron largely in charge a no vote will merely result in a substantive renegotiation and then a second “get it right this time” referendum. But with a far better deal on offer. So no one should be voting for “IN” in the first one. Even those in favour of this doomed, undemocratic, socialist superstate should vote for out.

  6. alan jutson
    January 29, 2016

    Thank you for once again highlighting the fact that the EU does not yet have in place their own Trade Treaties with the USA, China, and India.

    So often in interviews the pro EU Politicians often Quote the fact that we would have to set up our own Trade Treaties if we left the EU, and by omission suggesting (but without further comment or clarification) that we will lose a huge EU benefit if we left.

    It would be nice if the LEAVE campaign could nail this often quoted misleading statement, with a comment that it is something the EU does not have in place itself.

    To my knowledge not a single interviewer has exposed this fake fear.

    I see BBC Question Time resorted back to its normal pro EU panel last night, which kept up the usual misrepresentation of very many facts.

    We had the usual nonsense about losing grants, subsidies and investment from the EU, which is simply only part of our own original money back, which we have already paid to them under the title, membership fees.

    Send them £1.50 get back £1.00.

    Why so many think this is a good deal to promote when it is multiplied by millions of times, I have absolutely no idea.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      Probably rather less than a third of it back. Furthermore you then have to put up pro EU signs saying it was part funded by them and probably do something daft with it to.

    2. Denis Cooper
      January 29, 2016

      Christopher Booker once claimed that it actually cost UK taxpayers £3 for every £1 of “EU money” we got back, with EU strings attached of course.


      £2 handed over to get £1 back, which needed another £1 of “matched funding”.

      1. Lifelogic
        January 29, 2016

        Indeed and with endless daft strings and restrictions attached to the spending too.

    3. Mitchel
      January 29, 2016

      Re Question Time last night;not only did we have to contend with the terminally thick (or deliberately deceitful) claiming that we get money from the EU but then we had Jess Philips MP,the BBC’s gobby feminist/community activist du jour,maintaining that the attacks in Cologne on NYE were no worse than events on a typical weekend night on Birmingham’sBroad Street.

      I know Broad St -the main entertainment strip-its not my idea of a night out(but then it’s not aimed at the likes of me);it’s noisy,rowdy and people get drunk but its well policed and packed with CCTV and nothing remotely like Cologne has ever happened to my knowledge.She is receiving a huge amount of flak on the local media in the Midlands this morning and rightly so.

      After David Lammy earlier this week I am horrified by the alternative realities that these supposedly responsible people are being allowed to spin.

    4. turbo terrier
      January 29, 2016

      Alan Jutson

      I see BBC Question Time resorted back to its normal pro EU panel last night, which kept up the usual misrepresentation of very many facts.

      Very well said Alan. The whole programme was a b****y disgrace.

      These very highly paid executives and presenters want to remember who is ultimately paying their wages. The Corporation is supposed to provide unbiased presenting and in that they fall down at every hurdle. The Board should be called in and reminded of their responsibilties because the whole organisation is not fit for purpose. Question Time in its present format is tired and very out of date with the real world.

  7. Alan
    January 29, 2016

    It seems to me there is a bit of a contradiction in supposing that the UK will be able to negotiate good trade agreements with the USA, China, India, the EU, etc at the same time as arguing that Mr Cameron is unable to get a good deal that might convince Mr Redwood and other Eurosceptics that we should stay in the EU.

    It is probably far more important to the EU that we should stay in than it will be to, say, China whether we have a good trade agreement with them. We will have less influence over China than we do over the EU. If we cannot persuade the EU to give us a better deal now, when we are threatening to leave, we will probably not get a better deal after we leave.

    I don’t think any of these negotiations on trade after we leave the EU have yet started, or even been discussed with the countries in question. To assume they will all result in beneficial deals seems to me to be foolish optimism.

    1. AndyC
      January 29, 2016

      But it’s a myth that you need trade agreements in order to trade. The UK currently has no agreement with China or the USA, and nor does the EU. Trade seems to keep flowing.

      The UK is, in its own right, a founder member of the World Trade Organisation, which gives a basic level of free access to pretty much any market in the world. Leaving the EU would make us a more attractive import market, because we would presumably be able to disapply the Common External Tariff.

      Over the past 20 years or so the USA has rather liked bilateral trade agreements as a way of pushing its own interests; fair enough, and we may or may not want such a deal. But the TTIP is being negotiated in secret between the EU and USA. If agreement is ever reached, is it more likely to benefit British or German business, do you think?

    2. forthurst
      January 29, 2016

      “It seems to me there is a bit of a contradiction in supposing that the UK will be able to negotiate good trade agreements with the USA, China, India, the EU, etc at the same time as arguing that Mr Cameron is unable to get a good deal”

      No really, Alan. CMD is arguing from within the EU which is why if he wanted a real improvement in our relationship, which he most certainly does not as he is a stooge for his corporatist backers, he would not get it; all he’ll get is a fig leaf to hide his dalliance with porkies about radical change. On the contrary, when we are out of the EU we can negotiate from a stronger position than their’s, as demonstrated by this chart:


      When we are out of the EU we can not only negotiate trade deals with whoever we want, but by achieving deals which the EU has yet to broker, we would attract new business investment from both outside and inside the EU, as the Germans and others get fed up with selling cars to europaupers and having to give them the money to pay for them.

      Furthermore, if you set our contribution to the EU against our exports, we have an effective tariff of about 7% which is rather more than applies to some products under the WTO umbrella even before we start to negotiate deals.

      In addition, we could become a venue for international conferences etc as nobody wants to go to Brussels and the EU could never agree which country should act as a host.

    3. alan jutson
      January 29, 2016


      We are getting nowhere Alan, simply because Cameron keeps on telling them he want to stay in.

      What a stupid line to take if you are attempting to negotiate.

      Cameron would have trouble negotiating his way out of a paper bag.

      Most of us would simply rip it open, but he is asking someone to do it for him.

      No wonder he is getting ignored. I would ignore him as well. !

  8. Ben Kelly
    January 29, 2016

    Thank you Mr Redwood, your series this week has been thought provoking and informative. You have addressed many of the concerns that waverers may have. Most usefully you have compartmentalised the arguments for us to use.

    Tomorrow maybe you could address my greatest worry which is your government’s inability or unwillingness (either perceived or real) to negotiate for the advantage of the many.

    Too often we see a position of strength sacrificed for little real gain.

  9. Ben Kelly
    January 29, 2016

    I hope you are given a level field to make the points you have made this week on Any Questions tonight. The shrill and naive Caroline Lucas will no doubt be cheered by the majority of the audience.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      The woman on these types of programmes do seem to be given more leeway by the chairman to endlessly interrupt I find.

      1. Lifelogic
        January 29, 2016


  10. Antisthenes
    January 29, 2016

    David Cameron is pleased with how the negotiations are going on the reform of the EU and how the UK occupies a place in it apparently. So the charade is gathering pace and “peace in our time” is to be upgraded to “we have won a great victory”. What does he take us for a load of stupid fools? Well yes and he is probably right as most of us will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

    As the saying goes “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”. Learning from Abe Lincoln he knows that so is working hard to achieve at least the second one hoping for the first long enough to win. So he is staging managing expectations and deflecting sight away from the important issues such as sovereignty and so many others that no progress is being made on to trivial ones like benefits which he is then trumpeting as a major success.

    The dishonesty of some politicians and the gullibility and credulousness of some people know no bounds. Both uncomfortably large in number.

  11. Mike Stallard
    January 29, 2016

    Three Ms are our enemies – Ministers, Money and Media.
    Actually if you think about it, nobody need feel menaced. I should have thought that there was quite enough negotiating and finance in the world to create a magnum opportunity for feathering the nest. In no way should they feel threatened for losing their jobs. I they play their cards right, there is, actually a bunch of opportunities.

  12. eeyore
    January 29, 2016

    Who could not be reassured and convinced by Mr Redwood’s powerful arguments? Why, the millions who will never read them. People like my niece, a clever girl with stacks of academic qualifications, who inclines to vote to Stay because she likes travelling and thinks it will be made more difficult if we Leave and she has to apply for multiple visas.

    Or those, even less thoughtful than she is, so ignorant that they are ignorant even of their own ignorance, who simply associate Staying with the future and Leaving with the past. Voting to leave, they think, will be done by fusty old pensioners, racists, sad proletarian losers and (heaven forfend!) Tories; staying is the credo of all that is young, modern, hopeful and forward-looking.

    What arguments will prevail against prejudices like these? Or will Mr Redwood and his camp win all the battles and still lose the war?

    1. Jerry
      January 29, 2016

      @eeyore; What will loose us a Brexit is fear of the future, not the past, it’s also why many who comment on this site can’t seem to move on or away from Thatcherism…

      One almost needs to be pensioner (OK, well within sight of retirement at least then) to even have a clear recollection of the UK outside of the EEC/EU, the people you talk about know the ‘past’ and it is comforting to think that the EU will always be there for them.

      1. Edward2
        January 29, 2016

        So don’t mention the past or the future when trying to develop an argument against staying in the EU Jerry ?

        1. Jerry
          January 29, 2016

          @Edward2; Once again you seem to have missed my point, whilst thinking I said something I did not.

          We actually need to talk about those pre EEC/EU times, and how the lessons from that period (post Empire, pre accession to the EEC) will be our future. Unless we do people will simply vote for what they know, that EU comfort zone.

          1. Edward2
            January 29, 2016

            I’m confused now Jerry.
            What do you think I should mention, the past or the future.
            Can you be a bit more specific

    2. Denis Cooper
      January 29, 2016

      If she will listen, perhaps you could point out to your niece that the EU is now on the verge of abolishing visa requirements for citizens of Ukraine and Georgia who want to travel in the EU:


      “EU Backs Visa-Free Access for Ukraine, Georgia”

      “EU governments, parliament need to sign off on it in 2016”

      “BRUSSELS—The European Union’s executive backed Ukraine and Georgia’s bid for visa-free access to the bloc on Friday, opening the way to more than 40 million people to potentially travel visa-free to the bloc.

      The European Commission said both countries had carried out the reforms they promised to enact to win Brussels’ backing and they planned to make the formal legal recommendation in early 2016. It will then be for EU governments and the European Parliament to sign off.”

      As neither of those countries are in the EU, yet, it seems very unlikely that the EU will apply visa requirements to UK citizens after we have left the EU.

      Of course it is conceivable that the governments of some other EU countries will react to our withdrawal from the political project with stupidity and spite, in that and other ways, in which case she might like to wonder why we are allowing them such a large hand in the government of our country now.

  13. Boudicca
    January 29, 2016

    You’re running a very effective campaign John. It’s a shame that Vote Leave is engaged in infighting instead of campaigning as well as you are.

    Today’s bit of FEAR spread by the BSE campaign is Karen Brady claiming that BREXIT will be devastating for the Premier League. Apparently European players here will be forced to leave.

    That piece of completely unsubstantiated scaremongering shows how desperate they are.


    1. DaveM
      January 29, 2016

      Another article which shows the disconnect between the MSM and reality. Many people would welcome more English players in the PL, and thousands of young footballers all over the country would think “great – I actually have a chance of a pro contract!!”

    2. Jerry
      January 29, 2016

      Boudicca; “[Karen Brady claims that a Brexit] will be devastating for the Premier League. Apparently European players here will be forced to leave.”

      Many might consider that a good thing, we need to nurture our own sporting talent if the UK (and its four nations) are going to compete on the world stage in team events, not nurture the talent of other countries!

    3. Denis Cooper
      January 29, 2016

      Of course it’s possible that the UK government and Parliament would listen to the warnings from people like herself and decide that footballers from the EU could just carry on playing here as they are now. If there are UK rules which would prevent that, then they could be changed, could they not?

      So what she is saying is nonsense, unless she also believes that the governments of other EU countries would actually prohibit their citizens from playing football in the UK once we had left the EU.

    4. Denis Cooper
      January 29, 2016
  14. Douglas Carter
    January 29, 2016

    On-topic with the caveat it’s on the subject of the EU and the Referendum:-

    There’s a link here John which is for a pdf. file of the Electoral Commission recommendations for future Referendums after the experience of the Scotland 2014 Vote.


    Electoral Commission report on the Scottish Referendum. Stated, among other recommendations:-

    … ‘that in planning for any future referendums, not only in Scotland but also those held across or in other parts of the UK, governments should aim to ensure that legislation (including any secondary legislation) is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners, the Chief Counting Officer, Counting Officers or Electoral Registration Officers.’

    Thus “a reasonable period” according the Electoral Commission amounts to six months, as it argues to allow for …

    …(of the Referendum in Scotland…)..

    ….’The benefit of this additional time was passed on to campaigners, EROs and COs in preparing for their respective roles at the referendum:

    Campaigners were able to engage constructively with the legislative process and had time to develop an understanding of the relevant guidance and rules, before they came into force. EROs and COs benefitted from sufficient time to put robust plans in place for the delivery of their responsibilities under the legislation, from targeted public awareness activity to the booking of polling places and the training of staff.’….

    That six months being a wholly separate period from the official Campaigning period.

    Although the Electoral Commission cannot demand, where it recommends it must be taken into account by the Government compiling the legislation.

    Whilst of course I’m writing to my own MP on the matter John, personally I’d say it would be a reasonable course to request of Mr. Cameron whether he will honour the EC recommendations or set them aside? (As he is entitled to do) However, it is similarly reasonable in parallel that ‘Leave’ Campaigners would expect of Mr Cameron – should he intend to set these articles aside – that he would confirm this at the earliest juncture, and well in advance of identifying the Referendum date itself?

  15. Denis Cooper
    January 29, 2016

    “They ignore the fact that many decisions in the EU are now taken by majority vote, where the UK can easily be outvoted.”

    And the more the EU expands the greater the dilution of the UK’s voting power, and the more likely that our minister can be outvoted – which is far removed from what we were officially promised during the 1975 referendum:


    “The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests.”

    That is what we must have back, our lost national vetoes, nothing less than that will do, and Hague’s suggested “red card” sop whereby only a sufficiently large group of national parliaments could exercise a collective veto would be no substitute for our Parliament once again having its own national veto which it could exercise unilaterally.

    But that is precisely what Hammond ruled out last summer:


    “Philip Hammond rejects Tory MPs’ demand for veto over EU laws”

    “Foreign secretary says ‘unilateral red card veto’ is not negotiable, responding to Conservatives for Britain group”

    1. matthu
      January 29, 2016

      A veto by itself would not be enough: that would be no better than England’s power of veto over laws affecting England in the UK parliament.

      We must be able to propose and implement our own national policy affecting UK’s own interests. In particular, it’s too late to even think about vetoing much of the legislation that has already been passed in Europe.

      1. Denis Cooper
        January 30, 2016

        I would have thought that in terms of voting power the closer analogy would be with the position of Scotland within the UK, and I could easily understand if some Scots felt that their MPs were being outvoted more than they could accept and wanted them to have a veto.

        However you are right that the UK Parliament not only needs a veto on new EU proposals but also needs to be able to disapply EU legislation which has already been put in place, and in fact that was in the letter that JR and some of his Conservative colleagues sent to Cameron two years ago:


  16. Brian Tomkinson
    January 29, 2016

    You are right to nail the lies. Another lie being repeated ad nauseam by the pro-EU is that we will intend to be like Norway and have to accept EU rules without any say. It was repeated again on Today by your colleague Nick Herbert who formed Conservatives for Reform in Europe.

    1. Jerry
      January 29, 2016

      @Brian Tomkinson; Can’t blame the MSM for that, it wasn’t so long ago that some eurosceptics were putting forward Norway as an example of both leaving the EU and being able to carry on trading – until europhiles starting to suggest that Norway might as well have remained within the EU due to all the rules and regulations they have to accept…

      1. Brian Tomkinson
        January 29, 2016

        I wasn’t blaming the MSM but those advocates of staying in EU who use MSM to promulgate untruths in order to scare the British people into voting for continuing subservience to an unelected, anti-democratic foreign power.

      2. Denis Cooper
        January 29, 2016

        For years it has been repeatedly pointed out that Norway only has to accept a small fraction of EU laws. Certainly there are different assessments, leading to different numbers ranging from 9% to 25%, as I reviewed in a comment on October 30, 2015 at 1:49 pm, here:


        But none of those numbers are anywhere near 100%, “all”, of the rules.

        1. Jerry
          January 30, 2016

          @:Denis Cooper; But then what about Switzerland, would the UK really want to be a part of the Schengen area -no doubt the EU’s rational would be something to do with land-mode transit to/from ROI, or tax rules, to be able to have a trading (or what ever) agreement?

          There doesn’t need to be a 100% uptake of any set of rules if the 9% to 25% of ‘required’ rules, effectively makes the country a part of the EU.

          1. Edward2
            January 30, 2016

            The UK is not part of Schengen and has no intention of joining.
            So your point is irrelevant Jerry.

          2. Jerry
            January 30, 2016

            @Edwawrd2; We are talking about a post Brexit situation (hence the reference to Norway), do try and read the context of a developing thread of sub-debate rather than just one follow-up reply – oh and stop being so dammed rude, if anything it is your point which is irrelevant, due to your miss-understanding of what is being talked about…

          3. Edward2
            January 30, 2016

            Sorry to annoy you Jerry
            Just pointing out the weaknesses in your endless contrary posts.
            All part of the democratic process.

  17. Iain Moore
    January 29, 2016

    As well as, by being able to set an example in the policies we can enact, able to influence the EU nations to follow our lead, a lead we wouldn’t be able to set if we are being out voted in EU meetings and the policy never seeing the light of day.

  18. mick
    January 29, 2016

    Funny how all MSM are coming out saying Cameron as nearly secured a deal on in-work benefits with a emergency brake, what a load of bull, does he or the MSM take us for bloody idiots or what, talk about watered down demands, i just hope and pray the out campaigns take him and the media to task on the watered down demands, because there is alot of undecided voters out there who will be con to vote to stay in and i for one want to leave the EU ASAP

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      Clearly they do take the voters for “Bloody Idiots” given this joke of a non renegotiation.

      Cameron also keeps saying “he is a low tax conservative at heart”, he with get net migration “no if no but to the tens of thousands” and even that he was a “Euro Sceptic”. Sure Dave.

      He and Osborne clearly have completely the opposite agenda given nearly all of their actions. They are clearly totally dishonest, blatant liars surely this is very clear. Cast iron clear even.

  19. Bert Young
    January 29, 2016

    Firstly congratulations Dr.JR on your publicised statement today on what you thought of the EU’s offer of a short term restriction of benefits to immigrants . It’s about time politicians were more public about their views particularly when they differ to those of the Prime Minister . The campaign is going to hot up and our representatives ought to show where they stand .

    Our voice , place and respect in world affairs will certainly be more noticeable when it is not shrouded by whatever efforts the EU makes . We do not want our Foreign Offices to be subsumed by EU offices and we definitely do not want our views and position in the world to be confused with presentations the EU makes . Internationally our background stands alone and the history of our behaviour and respect has an established record ; the EU can teach us nothing . The sooner our independence is re-stated to the world the better .

  20. Anonymous
    January 29, 2016

    British kids will be able to take a paper round or a Saturday job if they want to. Anglers will be able to catch fish on the beach.

    According to the applause from the Question Time audience mass EU immigration is the most popular policy ever. One wonders, if the QT audience is selected to reflect Britain, why we don’t have a majority Labour government.

    Off topic please (though not entirely): Drink driving limits look as though they are to be reduced. The BBC produced yet another victim that was injured by a drunk driver who was way over the existing limit. Clearly that drunk driver had no respect for the old limit and will have no respect for the new.

    Reducing the limit to zero will close country pubs. My wife and I like to go walking and have a pint afterwards. We shan’t bother if this comes into force. My wife is a darn sight safer driver after a pint than the average Uber driver without – from my experience.

    “If it saves one life.” Well it won’t. It won’t stop the paraletic drink driver who put the BBC’s guest in a wheelchair. But funny how this “save one life” argument doesn’t apply to releasing murderers from prison with new identities.

    If it saves one life – if it saves one fish – if it saves one polar bear – if it saves one whale…

    These are the excuses of bossy people who just love to poke their noses into other people’s business.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      Exactly. The careful drivers, driving just under the current drink drive limits are really not a problem.

      1. Anonymous
        January 29, 2016

        ‘Experts’ on BBC said we must reduce the alcohol limit to bring us in line with the EU.

        1. Anonymous
          January 29, 2016

          …and the loss of the traditional English pub delivers yet more EU homogeny.

      2. Jerry
        January 30, 2016

        @LL; “The careful drivers, driving just under the current drink drive limits are really not a problem.”

        Overly simplistic nonsense. 🙁

        There are far to many personal variables, one person will be sober and able to pass a Sobriety checkpoint (but not breath or blood) test at twice the existing limit but another person will not. Indeed the same person might pass such a test one day and not another, or at different times of the day (before a meal or after for example).

        There is indeed actually no “safe” level of blood-alcohol level, as you would know Mr Lifelogic if you actually understood the science.

    2. stred
      January 29, 2016

      The ‘if it saves one life’ brigade have been pushing for this for years and only kept at bay, I suspect, by English and Welsh MPs, who still like their country pubs. Meetings with old friends, who live too far apart to afford a taxi will also have to stop, as a pint will not last long enough. Coffee drinkers and dope smokers will still be unhindered.

      Last time, the prohibitionists produced clear statistics to show how dangerous the extra pint was. They talk about drink related accidents. These conveniently include accidents caused by pedestrians and other drivers even if not drinking or drug intoxicated, and whether the drivers has had their extra pint or not. A drunk pedestrian causing an accidentwill be counted too. There is no allowance for the fact that much drink driving happens at night, when the accident rate is higher. They will get their way in the end.

      Perhaps we will become like France, where the police surround villages and breathalise all the customers of restaurants. The last time this happened to me I had washed my mouth before leaving, breathed heavily before puffing and got a zero reading and congratulation,s despite having a big glass of beaujolais.

      1. Anonymous
        January 30, 2016

        Stred – The BBC guests are always the victims of truly plastered drink drivers. Not those who have only had a couple of beers.

        Truly plastered drunk drivers will continue to be truly drunk drivers because they have a total disregard for the law – not because they mistakenly crossed the line.

        A reduction in the DD limit will not improve this. But it will discourage people like us stopping off at a pub (already struggling from the smoking ban) after a hike to have an ale and a baguette. We won’t bother, and neither will many other walkers. And so another great British institution – the country pub – will become a thing of the past.

    3. A different Simon
      January 29, 2016

      Changes like that are always irreversible .

      Look at the enthusiasm of the authoritarians , do gooders and MP’s for driverless cars .

      There has been no debate about it , they have no consent from the people for it and when the driverless cars start crashing it will not be their fault – or anyone elses .

      Bottom line is that they distrust ordinary people so badly they can’t wait to take them out of the equation just as they have taken us out of the decision making process .

      The politically correct term for NGO’s is CSO’s ; civil society organisation .
      I only found out recently that they can achieve accreditation status with the U.N. of “consultative status” or “observer status” .

      Consultative CSO’s formulate U.N. policy and in a contractual agreement with the U.N. are obligated to help enforce it at a national level , e.g. Agenda 21 / COP21 .

      Compare that to HM Govt which has been relegated to implementing UN/EU policy but no longer creates much any of note of it’s own .

      People are inclined to think that “charities” WWF etc are grass roots organisations but they are not , they were created by and for the globalists .

      1. Anonymous
        January 30, 2016

        The push for driverless cars mystifies me.

        Most people enjoy driving. The most popular TV programme is about driving cars (Top Gear) and TV adverts extol the pleasure of driving the cars advertised.

        Generally we like driving.

    4. turbo terrier
      January 29, 2016


      If it saves one life – if it saves one fish – if it saves one polar bear – if it saves one whale…

      Has anyone stop to think that with the whales especially their navigation sonar could well be affected by off shore turbines.

      What a price we are paying for all this greencrap and faceless EU Commissioners
      controlling our lives. The last Defender rolled off of the line today.

      The whole EU process for the UK at least has run its course.

      Our exit is the only way that this country will achieve what is capable of

      1. Anonymous
        January 30, 2016

        Turbo – I hadn’t thought of that. We didn’t hear the BBC say “The Defender has been discontinued because the EU made it uneconomic.”

      2. A different Simon
        January 30, 2016

        In Newfoundland and Labrador , if drilling an oil and gas well offshore or a deviated well from onshore to offshore , the effects of the vibrations on marine mammals are considered in the environmental impact analysis . I have no objection to this .

        If it is an area mammals come to breed then the time of year of activities would be taken into account .

        A renowned South Coast angler told me that it is a good job they built Brighton Marina when they did because they wouldn’t be allowed to build it now .

        My problem is that renewable energy projects do not seem to be subject to the same level of scrutiny .

        Also that those NGO’s , CSO’s and “charities” which give oil and gas such a hard time are hypocritical about the impact of their beloved renewable’s solution .

        Look at the devastating effect of the tidal lagoon planned for Swansea Bay . There is no way that could pass an honest environmental impact analysis .

        If it is built , I hope the forecast figures for output and amount of dredging on which approval was granted are published and that honest figures are published too .

  21. Colin Hart
    January 29, 2016

    Plus we will be able to take any anti-dumping measures speedily and effectively.

    Meanwhile, slightly off topic, congratulations on your concise and trenchant dismissal on Today of the emergency brake nonsense coming from Brussels. In marked contrast to the prolix sophistry and waffle from N Herbert.

  22. agricola
    January 29, 2016

    Everything you say is true, but I would add that under Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) our influence is even less than one might think. To me QMV is no better than the bent system used in the European Song Contest and deserves the same satirical approach that Terry Wogan was so good at.

    Malta, population 400,000 has 3 votes. Therefore 133,333 people get one vote.

    Bulgaria, population 7,850,000 has 10 votes. Therefore 785,000 people get one vote.

    UK, population 60,000,000 has 29 votes. Therefore 2,068,965 people get one vote.

    It would seem to be some bizarre form of handicap system loaded in favour of the smaller countries. If we had the same number of votes as Malta in proportion to our population we would have 450. The song contest is possibly better because the corruption at times is more visible.

    A united states system works when there is a common language, currency, law, taxation, and a spread of racial origins as in the USA and UK. The EU has in part the currency , but none of the other elements so I do not see it working. We do not need nor wish to be part of it while it suffers it’s birth pains or death throes.

    1. a-tracy
      January 29, 2016

      WOW I didn’t know the proportion of votes per head of population figure, this should be emphasised. So many people, so little influence and say.

  23. Denis Cooper
    January 29, 2016

    Off this specific topic, JR, I think we need to consider the morality of this benefits proposal which is now being mooted, whereby under extreme circumstances the EU might allow the UK government to restrict in-work benefits for the citizens of other EU countries until they have paid in for a certain number of years.

    Not whether the scheme would withstand legal challenge at the ECJ if it was not expressly enshrined in the treaties, needing a treaty change, nor whether it would be effective in reducing immigration, nor whether it would be effective in reducing the total welfare bill, given that other benefits would still be available, and nor whether it would be effective in dealing with the immediate excessive pressure on hospitals and schools and all other public services arising from mass immigration – it obviously fails to pass muster on all those counts – but whether it is actually fair to invite people to come and live and work in our country, but then subsequently mess about with their lives by withdrawing rights which they were assured they would have, simply because too many have responded to the government’s open invitation and that is creating problems.

    I am opposed to mass immigration into my country, but I also believe that if you do invite somebody to come here then you should treat them decently. Not necessarily with perfect equality to the established citizens, but decently.

    It is one thing to tell people beforehand that if they come to this country they will not be entitled to certain rights and benefits for so many years, or until they have become citizens, or whatever; it is quite another thing to tell them that they will have exactly the same benefits as the citizens from day one, but then later change your mind and suddenly withdraw certain rights or benefits from the migrants but not from the citizens.

    For the same reason I do not think it will be reasonable and just to order all the citizens of other EU countries who are already established in the UK at the invitation of the UK government, including those who are now raising families here, to leave the UK once we have left the EU, and we should make it very clear that this will not happen.

  24. Lifelogic
    January 29, 2016

    I see that Shirley William (who has been proven totally wrong on nearly every issue over generations – The EU the ERM, the NHS, the catastrophic warming tosh, magic money tree and bloated government/high tax economics, the SNP …….) has made her final speech to the House of Lords.

    In it she glorified the damaging disaster that is (the free at the point of rationing, delay and needless death) NHS and the membership of the even more disastrous, antidemocratic EU.

    The UK’s moral duty to the EU is to show everyone the EU door and the very many advantages of leaving as soon as possible. She was the leader of Libdims in the Lords so needless to say she was neither Liberal nor Democratic. She seems pleasant enough superficially, but her policies were a “BBC think” socialist disaster. Damaging the whole country and providing dire public services and social policies at vast tax payer expense.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 29, 2016

      I meant the SDP group of four (Woy Jenkins David Owen, Bill Rogers and the ever present wrong on every issue & BBC favourite – Dame ShirleyWilliams) – not the SNP they are even dafter than the SDP were.

      1. A different Simon
        January 29, 2016

        Woy Jenkins had a formidable brain .

        Shirley Williams always struck me as a nasty patronising piece of work .

        James Callaghan was right about the dangers of Liberalism . How they must have despised him .

        Ultimately it’s not that man in the street who has caused the problems of the world . It is those who consider themselves to have superior intelligence .

        Now the globalists have forced the common man out of the governance process , there are no safe guards left .

  25. Iain Moore
    January 29, 2016

    On a different subject. The BBC’s institutional problems in giving both sides of the EU debate a fair hearing is already becoming a problem.

    Since the new year the BBC presenters, after interviewing an EU supporters, kept on saying the other side to the argument would be made at a later date, but that later date never seemed to arrive. They eventually had Nigel Farrage on the Sunday Politics , but Andrew Neil only dealt with Out organisations splits, there was little or nothing on the argument for leaving.

    Then we had the Today program giving Stewart Rose the main after 8:00 am interview, with the promise the Out campaign would be given the same hearing the following day, but instead of being given the same opportunity, they were shoved between Thought for Today and the News.

    I have registered my complaint but I doubt anything will come of it.

    Then we had last night’s Question Time where the panel consisted of Alihbai Brown pro EU. Government Minster peddling the pro EU Government line, Labour pro EU, SNP pro EU, and the Chap running Saatchi wanting the pro EU campaign contract. There was no one who could be remotely said to be an EUsceptic. When the EU cuts across party lines, having a politically balanced panel , does not give us a balanced panel in regards to the referendum

    Then finally we have the Today program this morning, where you are allowed to do your bit while a lot of us are still asleep, and then they give Nick Herbert , the pro Government EU supporting line the after 8:00 am interview, where he is allowed to make claims for the Out campaign without anybody from there being able to challenge it, for the challenge is certainly not going to come from the BBC.

    1. agricola
      January 29, 2016

      Iain I do not doubt your observations. When you have a balanced panel and so often a flabby chairman the usual result is an uncontrolled shouting match from which one learns very little.

      In fairness to Andrew Neil, he does not tolerate much nonsense from contributors. Today, on the Politics Show, he had four contributors of varying degrees of cynicism towards continuing membership of the EU, led by Daniel Hannan. They poured scorn on Cameron’s cap in hand trips around Europe which by all accounts are generating an increasingly diminishing set of requests, none of which address the main points of dispute. Between them they emphasised his pathetic stance. Andrew Neil was happy to let this roll to the delight of viewers shouting “What about” at their TV sets on the viewings you mention.

  26. JM
    January 29, 2016

    Given the latest “offer” from the EU in the so-called renegotiation, does anyone really believe that we have any influence in that body? If we do, I see precious little evidence of it.

    As ever the BBC conducts the debate as if it were a general election discussion not facing up to the essential question: do we want to be an independent state for good or ill or do we want to be a province of the United States of Europe? That is the real question. Everything else, is a diversion.

  27. Ian wragg
    January 29, 2016

    Daily we read of the humiliation being heaped upon David Cameron as he tries to gain a few crumbs from the trough of Brussels.
    Can he not see how he is being strung along and doing immense damage to this once proud country.
    They now suggest that if the other 27 agree we can have a temporary lull in the relentless flow of the EU unemployed taking over our public services and benefits whilst contributing nothing.
    Can someone have a quiet word and tell him to grow a pair.

    1. Graham Wood
      January 29, 2016

      “Daily we read of the humiliation being heaped upon David Cameron as he tries to gain a few crumbs from the trough of Brussels.”

      Absolutely, and it passes understanding.
      Due to his lack of vision combined with a breathless level of sheer incompetence in these negotiations Cameron has successfully placed himself as the Conservatives Party’s greatest liability.
      His shocking naivete about the nature, aims, and power of the EU also mark him out, perhaps unwittingly as the greatest enemy of the British people since Mr Edward Heath.

      1. getahead
        January 29, 2016

        Cameron is not humiliated. He is a devout EU supporter. We know that.
        He does not care if he is unable to obtain any substantial concession from the EU. He ‘is’ the EU. Any agreement he comes up with will be claimed as a major achievement which removes any need to leave the EU.
        Balderdash we know, but BBC watchers will believe it.

  28. Know-Dice
    January 29, 2016

    Question Time, still failing to challenge the notion that if we leave the EU that grants currently paid by the EU will “disappear”.

    It should be made clear at every opportunity that these grants don’t come from the “EU magic money tree” it is UK tax payers money, that they [the EU] are giving back to us – how generous… And there is no reason as to when we leave why they shouldn’t continue to be paid directly from the UK government…

    And back to today’s topic.

    1 of 27 gets no influence whatsoever, and CMDs rabbit is as dead as a stuffed Norwegian Blue parrot…

  29. oldtimer
    January 29, 2016

    Once again you make cogent points very clearly.

    The latest spin is that the UK and the EU may be getting closer to an agreement on Mr Cameron’s fouth negotiating position (an “emergency brake” on migrants to the UK) for “reform of the EU”. You have to listen carefully to discover that it is proposed that this is to be subject to a review by the Commission and a majority vote of EU members. At least the BBC quoted you, in one report, of saying this was a “joke” and an “insult” the the people of the UK. It also comes across as an insult to Mr Cameron (and Mr Osborne?) the architects of the UK negotiating strategy.

    It is difficult to see how he can accept this “solution” and not be seen as a doormat on which other EU members will wipe their feet as they enter the country. Nothing demonstrates more clearly how powerless the UK government really is and would continue to be as a consequence of this “reform”.

  30. ChrisS
    January 29, 2016

    Excellent interview on the Today program this morning and you were able to get your points over without being seriously challenged for once.

    Interesting comments on Question Time last night. It’s clear that the IN camp is now seriously worried and have picked up on the fact that their campaign needs to be positive.

    Problem for them is that we all know they don’t have any positive arguments, only scare tactics which always involve talking down our country in the kind of way we always used to hear only from the far left. To hear Europhile Conservatives pretend that there is no future for our country striding the world as an independent nation is very sad.

    Not enough is being made on the National stage of the key points you have raised in recent posts.

    Of course we need to go first on the mess that is the immigration policy that Merkel has imposed on the whole of the EU without consultation and follow it up on every occasion with sovereignty, our role in the world, fishing, agriculture and the cost of net contributions. You are doing your bit but others seem not to be very vocal at present or are not being heard enough.

    I would have thought that everything going on at the moment would be enough to win the argument hands down but only yesterday I spoke to an intelligent man, an ex RN officer, who was undecided. I pointed him towards this blog for further information !

    Despite all the help we are getting on a daily basis from Brussels and Merkel, it seems that we still have an awful lot of work to do.

    PS only yesterday the Italian PM was complaining that Merkel and Hollande were trying to set migration policy without involving Italy. I suppose in a way that’s progress – at least two countries are now involved in setting the policy, not one !

    1. DaveM
      January 29, 2016

      Re your last paragraph – Marine Le Pen would disagree: she refers to Hollande as the vice-chancellor!

      1. ChrisS
        January 29, 2016

        Yes, I think Le Pen is right :

        Merkel says “Springen !”
        Hollande says “Comment haut?”

        At least Merkel is actually telling Hollande what she’s going to do rather than just imposing it on the whole of Europe without a word. That is progress of a sort !

        Even Der Spiegel can’t understand why she is wasting so much political capital persisting with her open door policy. Merkel is shaping up to be yet another example of Enoch Powell’s famous quote :
        “All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure”

        Present company excepted, of course !

    2. Denis Cooper
      January 29, 2016

      Fortunately “the immigration policy that Merkel has imposed on the whole of the EU without consultation” does not include us, we still have a treaty opt-out.

  31. Mitchel
    January 29, 2016

    All very true.One of the reasons Russia and China treat this country with such contempt is that we are seen as just an appendage of the USA or the EU,depending on the issue.Sadly,given the servile nature of the Establishment,I am not convinced that independence will,in practice,make a huge amount of difference.A wholesale change in the mindset of the political class will be required.

  32. Paul Cohen
    January 29, 2016


    Interesting that situation is getting similar to that of 1940 and the general relief felt then when we were “alone”.

    Glad to see that you are gaining traction and ground personally with the media.

  33. Atlas
    January 29, 2016

    Agreed John.

    Those who wish to stay in perhaps might care to explain why Servitude (which is what we get with qualified majority voting) is a good thing…

  34. graham1946
    January 29, 2016

    Yes again.

    However, your paragraph about defence may be a bit contentious. Do we have the forces now to do the job? Is it Europe’s fault if we don’t?

    The Tories (of all people) have cut our forces to the bone and beyond and we learn from Admiral Lord West this morning that we have just 19 frigates instead of the 32 we used to have, (can’t verify, as the navy do not seem to have numbers on their website) let alone what has been done to the army. (How are we getting along with replacing the 20,000 soldiers cut, with part timers now? Haven’t heard any politicians crowing about the success of this policy so assume its a disaster again).

    Also, these new ships which replaced the old ones, although more advanced, were apparently built on the cheap (although no doubt actually costing a lot more than need be) are breaking down all over the world because they do not have enough generator power to run them and when affected have a job to boil a kettle, let alone fire any missiles or run steering gear and can actually drift about until an engineer fixes them. Now they have to be re-fitted by making great big holes in them and putting in additional generators and sealing them up again.. Another expensive way of saving money. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Is this anything to do with the EU, or government incompetence? Will this change when we come out?

  35. Kenneth
    January 29, 2016

    I think the key is in the last paragraph.

    I think that since we diluted our influence through the eu, we have indeed been taken less seriously and have been consulted less especially by the U.S. I can’t prove this but this is certainly my impression.

    What is more, I would suggest that the eu’s influence on the world has largely been negative.

    It has fuelled tensions between Palestinians and Israel, caused tension and conflict with Russia over the Ukraine and its own financial troubles have delayed global financial recovery.

    Not only that but it has treated African countries to patronising “aid” while blocking their imports and trade. It has also worsened the flow of migrants from Africa to Europe with many unnecessary deaths and criminality being the result. It has meddled in countries in Africa, Asia and South America as it attempts to change their culture. This is bound to stoke of resentment for the future.

    It has also helped to create hundreds – perhaps thousands – of polluting power stations in China and elsewhere through its extreme ‘environment’ policies. It has also strengthened Russia’s hold over gas supplies to us.

    All of the above and other disastrous policies were made in our name. If we could have had a say (instead of the current woeful arrangement) we may well have mitigated some of the extreme elements of the eu and argued for other policies and therefore better outcomes.

    Not only that, but once we had been recognised as a counterweight to the extremism of the eu we would have been taken much more seriously. This can be our destiny if we leave the eu.

  36. William Long
    January 29, 2016

    I totally agree with what you say, and what you said in your two previous posts. My worry is that while you give a very clear message, the Vote Leave campaign as yet has a much less focused voice. It badly needs a high profile leader to take it forward. Who would you suggest??

    1. graham1946
      January 29, 2016

      Finding someone of stature and popularity is going to be hard. I’d Suggest Boris. Can be a fool, but I don’t think he is actually and he’s popular. Get one of the run of the mill politicos to do it, even knowledgeable ones able to string two sentences together in an argument and we’ll be lost. We need someone big.

    2. Kenneth
      January 29, 2016

      I agree. The messages here have been clear and largely positive.

      For example, what do we do with the windfall money that comes from leaving the eu?

      Why are the OUT campaigns not asking this question?

      We will again be a bridge between the U.S. and Europe as we used to be, ending years of sidelining by the U.S. and other large player.

      Why aren’t the OUT campaigns talking about this?

      – At last our importers can ask for products to be made that suit British consumers.
      – We can have lower fuel costs.
      – We can have full control over our borders. We can at last plan for schools and hospitals with a better idea of how many people will be here next week, next month and next year

      – We will be shedding the risk of belonging to a crisis-ridden organisation, bringing some much needed stability.


      The positive messages seem endless yet we do not hear the OUT campaigns putting them forward.

      They need to forget boring stats that will always be challenged and get on with the sweeping positive messages.

      – Keep it positive
      – K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid)

    3. getahead
      January 29, 2016

      It has leaders William. What it lacks is the media access to educate the masses

  37. Nig L
    January 29, 2016

    Don’t also forget our membership of G8 and at the centre of the Commonwealth and the ‘special relationship’ with the US plus a major financial centre. This with the inevitable continuing business with EC gives us a far larger trading bloc than we have at present, unfettered by having to worry about all their vested interests, only ours.

    Indeed I can foresee our exit enhancing the WTO’s move to greater free trade and, once other countries see what we achieve, their dogmatic protectionism with the inevitable uncompetitive consequence, will become a thing of the past.

  38. The Active Citizen
    January 29, 2016

    A very powerful performance on the Today programme this morning, JR.

    For those who missed it,here’s the link. JR is on at 7.10am, 70 minutes in.

  39. Ken Moore
    January 29, 2016

    All excellent points – but it will remain a pipe dream if Mr Cameron continues to be given an easy ride. Where is the criticism from the so called Eurosceptic back bench mps?. Why is the man that took on John Major been so quiet and reserved in his judgement of Mr Slippery – he is equally wrong headed opponent as John Major was and just as dangerous.
    There has been barely a murmur of public discontent despite many warnings that the Bloomberg speech and the so called ‘renegotiation’ were merely stage managed PR exercises with zero substance.

    1. getahead
      January 29, 2016

      Many warnings where Ken? Certainly not on our main television outlet.

  40. Old Albion
    January 29, 2016

    JR. I haven’t commented on any individual piece that you have written this week. I have waited until now to say what a joy it is to read your informed, concise and accurate statements. I hope all those who are wavering and even some of those who contine to be fooled by our EU membership, will come and join us ‘leavers’
    Well done JR……….

  41. ScepticSid
    January 29, 2016

    Excellent post. At long last someone is regognising the real issues instaed of getting bogged down in the “red tape”, “secure our borders” nonsense.

    (Asks me to credit a blog I do not read. I have checked out its recent posts and it seems to be preoccupied with tittle tattle about the composition of the various Leave groups, so not something I wish to advertise.)

  42. Pud
    January 29, 2016

    The idea that we gain influence by having the EU speak on our behalf is obviously false. If the UK and EU position is the same then it makes no difference whether we speak for ourselves or as the EU, because either way the UK’s views are known. But if the UK and the EU disagree and we are represented by the EU then not only is the UK position not heard but we are lending weight to the viewpoint we disagree with.

  43. fedupsoutherner
    January 29, 2016

    Great post again John. Any chance anyone knows a link I can use to listen to the interview on the radio with John that I missed??

    1. Chris
      January 29, 2016

      Link to Mr Redwood’s interview on the Today programme at about 7.09 am:
      At about 1.o9 mins in.

    2. Know-Dice
      January 29, 2016
    3. ChrisS
      January 29, 2016

      It’s here on the Today program website :


      Linking with another current topic in the news, as the interview was so early in the morning, a certain head teacher would like to know if our host was sitting in the radio car in his pajamas !

  44. Bob
    January 29, 2016

    I read that the Poles don’t agree with the emergency brake proposal.
    I suppose it would interfere with their inward remittances.

    “Poland does not support “emergency brake” proposals that could help curb immigration from other European Union states to Britain, Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said on Friday.”

  45. PaulDirac
    January 29, 2016

    > Radio 4 interview this morning.
    Well done, I wish logic was the only criteria for making the decision to Leave. You made as large contribution as possible in 3.5 minutes.

  46. Ray Veysey
    January 29, 2016

    Lets look at a brexit from the angle you have consistently taken, how would the make up of a conservative cabinet change in the aftermath? and what changes do you expect to see in how the public views the politicians and political parties after a brexit? bearing in mind that at present it would be easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find anyone who doesn’t depend for a living on the present system, that trusts the enormous majority of politicians, which is why alternative parties are attracting votes.

  47. Sean
    January 29, 2016

    Will you or any other minister be joining the out Grassroots campaign Go? Voting out, all parties should come together to win our home Land back.

  48. Maureen Turner
    January 29, 2016

    Your reassurances re our continued membership of NATO and permanent seat at the UN are heartening should we vote Leave. Given every opportunity Mr. Ken Clarke says the very opposite, seeing the UK as a nation without membership of these bodies as one of little consequence in a modern globalised world.

    Mr. Clarke’s Remain thinking seemingly doesn’t carry through when applied to trading globally if we are not allowed to form independent trade treaties with the USA, China and India. We were led to believe the ultimate aim of the EU was to create a superstate. Some superstate if it suffocates entrepreneurship merely to conform to their God of equality for its economically diverse nations – now we have Italy on the verge of bankcruptcy.

    In today’s DE we read that the UK’s right to levy zero vat on food, medicines and children’s clothes may be scrapped by the EU. This from a Mr. Moscovici. “The Commission is committed to reviewing vat and putting a definitive regime in place in 2016”. Anymore of this and we won’t need a Chancellor.

    P.S. There is much that could be wittily combined in the name Mosco – vici and the use of the word regime.

    Thanks again Mr. Redwood for being constructive. It sure beats its opposite every time.

  49. getahead
    January 29, 2016

    Southerner, see The Active Citizen seven posts above.

  50. Bill
    January 29, 2016

    Thank you for all this. Glad you are now getting the ‘oxygen of publicity’ and wish you well on Any Questions tonight.

  51. ChrisS
    January 29, 2016

    Dan Hannan was very effective on the Daily Politics today. He and our host both stand out as the most effective Eurosceptics at getting their points across with perfect clarity.

    Why isn’t the guy in the Commons : He would be my first choice to replace Cameron.

  52. Mark B
    January 29, 2016

    Sorry to be a bit late today. Heard via the link provided by, The Active Citizen, your interview today. Very well done and thank you.

  53. Margaret
    January 29, 2016

    Loss of influence is not an issue . Influence which may make the country more lucrative is something I don’t fully understand. A single voice has more meaning and force than a flux of voices. The single voice has diametrically opposed views which may again be single as in a unified Country or a collection of views as in the views of 27 others. If we reflect something which is in the way of the desired outcome the blockage gets confused with the real cause and it’s intention is muted. Some may call this rubbish , but their antics and adverse criticism stop the flow of the projected intention and their own secondary and sometimes abusive unsophisticated stance spoils it for all. Democracy you may say…. !

    January 29, 2016

    Just what’s the nitty-gritty of Mr Cameron’s negotiations? Few people have any idea. I mean a verbatim transcript.


    Cameron: ” I want power on in-work welfare benefits.”
    Hollande: ” Non ”
    Merkel: ” Nein ”
    Cameron: ” Oh…”
    Cameron: ” What about limits on immigration? ”
    Hollande: ” Non ”
    Merkel: ” Nein ”
    Cameron: ” Oh ”
    Cameron: ” Great!, I’ll issue a Press statement saying real progress is being made ”
    Hollande: ” Oui ”
    Merkel: ” Ja ”

    The LEAVE Campaign should already have made a three-minute non-comedic video sketch based on the “negotiations” using professional actors and director on our Country’s impotence and utter humiliation. Perhaps it would hurt too much. Perhaps it hurt too much even trying to come up with the very idea. Soft lot the British.

  55. Sue Mansfield
    January 29, 2016

    You were so good about leaving the EU on ‘Any Questions’ – thank you Mr Redwood.

  56. petermartin2001
    January 29, 2016

    Of course all this correct so the question is why there isn’t a consistent lead for the LEAVE campaign.

    The result could still go either way.


    We need to think about why the left-liberal-intelligentsia are so PRO EU and undermine their arguments.

    I’d suggest its because they essentially see themselves as Pro-Europe and want to be a part of a successful Europe. That’s me too. But I don’t see being pro-EU as being at all the same as being pro-Europe.

    I’d advocate the slogan “Pro Europe? Then vote LEAVE” or maybe “Pro Europe but anti EU? Then vote LEAVE”

Comments are closed.