CfB Brexit Manifesto: How the first Brexit budget can end austerity

Conservatives for Britain continues the serialisation of its Brexit Manifesto by showing how a future Conservative government could use the £10bn we send to the EU which we don’t get back to end austerity.

The UK currently hands over £19 billion to the EU every year. We get £9 billion back in services and the rebate which means when we Vote Leave we will be able to guarantee all the funding to farmers, universities and regional grants that currently come from the EU and still have £10 billion more to spend on our priorities like the NHS.

The Conservatives for Britain spending suggestions for the first post-Brexit budget include:

£1.1 billion for disability benefits to avoid controversial cuts
£800 million to train an extra 60,000 nurses a year to deal with shortages and excess agency staff
£250 million a year to provide an additional 10,000 doctors a year to deal with doctor shortages and to staff the seven day NHS well
£750 million a year on social care to offering better support for people in their own homes, and for more care home and respite care places.
£200 million to cancel hospital car parking charges
£400 million for dearer medical treatments not currently licensed by NICE, for example cancer treatments such as Proton Beam therapy and Meningitis vaccines
£1.9 billion to abolish VAT on domestic energy, energy saving materials, on converting existing dwellings and on carry cots, children’s car seats and safety seats
£1.5 billion to keep Council Tax down by offering councils the money to pay for a discount on bills they issue
£900 million to remove Stamp Duty on the £125,000 to £250,000 band of home purchase
£500 million should be allocated to a local road fund to support local schemes to improve junction safety and flows, and to provide additional capacity and bypasses on busy roads in congested areas

Commenting, John Redwood said:

‘The UK currently hands over £19 billion to the EU every year. That’s £350 million a week. If we Vote Leave we will be able to spend our money on our priorities like the NHS. We would have an extra £10 billion to spend allowing us to recruit thousands of new nurses and doctors.

‘We would be able to provide the latest cancer treatments that the NHS currently can not afford and provide extra money for people who are frail and need long term care. We would no longer need to make controversial cuts to disability benefits and we could scrap the tampon tax and the EU’s VAT increases on green goods like solar panels.

‘Instead of sending billions abroad each year we should spend that money on improving our NHS and helping families by cutting unfair EU taxes. That’s why the safer choice in this referendum is to Vote Leave.’

Section-3-Budget

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

126 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    Brexit is the only sensible choice if you think like the words of Rule Britannia, that “Britons never, never, never, will be slaves.

    There is also considerably more money that will be available from the deregulation, simplification of the government systems, better more flexible employment laws and cheaper energy that will follow the Brexit. The UK will become far more competitive and the economy will surely grow. We will also be free to accept only the immigrants that are likely to be an asset to the country for a change.

    On the appalling attacks in Brussels, Simon Jenkins in the Guardian surely has it right and the government and media largely have it wrong.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/22/response-brussels-bombings-patience-restraint

    There is also nothing remotely inappropriate in questioning open door immigration in this context, as Cameron has foolishly suggested.

    • David Murfin
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      From Simon Jenkins:
      “Political terror is as old as war. From the Roman legions to Bomber Command, the instilling of horror in civilian populations has been a standard weapon.”
      But why stop at Bomber Command? Was not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‘political terror’? And did it not achieve its objective? And have not peaceful relations been achieved between Japan and those she had previously attacked?
      SJ also says: “What is not stupid is seeking to alleviate, or not aggravate, the rage that gives rise to acts of terror ”
      But what if it is cold calculation not rage that gives rise to the acts of terror?

      • Mockbeggar
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        Some have argued that the Japanese were on the point of surrendering before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

      • Hope
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Not if we are still subject to the Eau looking at the books before parliament and having to grant permission for any VAT or other tax reductions. Moreover, if Osborne is in office all your submissions are totally without merit. Because as. Ought follows day if you leave Cameron in place Osborne will be there! Your first job is to get rid of Cameron before any planning, your next would to make sure Osborne is no where near the tiller.

        So before your proposals are published you need to get rid of Cameron now.

        Good articles by Lord Howard, Katie Hoptkins, Piers Morgan and Patrick OFlyn on the events in Brussels. You have to ask if Teresa May has lost the plot to use this tragic event as an example why the Uk is safer in the EU! She is simply not fit for office. I thought Cameron tried to duck the issue by saying it was not appropriate to comment? We need to discuss this issue far and wide so that Cameron understands we are not safe in this country from Islamic terrorism with him in office, Merkel still not changing her open border stance. How many tragedies do we need to suffer before Cameron actually does something? A Cobra meeting here and there and prevent training does not cut the mustard.

        • Hope
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

          iPods mori poll showing Corbyn higher in popularity than Camerona Dan Osbonre. That should be a worry for your party and the country. You need to ditch Cameron ASAP.

      • forthurst
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        “But why stop at Bomber Command? Was not the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ‘political terror’? And did it not achieve its objective?”

        Yes, it warned off the Bolshevik Empire from attempting to expand further in Asia (and Europe).

      • A different Simon
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

        Both Bomber command and the scientists and military personnel involved in atomic bomb programs would have been tried for war crimes had the allies lost the war .

        I used to tell people that as a database designer I was fighting a “war” against complexity but now that I have a small appreciation of what a dirty business “war” is , choose a different word .

        Deliberately bombing civilian targets didn’t have the desired effect for the Luftwaffe during the blitz of London and when Bomber Command tried it , it made Germans fight harder .

        Radical Islam and Western culture are incompatible .

        Sadly you may be right that it is cold calculation and that nothing the West does will dissuade radicalised Islamists from trying to destroy it.

        Etc ed

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      What the UK needs above all is far less government and regulation at all levels (especially at the EU level) plus simpler lower taxation, easy hire and fire, quality only immigration and cheaper energy. Brexit is a very big step on this path.

      51% remain to 49% leave, but the leave side are rather more likely to vote and are gaining all the time (as it becomes very clear that the remain side lack any ration arguments).

      Betting odds still rather good on a Brexit vote though.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

        Just think how much could be raised by the proper and fair taxation of large companies and the building of houses by the state to undermine rip off landlords scrounging off the state? The EU pails into significance, but that would be socialist wouldn’t it?

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

          Absolute nonsense–Never understood, myself, why artificial entities like companies should be taxed at all–Their owners are another story. I think the State makes a completely hopeless landlord because the bleeding heart tendency soon decides rents need to be below market. Yes I detest socialism. And BTW I’m guessing you might mean pales not pails.

          • Bazman
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

            They need to be below market rates as there is not enough property and because the private sector can never provide enough and never has been able to in the past. Do tell us how and where a large swath of the working population shall be accommodated without social housing? That right in the hands of private landlords ripping of the state in a self regulated state funded private sector that feeds of itself.
            Expensive socialism for landlord one presumes is OK for you? That makes anyone like a taxpayer especially anyone needing somewhere to live feel pale as the rent they have to pay leave not enough for a pail to piss in.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      Why on earth do Cameron and other remain Tories keep going on about it being “not appropriate” and “crass timing” to discuss open door immigration in the wake of the appalling attacks in Brussels. Are there now times one can tell the truth and other times when one cannot because it is crass – I think not.

      I assume it just means they do not want to talk about it as they have no sensible arguments to put forwards on the issue. It is very clear that the UK will be rather safer (and better off too) if we return control of UK borders to the UK government (and under democratic control) and are rather more selective as to whom we allow in and out.

      • Hope
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

        A bit like sugary drinks, when will Osborne tell us Fruit pastels will be taxed out of existence? It is no business of the government.

        • Bazman
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

          It is when the taxpayer pick up the bill for the effects of sugar.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Matt Ridley has a an excellent piece on his blog – Trade treaties are not essential for trade; the EU distorts the UK’s trade.

    He points out that: Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff Business School argues in a recent study that the single market distorts Britain’s economy, making us “produce more of what we are worst at and less of what we are best at, while our consumers have to pay excessive prices”. If Britain left the EU it would gain about 4 per cent of GDP as a result, he calculates.

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/free-trade/

    • old salt
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

      Professor Patrick Minford unencumbered free trade not single market as Norway Switzerland on BBC Parliament – cost of living down 8% if leave.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        LOL! As if. Wages down 8% and prices up by 8%. Remind us how much our train fares, utilities property and host of other things have come down after right wing nonsense ideology was followed.
        The best thing is that this time many right wing idiots will have to live with the result of their bigotry and not just the cost.

  3. Mick
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Very good article Mr Redwood, this sort of information should be passed onto the public and not the ones who just follow you, but there again I carn’t see the BBC or sky or channels 4 or some daily papers publishing it

    • John Bracewell
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

      You point out the greatest problem for the Leave side. If the PM or other leading Remain person makes a comment or speech it is reported widely but the Leave side would only get coverage from perhaps the Mail and Express which reaches a smaller audience. Maybe in the Referendum campaign official period, this will change with the impartiality laws kicking in. I would like to see a leading Leave campaigner make a 30 minute speech along the lines of:
      1. Intro of Risks in both Remain and Leave but greater risk in Remain.
      2. What UK would look like after Brexit and risks involved.
      3. What UK would look like after Remain (not status quo) and risks involved.
      4. Summary comparing risks of each vote.
      If broadcast widely it would put an end to this silly call that nobody knows what the UK would look like after Brexit and would show that there are unknowns on the Remain side also.
      A speech or article in the Press now would enable the reply to the scaremongering of ‘unknowns/risks after Brexit’ to be made easily by reference to the speech or article. This could then be repeated nearer the Referendum when people will be more focussed on the Referendum vote.

    • Know-dice
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      BBC do, but, dispute the £10 Billion in a very childish way…

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35862623

      Another very biased BBC link:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388

      When it’s to the advantage of the Remainders they go in to full details, when it’s to the advantage of Leavers they just “gloss” over the facts…

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

        How dare the BBC produce something they call a “Reality Check”? They wouldn’t recognise reality about the EU if it jumped up and slapped them across the face, they’ve been fantasising about it for decades.

        “Reality Check Verdict: They’ve got their sums wrong – post-Brexit UK certainly wouldn’t have £10bn extra to spend and it could be considerably less.”

        What, on their calculation only £8.4 billion, because “… that money will not cover private sector grants such as those to universities, to which the report also refers, which adds another £1.4bn.”, whatever that may mean.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:17 am | Permalink

          @Denis Cooper; “They wouldn’t recognise reality about the EU if it jumped up and slapped them across the face, they’ve been fantasising about it for decades.”

          Says the person who never finds a good word for the EU, many might also claim that you have been fantasising about the EU and their faults for decades.

          You seem to complain that the BBC have found a £1.4bn ‘black hole’ in the Brexit sums, but would you be complaining if the BBC had found a similar black hole in the BSE reasons given remaining in the EU, would you complain if they found such a black hole in a Corbyn alternate budget, no you would be asking either BSE or Corbyn to explain, you would not be claiming bias from the BBC – in fact you probably wouldn’t even credit the BBC at all for the information.

          Oh and at least the BBC did give time to our host and this post Brexit budget, more than can be said for the other UK broadcasters that rarely get criticised by so many on this site – when all have the same duty to inform the electorate.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

            I rarely have a good word for the EU for the simple reason that it rarely deserves a good idea, and likewise I rarely have a good word for the BBC because it rarely deserves a good word. If you weren’t always immediately defaulting to rants in passionate support of the BBC, for whatever reason that may be, then you might have noticed that I am just as critical of Sky, ITV and Channel 4.

            Now on the substance: can you explain what your friends at the BBC meant by “… that money will not cover private sector grants such as those to universities, to which the report also refers, which adds another £1.4bn.”, and which in their view justifies the claim that JR has got his sums wrong?

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

            word, not idea

          • Jerry
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper; Trouble is Denis, you only ever criticise the other UK media outlets when it suits your cause, not when they do wrong or do nothing…

            OK so the BBC found a 1.4 black hole, that still leave an £8bn odd Brexit windfall even if the BBC are correct, the point you missed -like others did also- in the rush to criticise the BBC is the little matter of how the rest of the UK broadcast media failed to even cover this story, thus we can’t even push a £8bn windfall never mind a £10bn one, to people who are getting their referendum coverage from these other (generally far more Europhile minded) media outlets.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

            Complete rubbish, Jerry; maybe you have noticed but I’ve often criticised those other channels and I’ve also volunteered my view that they are just as bad as the BBC.

            I still want to know what is meant by ““… that money will not cover private sector grants such as those to universities, to which the report also refers, which adds another £1.4bn.”.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 26, 2016 at 12:03 am | Permalink

            @Denis Coper; Thanks for proving my point, still no criticisms of the other broadcasters for not covering our hosts example post Brexit.

            As for questions (that are not obvious typos), whilst you and others find bias at the BBC how do you propose the rest of us who want a Brexit get the message across to those obtaining their news from the likes of Ch4 and Sky? Both of whom have not covered this story and who are being far more europhile with regards their current coverage of the referendum than the BBC has ever been about the EEC/EU.

        • Bazman
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

          UK tax revenue was 12 billion, so the price of fags then?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        As for the BBC’s conclusion that Boris Johnson was wrong to say:

        “Don’t forget that 70% of our trade currently takes place with countries with whom we have no trade deals at all.”

        maybe somebody should point out to the BBC that just because something is exported to another EU country that doesn’t necessarily mean that this was done under the rules of the EU Single Market.

        OK, so maybe Johnson went a bit wrong in his precise reformulation of the original claim from Patrick Minford:

        “… around 70 per cent of UK trade is conducted without any trade agreements under WTO rules: namely, all our services trade (43 per cent of the total) and all our goods trade with non-EU countries (half of our trade in goods).”

        And maybe that original claim itself was numerically inaccurate, I don’t know; presumably Minford has gone through the data in detail, and made the calculations, but obviously he may not have got it exactly right.

        However, also obviously, as far as services are concerned a lot of our trade with other EU countries must be outside the present EU Single Market or Cameron would not be saying how wonderful it would be to complete the EU Single Market for services; and if that chunk of trade in services has not yet been absorbed into the EU Single Market then presumably it must still be conducted under WTO rules?

      • John C.
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        The B.B.C. should be made to have a running banner under any news item they have that refers to the referendum.
        The banner should advise the viewer that the B.B.C. has received millions of pounds from the E.U. in the last few years.
        It is only fair that the viewer should be aware that the B.B.C. have a clear vested interest in the U.K. remaining in; though, of course, it is fairly evident from the programmes themselves.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      @Mick; “but there again I carn’t see the BBC or sky or channels 4 or some daily papers publishing it”

      You mean like it hasn’t been published [1], or at lest publicised, by the BBC at the URL below?!… But you’re right, neither Sky News or Ch4 news have picked on on this BBC radio interview with our host.

      Perhaps if people actually spent more time reading, listening and watching what the BBC actually does do and less time hypothesising about what they think the BBC isn’t doing we might actually be able to have a sensible conversation about both Brexit and the future of the British media!

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35873996

      [1] on a day when the news was dominated by the atrocities in Brussels

      • Bob
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        @Jerry

        If this were a pro remain analysis it would have been on all the BBC’s news and current affairs programs, instead of being tucked away in a dark corner of their website.

        Their pro remain bias is palpable.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink

          @Bob; Stop talking piffle, you are allowing your anti BBC bias to get ahead of the known facts

          Our host was interviewed on the Today Programme, that is not “hiding it away in a dark corner of the web”, nor was it hidden on the web either but placed on the main front page for the main news site, and also on the politics home page.

          But have it your way, post the headline link as found on the Sky News website, or that found on the Ch4 news website to our hosts interview/press release – assuming you can find them…

      • Anonymous
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

        Jerry – ‘sensible conversation’

        Well I’ve never heard the BBC tell us that we give the EU £19bn and only get £9bn back.

        Perhaps it’s untrue. Or perhaps they’d rather we didn’t have a sensible and properly informed conversation on the subject and omit to mention the fact in their reports.

        Yet again your tone is arrogant and condescending.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink

          @Anonymous; “Well I’ve never heard the BBC tell us that we give the EU £19bn and only get £9bn back.”

          Thanks for proving that you did not actually bother to read the given URL or those contained within that web page, were the BBC does indeed tell us what you claim it doesn’t!

          Yet again, @Anonymous, ‘your tone is arrogant and condescending’ never mind being provably and totally wrong. I have no problems about justified criticisms of the BBC but do check your facts first…

    • stred
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Particularly on the days after the EUBC is reporting nothing but the horrible attack on HQ.

  4. Jerry
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    “£1.9 billion to abolish VAT on domestic energy”

    Cough…but who put VAT on it in the first place, after all at one time these (and other utilities) were Zero rated!

    Also, if it only needs £200m to abolish hospital car parking charges I’m sure that it could be done anyway, after all this is in effect a direct tax on being sick. Whilst your suggested £750m on increased home care sound a rather small sum when the number of those needing such care is still rising and will be for another 30 to 40 years as the last of the Baby Boomer generation pass into retirement and possible age/work related ill-health.

    I’m also not sure how some will see the proposed changes to Stamp Duty, sure it will help those actually able to buy a house but it does nothing for those struggling to get a mortgage nor those who (for what ever reason, and at this time) feel that renting is their best opinion.

    But this is a good start, it shows what can be done, and kudos for not failing into the trap of offering income tax cuts, I would still like to see more done with regards VAT – or should I say, “Purchase Tax” (lets go back to being honest…).

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      We know who put VAT on domestic fuel, and we also know who gave the voters the impression that they would take VAT off domestic fuel, while knowing very well that would not be permissible under EU rules.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:52 am | Permalink

        @Denis Cooper; Your point being what, other than to point out that had the Tories not brought domestic fuel and power within the scope of VAT it would still be one of the many zero rated items. The fact that Labour could not fully remove VAT was actually noted in the 1997 Labour manifesto were they clearly state a pledged to lower domestic fuel and power VAT to 5% (and if I recall correctly, negotiate with the EU about a full exemption).

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 11:56 am | Permalink

          Try reading what I wrote, Jerry; “gave the voters the impression that they would take VAT off domestic fuel”. I’m aware there was a proviso buried in the Labour manifesto which hardly anybody read.

          • Jerry
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Copper; “I’m aware there was a proviso buried in the Labour manifesto which hardly anybody read.”

            Again what is your point, other than to to highlight the fact that in 1997 the Tories wanted to keep VAT (@ 8% [1]) on domestic fuel but Labour pledged to cut it to 5%, the minimum allowed under EU law and to try and obtain permission to return domestic fuel to a zero rate.

            Stop digging Denis!…

            Also I find it astonishing that you think the 1997 Labour manifesto went unread by the electorate, it was even ‘sold off the shelves’ in very deep true blue southern England – which suggests that even when there was little intent to actually vote Labour people wanted to know what the Labour policies were.

            [1] having originally wanted to raise the rate to the full 17.5% in April 1995, had they not lost a parliamentary vote on it in December 1994

    • Anonymous
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      My guess is that the savings on Brexit would be squandered by our government anyway. It has a record of squandering our money.

      The British people would not enjoy the benefit.

      • John C.
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

        You may very well be right, and that is why we should not be over-emphasizing the economic side too much; it’s a rather unpredictable element, and the argument should not be solely about money, which is a bit squalid.
        We may be better off in the long run, we may be worse. But surely the permanent and vital argument is that we will be sovereign and able to stand up for ourselves and only have ourselves to blame.
        Our history, which on the whole we can be proud of, is not surely just an economic record. Did we reckon, 1914 and in 1939, whether we would have more to spend if we supported Belgium and Poland?

  5. Roy Grainger
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Even under the current system I’m not sure why that £10 billion is not credited against the Foreign Aid budget because that’s what it is. Just from a cursory review it seems to go disproportionately to Spain where no doubt it is used to build and improve their excellent and empty road network and so on. Of course this would mean there’d be hardy any aid left for sending to poor countries in African/Asia and so on because the two budgets are similar in size. It is an odd system where we send aid to first-world European countries rather than impoverished third-world ones.

    • Iain gill
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

      We have our own and impoverished sink estates which should come first.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        Iain, we also have small communities which are at risk from disappearing from rising sea levels and people losing their homes because councils claim they cannot afford to protect them. There is no compensation. Just lost homes. Yet, we can afford to send billions to foreign countries to cope with climate change. Can we please spend it at home first please?

        • iain gill
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

          indeed it is stated national trust (another arm of the state in all but name) policy to let perfectly protectable land fall into the sea

          we have given up on centuries of sea defences

          reversing this madness would be another easy manifesto win for any sensible party

          • hefner
            Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

            You must be mixing up with English Heitage: National Trust is not funded by the taxpayers, but by its members (subscription and donations), the sales in its shops, and various events it organises.
            Apart from this, the question of returning land to the sea is indeed very debatable. Sure it could be “another easy manifesto win for any sensible party”, but it might also be quite expensive in both costs and engineering.

  6. Alan
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Since we don’t know what agreement we will come to with the EU it is just wishful thinking to imagine that we will have more money if we leave.

    I think it is much more likely that our trade will suffer to at least some extent and we will have slightly less money. It’s likely that the agreement we will make will be less advantageous to us than the one we currently have.

    I think the Eurosceptics should be more realistic if they want people to pay serious attention to their policies. Sometimes I think they don’t want serious attention, they just want headlines. Like how I would spend £10 billion (if I won the lottery). But they don’t have a method of winning the lottery: however, they can dream.

    Reply Of course we ill b e £10bn better off, as we wont have to send this money to the rest of the EU! If they trade with us less out balance of payments will improve faster and we will make more things at home.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      What about their trade? Will that also “suffer at least to some extent”?

      Why do europhiles only ever talk about the supposed benefits of the EEC/EC/EU for our exporters while always forgetting that it works both ways?

      And their exporters actually seem to benefit more from their unfettered access to our domestic market, their largest single export market, than vice versa.

      • Jerry Wraith
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        Dennis, you are absolutely right. Since 1973 the current accumulated value of our balance of trade with the EEC/EU is a DEFICIT of well over £1 trillion. Since 1973 to 2012 the current accumulated value of our balance of trade with the rest of the world was a SURPLUS of £245 billion. There is NO benefit to the UK with trade to the EU from being in the EU. The UK has not had a surplus in the trade of goods since the 1980’s so the EU has effectively destroyed our manufacturing capability. The loss of our steel industry is a recent example. Once we leave the EU our exports MUST increase substantially without the overhead cost of £185 billion/year that it costs us to be in the EU and the fact that we can trade freely with 198 countries and not just 27.

        • Jerry
          Posted March 24, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

          @Jerry Wraith; “The UK has not had a surplus in the trade of goods since the 1980’s so the EU has effectively destroyed our manufacturing capability.”

          Cause or effect though?… Many might argue that our trade deficit with the rest of the EU is an effect of our own self-inflicted loss of manufacturing capability and capacity from the start of the 1980s onwards.

          What is more, unless the UK uses at least some of this £10bn per year Brexit ‘windfall’ to revive UK manufacturing it is likely that we will still have a trade deficit – just not perhaps with the EU!

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 25, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

          Well, personally I would doubt that the EU is costing us as much as £185 billion a year. It’s possible to devise various calculations which show the total costs of EU membership to be much higher than just the £10 billion a year of our net budget contribution, for example Professor Tim Congdon comes up with about 12% of GDP or just over £190 billion a year:

          https://gallery.mailchimp.com/d458dc37c58f17378b17459fc/files/Cost_of_the_EU_2015_V_4_1_12_15.pdf

          I’m pretty sure that it is a net cost not a net benefit and we would be better off out, but I wouldn’t get wedded to such a high figure.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      Indeed businesses can always shift production to the home market or other world markets, should the EU really do not want any trade, but they would be hurting themselves more than the UK.

      • Bazman
        Posted March 25, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        Or they may well move to the EU where they sell most of their goods. Thought of that one? Why are they her in the first place if the UK is so highly taxed, regulated and with such poor infrastructure as you claim. Why do so many set up here and export into Europe. Etc ed

    • Jerry
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      @JR reply; “If [the EU] trade with us less [the UK’s] balance of payments will improve faster and we will make more things at home.”

      One would hope so, but will they, my fear is that many companies will simply off-shore to the BRIC or other nations – partially because so many UK ‘manufactures’ are simply just warehouses these days and not actual factories…

    • Alan
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

      We don’t know what the agreement will be, so I don’t think we know if we will still be sending £10 billion to the EU. That’s the best agreement we have been able to get so far. Maybe it could be improved upon, but we will have less leverage if we leave the EU, so I think it is not likely.

      I think if we trade less we get poorer, not richer. If stopping trading solved the problems with our economy they would be easily solved. I think we need to export more, not less. We can’t make everything at home, unless we become like North Korea.

      • Pud
        Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        Why should we give a penny to the EU if we are not a member? WTO rules have largely superceded any beneficial trading conditions we gained as a member and given our current imbalance of trade if any EU country or the EU itself was foolish enough to impose some sort of tariff on our goods or services we would reciprocate which would cost them more than it costs us. I’m sure that BMW, Renault, VW/Audi etc. would soon be asking for the tariffs to be removed.
        What are the benefits we get as an EU member that are worth £10 billion a year?

  7. Antisthenes
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    It does not seem rational to me that to be able to trade in a tariff free zone a fee is charged not just for the privilege and for the upkeep of that market but to pay for a vanity project as well. We did not knowingly sign up for that. I have a suspicion that the amount we contribute is more than we would pay in tariffs if we were outside the common market. If that market was stupid enough not to want to still have tariff free trade as that would benefit them more than us.

    With all the other added bonuses we would receive from leaving such as the budgetary benefits that you list. Then there is the unshackling from political control, restrictive regulatory practices and the burden of having to constantly fight to fend off closer political and monetary union. It is not a matter of all those factors added together making the case for leaving. Anyone of them is sufficient on their own. The reason(s) for leaving is so overwhelming that I am astonished that anyone would want to do otherwise.

  8. bigneil
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    On two of the points. Would the NHS be a National Health service – or still carry on becoming a free for anyone who turns up from anywhere, “the stupid British taxpayer can pay for me”, service? The other point is the Hospital car parking charges. Unfortunately our local hospital HAD to put charges on parking as the people who worked in the town, about a mile away, were parking their cars in the hospital all day for free, and catching the bus into town to go to work, leaving the car park full. These people didn’t give a damn about loads of patients who couldn’t get into appointments. Some scheme would have to be in place where payment for non-hospital users was still in place.
    And stop treating illegals/asylum claimants better than our own people. Get them out of hotels into basic dormitories in old Army and RAF camps. Stop rewarding them for committing crime.

    • graham1946
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:01 am | Permalink

      Neil

      The hospital parking thing is easily settled. Just issue those with appointments or who have to visit in-patients with permits.

      They’d be lucky to use our General hospital for commuter parking – they’ve moved all services out of town into the middle of nowhere and the train station and city centre is about 10 miles away.

    • Paul H
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      If we are to stop treating them better, then we should actually turf them onto the streets.

  9. eeyore
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:38 am | Permalink

    This Manifesto is excellent news and, I think, excellently done too. I hope steps are being taken to ensure its widest possible distribution to the media and the general public. People won’t look for themselves, they must have it handed to them.

    I see no link to Sections 1 and 2. Have I missed it?

    It is a little stroke of genius not only to offer attractive spending suggestions but also to mention a £200 Brexit dividend as an alternative. There’s no simpler way to fix the financial benefits of Brexit in the public mind. My only cavil is that Brexit Bonus might be a more catchy name. Well done you chaps!

    • hefner
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

      If it distributed to the media and the public, I hope the blue headlines are changed to another type of blue. Such a document, presented as it is would get a rather bad mark a A level.

      • Jerry
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

        @hefner; I agree, when I visited the site I wasn’t left with a very good feeling, not only the colour scheme but the number of pages that seem to have a headline but no content. Problem is, having being published on the public internet it has already been distributed to the media and the public… 🙁

    • Alan
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

      There isn’t a Brexit dividend. It’s a mirage. We will be poorer if we leave.

  10. JJE
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    You need to make it explicit that this is over and above replacing the current EU funding in areas such as agriculture and research and regional development.
    I know you have said many times that we can replace the current EU funding and do these extra things but the message has not got through to people. They see an EU flag on a road side sign or they apply to the EU to refund their research and they think this is EU money that will be lost. They need repeated clear and unequivocal reassurance for the message to sink in.
    We know this is not EU money but a proportion of our own money returned, but most people do not.

    Reply I say that every time, as did our farming Minister this morning launching the farm section.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

      @JR Reply; “I say that every time, as did our farming Minister this morning launching the farm section.”

      Good but were is this being said, are the Conservatives for Britain (and other Brexit groups) circulating and using their farming industry contacts to get the message into the farming media, only last week the executive editor of “Farmers Weekly” magazine stated within their main Editorial [1] that whilst they will not be offering a (I assume, definite) editorial opinion yet he went on to say;

      For now, how ever, it seems that the stronger arguments are coming from the “in” camp. It is up to the “out” camp to convince us otherwise.

      [1] page 3 of the March 18th edition of the magazine.

      PS. why no direct like to the Conservatives for Britain website from this site?

      Reply Mr Eustice said it on Farming Today

  11. Cliff. Wokingham.
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

    Interesting ideas John.
    If we were to pull out of the EU, which I hope we do, will the fact that we can again decide who can and who can’t come to our country diminish the need for lots of additional doctors and nurses? Would it actually have a similar affect on our education system regarding the number of school places we need and would it also go some way to addressing the imbalance on the demand side of our very distorted housing market?

    Here is a Conservative idea…..Instead of spending the saved monies, why not keep them in the coffers to reduce our national debt?

    Reply Yes of course, controlling our borders will reduce demand, but we have backlog of nursing and doctor posts currently occupied by temps/agencies

    • Antisthenes
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

      “but we have backlog of nursing and doctor posts currently occupied by temps/agencies”

      It has to be wondered if vacancies are being filled by temps why there is a shortage in the first place. As that implies that the medical staff are about in sufficient numbers but they are not working for the NHS. I would theorise they are not working for the NHS directly because temping allows them more flexible working or for other advantageous reasons.

      In which case is it not incumbent on trusts to investigate their own working practices and see if they can change them. So that more temps become full time employees and current full time employees take less time off which they do in inordinate numbers. Silly me I forgot Trusts are staffed by bureaucrats and that is beyond their competence or motivation and is not the type of things they do.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

      Controlling the numbers of immigrants must be a priority or else all we will do is play catch up.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

      @Cliff. Wokingham; Because the current obsession is political and not fiscal, our national debt was a lot higher post WW2 that it is now (close to 250% of GDP in 1952), we did not cut our way out of post war austerity, we managed the debt and invested our way to recovery and economic growth – something we will be able to do again once free of the EU single market and the shackles it imposes.

      @fedupsoutherner; That assumes that our own indigenous working age population have both the education and/or motivation to do the work migrants more often than not come and do within our economy, unless they do and without migrant labour the UK will not even be able to play catchup…

  12. alan jutson
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    We certainly need to end the agency staff fiasco in the NHS which seems to be completelty out of control.
    So more nurses and doctors yes, but if you are going to invest more in their training then make then sign a contract which commits them to work for a minimum of 10 years in the NHS so that money is not wasted when they want to leave and go abroad.

    Vat off Power supplies also sensible, let us scrap the green nonsense and get back to using sustainable power supplies Gas/coal whilst we really do some proper research into the best form of nuclear or other sources.

    Happy to give grants to farmers if it is going to be productive, but not for the protection of so called set aside or meadows etc.

    Grants for Universities, not so sure on this one, most seem desperately inefficient in their teaching methods with just a few hours a week of lectures.

    We need to re-look at the way Local Councils are funded rather than just throwing more money at them.

    Reduction of stamp duty should apply to all houses, with the same rate of tax across all values.

    Why not reduce all building work to zero rated, then the black/alternative economy will shrink, and it would encourage property improvement.

    Whilst £10 Billion is a lot of money, it can soon be spent, but it is available every year and certainly but just one of the reasons we need to get out of the EU.

    Good to see the leave teams starting to make the case clearer and suggesting some detail.

  13. Robert Cuffley
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    How about simply cutting taxes by 10m instead of wasting it on government programmes?

    Reply Recruiting and training more UK nurses and doctors is not wasting it, and we have a referendum to win needing votes from left as well as right

  14. Old Albion
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    A perfect illustration of the financial benefits of Brexit. It should be posted through every letterbox in Britain.

    P.S. “safer in the EU” It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

  15. Ian Wragg
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    Totally agree John except reducing VAT on solar panels. They should be subject to regular VAT and feed in tarrifs taxed as income. We should not be subsidising this nonsense.
    How does Dave square up ………were safer in the EU after it transpires Brussels can’t even protect itself. Who needs who?

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      Agree with Ian here. It is only the wealthier in society that can afford to buy solar panels and wind turbines which make the rest of us poorer so why not grab a bit back?? An easy way to raise taxes and not hurt the poorer.

  16. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    I am going to cast a fly into this promising and encouraging article, I am afraid.

    We must respect international law. That is what countries like ours do.
    Which means that, at the earliest, the first budget will be two years away.
    If we get it wrong, and go down, say, the route of WTO or the Swiss, then we might well end up taking 16 years to get a bum deal. Which means that a person of 20 today will be middle aged by the time of this first budget (which could well be scrutinised during the Seminar where the EU makes sure it complies with their Directives).

    We must take care about this and do it right:
    EEA Membership is non negotiable for a time.
    EFTA membership is an excellent way to accept what the EU people call “Associate Membership”. They understand that and it cuts off all sorts of misunderstandings.
    But that is not permanent – not by any chance!

    We need to negotiate from that platform. And we need to aim, all the time, at our independence and our freedom.
    EEA and EFTA are local, temporary solutions. And the protect all our trading, banking and commercial interests too.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

      @Mike Stallard; Under international law we could leave the EU on Tuesday next, by way of the UN and its (founding) Charter of basic rights, namely any nations and its peoples right to self determination. You seem to be getting confused between International law and EU rules, we do not need to be a member of the EU, the EEA nor EFTA to trade with the RotW or even the EU, as WTO rules trump those of the EU.

  17. Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    The £10bn a year would be well spent, I’m sure but I would like to have seen at least £1bn used to reduce the deficit and the debt we are building up for our children.

    I would hope that the additional money for training Doctors and Nurses would largely be a short term committment to eliminate the shortfall and from then on only a fraction of that would be needed to maintain the additional numbers of staff in the NHS.

    However we are already losing far too many of the NHS staff our taxpayers have trained at huge expense to countries like Australia so some form of committment is necessary before we agree to train more.

    I would suggest a minimum committment after graduation of ten years service in the NHS for a Doctor and seven years for a nurse. After all, from the first day they move abroad we are not only losing their expertise but they stop repaying their student loans leaving the taxpayer with the debt.

    As for the rest, one would hope that post-Brexit our new Conservative leader would abandon the third runway at Heathrow and HS2 and spend that money on Gatwick, Stansted and a new arterial road building program, infrastructure projects that would benefit a majority of the population rather than the miserly 5% that even its proponents admit would ever get to use HS2. Then, or course, I am sure we can find a use for another £1bn by taking an axe to the bloated foreign aid budget.

    A return to proper Conservative values would also be very welcome. Boris, over to you !

  18. agricola
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Sensible thoughts and suggestions as to what to do with the £10 Billion bonus on leaving the EU.

    When it happens I would like the continuing conservative government to have a radical re-think about tax and how we spend it while at the same time questioning how we run tax funded, government provided services.

    Take that sacred cow the NHS for instance. In my view, providing the free at the time of need of the patient is maintained then who runs it is academic. Providing you have an inspectorate with teeth and a very clear view of the level of service required, then why not privatise the whole service.

    If you have the stomach for facing down the array of vested interests that feed on the complexity of tax and services then you could lift a huge burden on the tax payer.

    • Antisthenes
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

      If you privatise the NHS an inspectorate would indeed still be needed but it’s job would be made much easier. The French have a good system funding as well as provision is part privatised and competition is very much inherent in that system. No one suffer because of it as critics of privatisation would have you believe but they certainly get much better service.

  19. Bert Young
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    The economics of Brexit show how ridiculous it is to be a part of the EU ; John’s analysis this morning more than adequately prove the case . The economics are second on my list ; at the top is re-instating our democracy – deciding for ourselves instead of the bureaucratic system in Brussels . Yesterday I attended the funeral of an old friend and during the reception afterwards took the opportunity to “sound out ” how some would vote . Most were for Brexit but a couple of the women – in their 70’s , were for Remain citing the need to end our Island insularity !.

    It is always surprising how little detail regard people pay to the referendum ; when pressed most seemed to agree it is , perhaps , the most significant feature in their lives this year . This being the case , why all the confusion over the important facts ?.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      Indeed but the leave voters, I rather suspect, are more likely to vote.

      Surely the reasons to leave (perhaps in order of import) are:
      Restoration of democracy, control of our borders, avoiding the EURO fiasco and the huge economic boost we will get from deregulation, no membership fees, cheap energy and the rest.

      Perhaps also to show others the sensible way to go.

      • hefner
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 9:29 am | Permalink

        According to reporting by Peter Kellner (Prospect, April 2016):
        “University graduates (70-30% for “remain”) and people in the professional and managerial AB social class. (62-38%) tend to be more assiduous voters than those educated to GCSE level at most (68-32% for “leave”) and semi- and unskilled DE workers (63-37%). So, overall, it is not clear which side, if either, will end up doing better if, say, the turnout is 70 rather than 60%”.

        Then, there is a geographical analysis: “the aggregate figures are striking: together, London, Scotland, Wales and NI divide 60-40 for staying in the EU, while provincial England … Divide 53-47% for Brexit”.

        By age, “voters under 30 divide 73-27% for “remain”, while the 60+ divide 63-37 in favour of “leave”.
        “‘Sun’ readers back Brexit by 71-29, … but ‘Times’ readers take a 62-38% pro-EU stance”.

        All that from a YouGov poll questioning 16000 people during the two weeks following Cameron’s agreement.

        Finally, if UK people could live in any of the following European countries and be guaranteed to maintain their current standard of living, 39% would stay in the UK, 9 % would not know, and 51% would move to other countries (E, F, I, S, P, NL, D, EI, GR, CY, DK, O).

  20. Antisthenes
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Over at Mises Daily they make the point that Karl Marx theory is brilliant but as humans do not behave like ants is in reality useless. The reason being that we are tribal by instinct and inclination. I infer from that that we function better when decision making is made by small groups working together and badly when done by large ones as there can be no consensus. So few are satisfied by the result.

    Transpose that to national government and it can be seen why it creates more problems than it solves. So the UK devolving more power as it is and aims to do is in fact an act that favours the human condition and the results from it should be impressive. If more should be done locally and not centrally then the EU that wishes to centralise power even more aggressively is indeed an anathema to the human spirit. It should never have been born as it follows more Marx theory than it does natural forces in this case human nature.

  21. oldtimer
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    That looks a very good package of measures. Are the other sections of the CfB Manifesto avaiilable to read yet? If not when are they expected to be published?

    Reply The farming one is being done today. There will be a series of issue launches over the next few weeks.

  22. acorn
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    Brexiteers, need to start getting to grips with the numbers. You don’t want to get into a Pub debate and suffer a “Nicky Morgan”.

    The OBR data is pretty good and well laid out for number crunchers. Transactions with the EU are at Table 2.25 in http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/download/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-supplementary-fiscal-tables-march-2016/

    The governments “current receipts”, Table 4.6 and “total managed expenditure”, Table 4.15 are in http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/download/economic-and-fiscal-outlook-charts-and-tables-march-2016/

    Osborne’s performance against his three fiscal targets, will all fail, because he has little control over them.
    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/efo/economic-fiscal-outlook-march-2016/

    • acorn
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

      This is a bit off topic but topical. If you run a big private pension fund, the last thing you want is your members living too long. Added to that, is the problem of downsizing your active members (for privatisation for instance) and turning them into deferred members and actual pensioners.

      This is the nightmare that BT has got. Its published accounts are very good and easy to follow, they give detailed insight of the Trustees task. See how much BT had to inject into this pension fund in 2015 alone. “Funding update. The triennial valuation as at 30 June 2014 was formally completed earlier this year, concluding with a “funding deficit” of £7,044 million.”

      I posted about a day or so back about “capitalised” liabilities, the above is a real one, in spades. The UK “pay-as-you-go” State fiscally funded pension schemes, don’t have to make this funding deficit calculation. The government will not run out of its own currency. BT does not have that privilege, it is a currency USER, like the rest of the non-government sector.
      http://www.btpensions.net/download/397/BTPS+Report+and+Accounts+2015+Print.pdf

      One day, all private pension funds will be like this 😉

      • Mitchel
        Posted March 24, 2016 at 10:15 am | Permalink

        Smaller,but there is also the case of Dawson International,once of the country’s largest and most profitable quoted textile companies which four/five years ago was placed in receivership by it’s pension fund trustees (and then bought by Chanel).Although the rump cashmere business was profitable,cash generative and had net cash in the bank,it’s pension fund liabilities from the days when it had been a large employer had suddenly become insurmountable in the low interest rate environment,greatly exacerbated of course by quantitative easing.

  23. Wingsovertheworld
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    A much needed document. However, I feel a simple graphic (pie-chart or bar graph) showing the difference between the £10Bn we don’t get back (and uses for it if we do), and the £5Bn we currently send but do get back (and an explanation of its uses and the fact it will still be used for this purpose) would further reinforce the argument. The last paragraph explaining the £5Bn seems hurried and as it is buried at the bottom can go missed, however agricultural and university grants are an area which the proEU side is leveraging for its argument – it is important to reaffirm that these grants can still continue after Brexit.

    • Antisthenes
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

      “it is important to reaffirm that these grants can still continue after Brexit.”

      That fact is so obvious that it is baffling that academics and the like who must be reasonably intelligent have not worked that out for themselves. So having to spell it out for them tells you how difficult selling to the rest of the public how obviously right leaving the EU is.

    • Paul H
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      Of course, £5bn returned on condition that it is spent how the EU wants us to (together with a shiny blue plaque praising the EU for its generosity with our money) is not worth as much as £5bn totally under the UK’s control. I accept that in order to maximise the chances of a vote to leave there have to be reassurances about the continuation of existing EU grants, but in due course it must be the case that UK gets to decide if they are better spent elsewhere.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      WoW

      Music to my ears.

      How basic but effective are pie charts etc. But they really do work even to the most even to the most struggling of academics.

      We have to KISS. Keep it simple stupid, if we do not thank god for VAT. (Vodka and Tonic) If we stay in it will be the only option left for us oldies to try and put up with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Jerry
        Posted March 25, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        @turbo terrier; “We have to KISS. Keep it simple stupid”

        I’m not so sure, far to much danger of getting into Ed’s “EdStone” territory…

        Trouble is KISS can be to simple, that and to much KISS can actually put the average person off being receptive to the message [1]. Such messages becomes the equivalent to the H&S High Visibility jacket, they are everywhere now to the point that people just see passed them – I suspect more people actually notice those not wearing HiVis jackets etc. than those who are wearing them!

        [1] Ed Miliband’s six pledges were not inept, they could have been promised by any political party but it was the “KISS” way in which Labour chose to make the point/promise that caused the criticisms

  24. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    I do have a reservation about whether the full £10 billion a year saving on the net costs of the EU budget will actually be available for the UK government to spend.

    This is nothing to do with your arithmetic, JR, I don’t question that the net contribution is about £10 billion a year, it’s to do with the difficult problem of how to reverse the mistakes made by successive UK governments going back to Heath when it was first accepted that trade with our European neighbours would be closely linked to immigration from those countries through the “four freedoms” laid down in the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

    If we negotiate to continue with an arrangement like the EEA – not necessarily the existing EEA as such, but a similar arrangement – then that will solve the problem of ensuring a smooth transition for trade, but will leave us with inadequate control over immigration unless we can persuade certain EU countries to voluntarily accept the imposition of some form of extended transitional controls on migration of their citizens to the UK.

    If we have to pay the Polish government to accept not only the kind of transitional controls of the migration of workers which the Labour government idiotically/maliciously didn’t even apply when it could, for the seven years after Poland had joined the EU, but also much longer term limitations on the freedom of Poles to come and work here, then in my view that will still be a better and potentially cheaper position than we are in now.

    I don’t see an immediate need to apply such controls for the older EU member states – because few people are bothered about the number of (say) French citizens now living and working in the UK, and I don’t suppose that the French people are that much bothered about the reverse – it is the newer, much poorer, EU member states which are and will long remain the major sources of mass immigration from the rest of the EU.

    This will definitely come to a head as Turkey draws closer to EU membership, as several of our Prime Ministers including Cameron have said they want, but probably even before that with Albania and the other Balkan countries lining up for accession:

    http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/international/non_eu/candidate/index_en.htm

    and the EU hankering to bring in Ukraine and then other countries up to the Urals.

  25. Michael james
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Alternatively, use the money to pay off some national debt.

  26. Michael James
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Alternatively, use the money to pay down some national debt.

  27. graham1946
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Another suggestion which may take several years – buy out the NHS PFI burden. Then it could spend the money on care. This was only ever done to save the money going on the government books in the first place – they should have borrowed the money to build new hospitals, not loaded it on to the NHS. Let the government take back the liabilty and face what they have done.

    • stred
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      HMG thinks nothing of inventing retrospective taxes on ordinary citizens, as with removing inflation allowance on CGT or taxing losses by removal of borrowing allowance. Why do they do nothing about the very high profits and charges which are sucking money out of the NHS and education, often to overseas owners? How about a winfall tax on excessive interest in view of the zero interest that the rest of us receive. Deduct it at source from the NHS and education budgets, then use the money for treatments.

  28. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Syriza, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the other La-La-Landians in Labour have succeeded in making austerity a dirty word.

    Brexit will redirect our nation’s cash-flow. We may feel awash with money for a time. But it is still necessary to check spending.

    It may well be that Conservative Local Authorities join with Labour ones in pleading poverty. Central Governments of all hues …are they paying Danegeld to political forces in their regional and local constituencies?It could be an explanation for the unabated frivolous expenditure we all see by “The Council” in our towns, villages and cities. “The Council” thinks say £100,000 is a “drop in the ocean”. Obviously they have an amount of money to play with which needs to be reduced with the utmost austerity.

  29. ian
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Good use of money, could spared the homeless a couple of bob, but money will not fix what you are going though at the moment, it will help but not cure, its not a money crisis or a monetary one, its a structural depression, low growth, low wage, and building something costs to much and loading the country up with people was the wrong move, you have to look back in time for the answers and at places like Poland who have been decreasing their population and if they need hospital treatment they go back home because they have the latest equipment and you can get in the hospital the same day, you and your friends might be alright but if you do not make structural reforms this depression will go on for the rest of your lives and as for the yearly debt it will never end, your just playing follow the leader down a rabbit hole with bankers and big companies leading the way.

    While there are parties in parliament playing football nothing will change and mission creep of destroy the people will carry on just like in japan 27 years and counting and people wonder why they have the biggest suicide rate in the world, now you know because you are catching up fast.

  30. Ken Moore
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    I’m amazed so many Britons have been conned into signing up to a socialist wealth re-distribution scheme to fund the development of southern and eastern Europe.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      Well they did not really sign up, the politicians kept passing treaties and thus signed the Britons up, without needing their consent.

      Let us hope these dreadful people crawl back into their holes and we hear no more from them after the Brexit vote.

  31. The PrangWizard
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    Cameron has just said that the £10 billion net contribution to the EU is the equivalent of 1 penny in every pound of spending. He suggests with this bizarre example that the cost of being in the EU is negligible.

    If that were so, could some ask him why he does not, for example, raise £20 billion in taxes each to pay down the deficit, as this would only be 2 pennies in every pound and it would be barely noticeable?

    Did I misunderstand him, or is he trying to mislead me?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      Well his lips were moving, so there is indeed a good chance he was trying to mislead. Even if he did not utter the words “no if no buts”, “cast iron”, “at heart I am” ….. or any of the usual give aways.

      He and Mrs May even claim we are safer within the EU with open borders. Just how daft does he think the voters are?

  32. ian
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    As I understand it the only thing the in vote have going for them is that Europe will do unthinkable things to you if you vote to leave but what are going to do to you if you stay, it could be worst if they are going to tell you their plans for the next 5 years, you know a lot changes are to happen right after the vote.

    My view is here today gone tomorrow, all ready there are other country calling for ref on EU with the leader Germany falling apart.
    The ECB will crash and burn as Europe explode into a place of hate.

  33. ale bro
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    It’s a fun budget but there’s nothing in there to improve democracy.

    I thought one of the key rationales for leaving was to address the democratic deficit.

    I wish that this would mean some constitutional reform, but from these proposals it’s plain that politicians aren’t interested in improving democracy within the UK.

  34. fedupsoutherner
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    How about billions to repair the roads that are unfit for purpose in some areas?

  35. Steve s
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    £10 billion isnt the governments or the EU’s it is the british people, so instead oc continuing with this social democratic rush to disaster we are on why not give it back to us to do as we see fit (whats best for each person)

    Lets get the governement both national and locally to do less, but do the things we want

  36. ian
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    I see junior doctor are going on a all out strike april, when is the health minster going to bring this to a end.
    How many more people to be inconvenience and by look of it die over next door to nothing, bad management as usual, desperate to get rid of more people and will stop at nothing to prove a point.
    Worst government you have seen.
    Most think they get few homes out of it to put more immigrants in.

  37. Margaret
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    Is that how much hospital car parks bring in ? Oh yes I remember the poorly paid nurses in Manchester had to pay £ 8 per day to park their cars . The alternative: 2 buses and 1 train.

  38. NL
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    I agree with the intent of your budget, but I think £25,000 pa for a doctor and £13,330 pa for a nurse seems very optimistic.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:23 am | Permalink

      Doctors and nurses paid shop workers wages? What type of person do you think you will get?

    • Margaret
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Don’t worry , they have changed things around as standards have dropped over the years . Carers are now called nurses( of course they are not professionally entitled to this . people just pretend for the sake of low wages) and medically trained nurses now act as Drs ( Of course they are not professionally entitled to even though many nurses are e medically trained) Because we are cheap …( Mind you many patients are more satisfied this way . It is just the professions who all think they are superior in some way or another. If one passes an exam and it is in the right profession and another passes the same in content exam and it is in another profession , snobbery takes precedent.

  39. The Prangwizard
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    This Budget seems to have been written by the Socialist branch of the Conservative party. After last weeks budget fiasco and Stephen Crabb’s statement that there will in effect be no more reform of welfare and pensions and the rest, it is clearly impossible, so politics and short-termism being what it is, it’s full on compassion from now on. It seems we can all finally say goodbye to any hope of old conservative or free market politics, its socialism all the way.

    The money saved is to thus to be frittered away, (and what happened to the imperative of reducing the deficit?) and particularly poured into the black hole which is the NHS and the rest, an institution which consumes our wealth in ever increasing amounts; it will bankrupt us. There seems no end to its extending its reach into every aspect of our lives, it takes pleasure in creating more and more unnecessary services and encourages demand for them. We are becoming a nation of babies and weaklings dependent on nanny NHS and the NHS and clearly government loves it. The amount of waste, incompetence, and neglect is already vast. It is completely out of control; we should be turning away the lazy, the undeserving and the unentitled, not encouraging more.

    And you will get no credit for any of this, if there are any measureable benefits critics will merely say it is only what you should have being doing anyway but weren’t. They will take no notice of the facts if it doesn’t suit them.

    I want out of the EU certainly, but we should be planning to spend the savings on things we might never have done, identifiable beneficial physical things, which can bee seen and admired.

    Reply I want us to win the referendum. This is a budget designed to attract Labour and Lib Dem votes, to show them how austerity comes from the EU.

  40. The PrangWizard
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    And as an addendum to my comments about the NHS, it was not lack of money which has held up Proton Beam therapies, it was the dead hand of the closed minds within the NHS. We need modern therapies like that but it took the brave people who were refused treatment for their son, and who were then vilified by the very same NHS for taking him abroad and chased by the law as criminals which brought the issue to the fore. They deserve the credit for progress here on that, no-one else. It’s the sclerotic bureaucratic mind which needs to be excised from the NHS and everywhere else.

  41. turbo terrier
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Well presented arguement John.

    Still watching the Scottish News tonight you might be able to make more savings.

    With the ex First Minister going on again about currency and not wanting to be trumped by the opposition, has he not been talking to his protege? When we win the referendum to leave the EU the only currency open to Scotland will be the euro!! Bring it on

  42. Boudicca
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    If you vote to remain in the EU, there is absolutely no point complaining that the NHS is under-funded and is not providing the level of service we want.

    We cannot afford a welfare state and open-borders immigration.

    If you vote to remain in the EU, there is absolutely no point complaining about the housing shortage in the UK. We can’t build enough houses to accommodate all the migrants we will get in the next few decades if we stay in.

    If you vote to remain in the EU, there is absolutely no point complaining about the EU’s continual demands for more and more money; or its continual imposition of new laws and regulations.

    We can only govern this country if we get out. And that includes spending OUR OWN MONEY they way WE want.

    • Bazman
      Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      Tax cuts for the rich being that?

  43. Pete
    Posted March 23, 2016 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

    It’s amazing the enthusiasm that we get from politicians when the thought of being able to spend more of other peoples money enters their head. The idea that maybe they should not steal the money and instead let those that actually earn it spend it simply does not occur to them.
    Since the state is the most inefficient, wasteful and corrupt method of organizing anything in the history of the world perhaps allowing those with the wit to earn money via productive enterprise to decide what to spend it on just might benefit us all much more than handing it over to bureaucrats.

  44. Bazman
    Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    A more likely outcome would be tax cuts for the rich via regressive non direct taxes, tolls and insurance premiums, workers rights non existent, health and safety ditto, NHS privatised and anything else that can be made to produce revenue for rich chums doing just that. Figures and organisations showing and protesting this repressed along with all media in particular TV putting out state propaganda with the internet Chinese style lite. VPN’s, Tor and any other anonymous browsers banned or at least severely restricted. Private Eye facing legal challenges from a state sponsored judiciary.
    Anyone who protests to all of this will be shown to be a slacker and unpatriotic as they are against Billy Britain.
    The Tories have done nothing for the average person and everything against them and the working poor since they came to power lying about growth whist giving tax cuts to the rich, cutting red tape such as workers rights like paid holidays, and to think they will out of Europe with an ineffective opposition will do any different is cloud cuckoo land.
    pensioners will be the fist to get it as they are the largest benefits recipients. Thats right you all receive ‘benefits’ not pensions. Don’t forget that.

  45. David Price
    Posted March 24, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    I realise this is a political budget pitched to encourage support from undecideds, but when do the rest of us get anything from the freedom dividend?

    After all, there must be lots of civil servamys who are employed purely to act as proxies for the EU and to administer EU directorates, so their salaries could be used to pay the doctors and nurses.

    How about a meaningful cut in VAT across the board so everyone benefits.

  46. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted March 25, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Just as important is the timing of the 1st post-Brexit budget. I again urge a rapid Brexit, as follows:

    Month 1
    Install a new Prime Minister and get Her Majesty to appoint 500 EuroSceptic peers. We should be getting the list ready now. These measures are necessary to prevent malevolent obstruction.

    Month 2
    Repeal unilaterally our Act of Accession to the Lisbon Treaty. At a stroke this releases us from the Clause 50 / 2 year wait restraint.

    Month 3
    Carry on repealing: the part of the original treaty that commits us to ever closer union, the part of the Single European Act that commits us to integration at a later date, and the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon Treaties in their entirety. These measures would automatically reduce the competences and joint competences of the EU in UK affairs; simultaneously, the powers of the European Court would be drastically reduced.

    Month 4
    Announce that the following will apply from 1st April 2017 unless the other EU Member States approach the UK to propose something that is mutually better:
    – All contributions from the UK Exchequer to the EU will cease.
    – Freedom of movement across UK borders will cease.
    – The UK will take control of its fishing waters.
    – The UK will take control of its own social, employment and safety law.
    – We will maintain tariff free entry of goods from EU member states, on the assumption that we get a deal at least as good as the EU-Canada deal of 2014. Tariffs on UK goods would be low and be phased out over 7 years.

    Months 5 to 9
    Negotiate with the EU and present enabling legislation to parliament.

    So the first post-Brexit budget could be presented in early April 2017.

    The saving that matters is £14 billion pa – our gross contribution minus the rebate. I would use the lot to reduce the deficit more rapidly.

    • Jerry
      Posted March 26, 2016 at 12:25 am | Permalink

      @Lindsay McDougall; “Install a new Prime Minister”

      Without a eurosceptic majority in the current Tory party how can the cross-party Brexit groups “install a new PM”, unless a GE is forced, but then what if the electorate do a iScotland/SNP style vote on Westminster, vote for a Brexit but then elect a europhile government…

      As for your 9 month Brexit, if there is a majority for a Brexit and willing parliament we could do all that within 9 days, although it might take some all night sittings and the Parliament Act!

  47. Rachel
    Posted April 1, 2016 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    I would like to ask a question.
    It’s a serious and pertinent question to the Brexit debate.
    If you would like to hear my question and feel you may be able to constructively contribute please let me know.

  • 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