What does “Remain” look like? 4 scenarios that Remain needs to answer.

Both sides can ask each other what life will  be like if they win. The Remain side are completely silent on what remain looks like, so it’s high time the media started asking them about important problems ahead for the EU.  Here are four realistic scenarios – what is their answer?

  1. The UK compromises over the Treaty of Political Union in a few years time and has to hold a second referendum on the powers transferred under that new Treaty.

We know there will be a new Treaty soon. The government after all has promised us Treaty change to entrench its “new deal” following renegotiation. The 5 Presidents Report makes clear they have started work on a Treaty of Political Union. The UK will be expected to join that, and will have to to secure its Treaty change from the renegotiation. Inevitably some power will be conceded, even if there are some opt outs from the most centralising features. There will then have to be a second referendum under the UK’s Referendum Act.

2. The UK applies the veto to the Treaty of Political Union.

It is possible though less likely the UK will resist any new powers to the EU.  We will end up having to veto the Political Union Treaty if we stick to that view. This means we will not secure our Treaty change to implement the renegotiation, will block progress on putting political union behind the Euro currency, and annoy all our Euro area partners. It will delay necessary reform to save the Euro and make the fragile Euro even more subject to crisis.

3. Another round of the Euro crisis forces the UK to accept a bigger EU budget

The Euro remains unstable, with Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy struggling within its austerity discipline, unable to devalue to relieve some of the pressures. There will be natural political pressure to send more money to the poorer areas or areas suffering from the single currency, just as happens in single currency areas like the USA and UK where there are large regional and welfare transfers. The EU may well wish to boost regional policy, structural funds and other regional transfers to tackle deprivation and high unemployment in large areas of the Eurozone, and they will expect the UK to contribute. How high might the EU budget go? How much more money will be sent out of the UK to pay the bills? The UK claims to have an opt out from Euro area bail outs, though the UK still did participate in the last short term bail out loan for Greece. We are  not opted out of the many transfer payments systems already set up in the EU which they will wish to expand.

4. The EU fails to solve the  migration crisis and expects the UK to make a larger contribution

The government’s own flawed figures for 2030 contain a forecast of continuing high levels of EU migration into the UK. There is also the possibility that the EU will expect the UK to make a larger financial contribution to help resolve the migrant crisis. The Euro 3bn for Turkey will probably be an addition to the EU budget which we will have to help fund. The UK will be under pressure to make more migrants under some EU quota system as well as increase payments to assist.

 

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

98 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Cameron in his so called renegotiation’s conceded the UK’s right to veto the EU’s right to further integration. He, Cameron, effectively through away our biggest bargaining chip. After this referendum, the EU will march a head with political union and the UK will be just a bystander. We will be offered some sort of EU-Lite arrangement which, will tie us to all the rules and decisions of the EU but, will give absolutely little or no say. We will however, be asked to play our role as chief benefactor. Our so called government, with the help from the media, will play this as a winning hand and a good deal for the UK and not tell us the true nature of what is happening to us. We are being marched into oblivion.

    To be blunt, if we remain in the EU, we will be screwed. And if and when the people of this once beautiful country finally wake up to sheer acts of betrayal being done, the fall out, for the Conservative Party in particular, is going to be horrendous.

    Whatever happens after this referendum, this game is far from over.

    • alan jutson
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:19 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      This is how I see our future if we vote to remain, but still want to be so called part of the EU (with involvement)

      The alternative if we remain is as John has outlined, we have second rate status, with near Zero influence, unless we give up the pound.

      • Hope
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

        I regret JR’s predictions are not accurate if Cameron is left in charge. He will do all he can to bind the UK to the EU as if it were still a full member claiming all sorts of false reasons for doing so i.e. To stay in the single market etc. the only way to prevent this is rid Cameron and other key players of the cabinet from government. Suggestions being Osborne, Rudd, Truss, Crabb, Hammond, MeGloughlan, Fallon and of course May. Although May should be sacked for incompetence and deception around what is actually be done or has been done about immigration. If Osborne’s latest Treasury report is correct about immigration then there had been no effort whatsoever to reduce immigration to tens of thousands per the Tory manifesto and numerous pledges. Cameron, Osborne and May should be sacked for lying to the public.

        • alan jutson
          Posted April 20, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

          Hope

          Agreed

        • Lifelogic
          Posted April 21, 2016 at 4:05 am | Permalink

          Indeed there has clearly been not the slightest effort to reduce net migration. It was, no if no buts, a blatant lie as was clear even at the time. Osborne too needs to be sacked for incompetence. Anyone who thinks the nation minimum wage is a good plan is clearly economically illiterate and totally unsuitable to be Chancellor.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

      “Cameron in his so called renegotiation’s conceded the UK’s right to veto the EU’s right to further integration.”

      He did, however just like everything else in his “deal” that is not legally binding.

      • Hope
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

        Come on, let’s no longer continue the myth that Cameron entered the negotiations in good faith and/or succeed in anything. All substantive objectives were dropped before talks began and everything else watered down to be meaningless. He stated a treaty change was essential for it be legally binding. So many EU leaders have come out to say that it is not legally binding and discussion in the EU parliament to be delayed after the referendum. Holland’s politicos forbid to discuss their own referendum, for bit! Despite its people overwhelmingly voting against EU wishes!

        • Paul Kiver
          Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

          Cameron’s non-negotiation was back in February and, as far as the Great British Public is concerned, is now ancient history.

          His abject failure to negotiate any change, and more pertinently the post Brussels fiasco comments by some of the Euro elite namely that nothing is binding and any ratification is still needed by the EU Parliament, needs to be featured on a regular basis by the Brexit campaign.

          The public’s attention span and memory is woefully short.

      • Jagman84
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:49 am | Permalink

        You can be certain that surrender of more powers will not be voted down!

      • Hope
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 10:04 am | Permalink

        I think it needs to be pointed out that Osborne set up the OBR to prevent the Treasury making forecasts to suit the chancellor’s purposes. It was meant to be an independent body. He even failed to keep to his word on both counts. First he instructed the Treasury with a dishonest inaccurate report claiming to be at the command of her Majesty and, secondly, he should not interfere with the alleged independent bodies one of wh in he recently twisted its response to a loaded question. The. We have the allegedly independent BoE Twisted little man.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

        Dear Denis–Some foreign MEP very recently said unequivocally and loudly that the European Parliament would not approve Cameron’s “re-negotiation” (even though it involved negligible change and we keep hearing how essential it is for the EU – and the USA, the World and the Universe – that we stay). Can the Parliament do that? And (though given who was doing the talking it was hardly to be believed) did not Cameron say that the changes would be legally binding–of course before the Vote for it to mean anything at all? I cannot understand why it isn’t absolutely fundamental that this be cleared up (no ifs or buts as they say) before we vote.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          He has claimed that it is “legally binding and irrevocable”.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted April 21, 2016 at 4:07 am | Permalink

            That too was another Cameron lie, but even if it were legally binding it is clearly almost worthless anyway.

  2. Margaret
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    Yes quite. Lets all be in the mess together………or If I can’t have independence then why should you .

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    Indeed, remain is a far more uncertain prospect than to leave. There will be the addition problem that if Cameron does scrape a remain vote, he will have done so on the basis of complete lies and tax payer funded propaganda. This will cause huge stresses for the Tory party which is essentially for leave (but for the Libdem leadership and 50% of MPs).

    At least with leave we will be in charge of our own destiny, restore democracy and will not have to accept 300+ new generally lower paid migrants demanding houses, the NHS, schools and everything else. We can be selective, nimble and act in our own interests. The dreadfully over stretched NHS deteriorates by the day and the pressures on decent school places and housing are huge already as voters can all see.

    Emily Maitlis yesterday on Newsnight again put the x% of our trade and just y% of their argument. This is a moronic argument, just how daft are these lefty BBC presenters? In any deal it is the overall value of the trade that matters not its relative proportion to other trade. The UK clearly have the upper hand as we buy far more from them than they do from us. If they put a tariff on imports we can do the same and this is would not be in their interests. If they do not we do not. The best deal for them is thus tariff free trade. If they do not want free trade so be it, we switch to producing for the home and other markets instead, these areas are growing faster anyway and a better bet in the long term.

    How can anyone be daft enough not to see this? Or perhaps they can see it but are just blatant and tax payer funded remain propagandists?

    • Know-dice
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      “Emily Maitlis yesterday on Newsnight again put the x% of our trade and just y% of their argument.”

      And if they [the BBC] are going to do that they need to do it on an EU country (soon to be region) by country.

      The program “Europe: Them or Us” is worth a view, as this clearly shows to anyone with half a brain, that as night follows day, we will eventually be subsumed into an EU superstate.

      Of course that should really be EU: Them or Us…

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Europe%3A%20Them%20or%20Us&suggid=urn%3Abbc%3Aprogrammes%3Ab077nr8v

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      300,000+ I meant.

      • Horatio
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely, for me thats the big takeaway from Osbourne’s report. It admits that the govt wont meet its targets for 15yrs. And that we will have uncontrolled immigration for 15 years. Leavers should stop pussyfooting around and hit hard at what people care about, unprecedented pressure on public services; school places, classes taught in foreign languages and 3 weeks for GP appointments.

        More Farage and less of that ineffectual Wet, Carswell, would complement the intellectual approach of Gove and Redwood nicely. It would also get out the labour vote.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      This is a moronic argument, just how daft are these lefty BBC presenters? In any deal it is the overall value of the trade that matters not its relative proportion to other trade.

      I do hope to negotiate with you one day LL.

      The outcome of any negotiation depends upon the importance either party gives to areas at risk or for concession. A lower percentage of total trade could well mean that our negotiating hand is weakened. No point trying to deny it.

      Looking at the losses incurred by individual countries and the impact of our exit on their trade ie Germany’s cars in light of VW losing market share due to emissions or French farmers losing CAP as our budget contributions are removed is the way to counter this.

      Our trade with other countries is expected to increase which mitigates our losses and so tips the trade imbalance in our favour.

      Without this type of analysis it is easy to be accused of having one’s head in the sand.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        I buy £2000 of stuff of you every year and you buy just £1ooo of stuff of me every year, if there is no deal you clearly lose more trade & profit than I do. If we both put X% tariffs on then who benefits most me? Who has the most interest in an open trade deal you? The one selling most of course.

        What else the may sell to other customers makes no difference whatsoever to the economics of this particular deal.

        You say:- A lower percentage of total trade could well mean that our negotiating hand is weakened.

        It is not weakened, by what mechanism is it weakened?

        It could be weakened if the UK had no alternative markets for our goods. If they want to damage their own economy they can. If say for reasons of spite they decided to stop all trade completely, we could shift production to the home or other world markets. As we buy more of them we would have a larger home demand to fill the hole left by them not buying off us. If production were fully shifted to the home market we would actually be a net gainer overall.

        The remainers are using an entirely bogus argument, the lefty arts graduates at BBC seem to have fallen for it or perhaps are just using it for propaganda too.

        • Narrow shoulders
          Posted April 21, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

          A smaller percentage loss is easier to absorb @LL. That is why over where the loss is incurred is the key negotiation not the total values.

      • acorn
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        This £10 billion per year net contribution to the EU budget, is a very weak argument, but alas, it’s the only number the “leave” side has come up with so far in the debate. That is 10 in an 1800 billion pound UK economy; 0.55%! We probably pay more in UN Budget and Peacekeeping fees. Not to mention DFID.

        There are only two things you can use to sell products nowadays; Sex and Pure Maths. I haven’t smelt or seen either yet from the Leavers. M Grove MP, had a good go, but was not convincing because he spent to much time obviously reading from notes. Now if JR had given that speech, he would have memorised it and subsequently kept total eye contact with his audience. That’s how to tell a story.

        Anyway, the above is a consequence of being today asked “what percentage of EU 28 member states aggregate tax receipts, the EU budget is”. Answer circa 2.5%. That is the sort of question you would ask if you were designing an EU wide fiscal (tax and spending) framework policy.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      I warned again and again that the government and their many and varied allies would be prepared to lie through their teeth to win this referendum, and that was not based just on what happened in 1975 but also on what happened with the only other national referendum we have ever had, that on AV.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        Cast Iron, no if no buts Dave and IHT threshold ratter George lying, surely not?

    • Mockbeggar
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

      Quite. We’ve all been trying to get this message across in the face of lies, damned lies and statistics. Even if our trade was faced with a 10% tariff, the Remainers are telling us that the pound will go down in value by at least 10% (presumably in relation to the Euro). So our exports would stay at the same cost to them whereas theirs would be 21% higher when exporting to us.

  4. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    The Remain Campaign’s thrust is necessarily predicated on economic progress for the EU.
    The only progress appears to be growing optimistic BoE statements in this Referendum Campaign. Fortunately and unfortunately the BoE has not made a valid and factual prediction even one month in advance which has proved anywhere near correct for the past couple of years or so.”Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance ” as the financial adage goes; so, the BoE may get it right one day.

  5. alexmews
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    Good morning. I agree – and i make this point often to folks i meet. The centralising direction of the EU is plain to see. It is inevitable that if we remain we cannot stay out of these centralising features. Do you want to be the Texas or New York of Europe? Albeit without those states’ rights as regards to the US federal government? No Texan would ever sign up.to Ever Closer Union. I cannot believe 50% of Brits are considering doing so.

  6. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    Off Topic: Well no.

    Mr Trump has won decisively in the New York Primary last night ,winning all the delegates with more than the total votes of his opponents put together.
    The Labour Party is very likely facing in November this year a US President who will be at total odds against both their right-wing and left wing economic and geo-political beliefs across the board and also at odds with their defence strategies and policies both left and right.
    The Conservative Party under Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are about to welcome a US President who will stick up for their policies and beliefs on the EU and life as they know it until November 9th 2016

    • Horatio
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      Having been a Tory voter all my life I’m afraid to say that if we vote to remain then Labour will win the next election. The only reason I didn’t vote UKIP last time was to get a referendum and stop Sturgeon. That they got 1 seat from millions of votes was disgraceful, that millions more only voted Tory to get a referendum is indisputable. The blood letting will be horrific and those mendacious, zero principle Tory MPs who have betrayed the people who got them elected, will understand that they are representatives not delegates.

      • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        One can think too deeply. American foreign policy will sway the Bennites and Kinnocks .Their logic is dissolvable with a glass of water taken after meals and a Pound coin.

  7. JoeSoap
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Well you should certainly be putting argument 3. Remain is outflanking you at the moment on the economic argument, and I haven’t seen this counter-argument mentioned. We are 60 million in a bloc of 500 million, rising to 650 million. Most of those are poorer and will need cash. From us.

  8. JoeSoap
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    As a consequence we will definitely be poorer than if we get out.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      Indeed both in the long term and the short term. The winning back of our democracy, control of our borders, escape from the Euro bailout, the endless barmy regulations and expensive green lunacies will give a huge confidence boost to the public, the economy and outside investors. The removal of the misguided tax borrow waste and wage controls Chancellor will give another boost.

      • Richard1
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        But would we get out of the green lunacies? The climate change act went through parliament with cross party support, and was home grown not eu mandated.

        • lifelogig
          Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Some truth in that, but I think we would, in the main escape the green loons.

  9. JoeSoap
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    if we don’t get out

  10. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    “1. The UK compromises over the Treaty of Political Union in a few years time and has to hold a second referendum on the powers transferred under that new Treaty.”

    Well, there’s no “has to” about it, is there?

    Firstly if it can be arranged that on paper at least the new treaty does not transfer any new powers from the UK to the EU then there is no legal requirement for a referendum under Section 4(4)(b) of the “referendum lock” law, the European Union Act 2011:

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

    “4) A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section” – that is, to mandate a referendum- “merely because it involves one or more of the following –

    (a) the codification of practice under TEU or TFEU in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence;

    (b) the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom;

    (c) in the case of a treaty, the accession of a new member State.”

    Section 4(4)(b) was the loophole that Hague invoked to prevent a UK referendum on the EU treaty change agreed on March 25th 2011 to provide a legal basis in the treaties for the eurozone states to set up a permanent bailout mechanism, the ESM:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:091:0001:0002:EN:PDF

    while Section 4(4)(c) was the loophole that Hague invoked to prevent a referendum on whether Croatia should be allowed to join the EU.

    Secondly if the case for invoking Section 4(4)(b) was completely implausible then the government could simply brazen it out and get Parliament to approve the new EU treaty through a new Act including an express repeal of the previous “referendum lock” Act, either wholly or in part; the latter would only require clear words such as “notwithstanding Section 4(4)(b) of the European Union Act 2011” to be inserted into the new Act.

    • Paul H
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Assume that June results in a vote to remain, it wouldn’t surprise me if a spurious argument was cooked up that it was actually an advance referendum on the treaty. The argument would be that we had voted on the re-negotiation on the basis, we had been told that these would be in the next treaty, and hence we had already agreed to the treaty insofar as it had any relevance to the UK.

      These guys will do and say anything to keep the UK in the EU.

      • Narrow Shoulders
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

        Each time Dennis mentions this legislation and our right to a referendum I find myself thinking that we will be told we have already had it if we remain in.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted April 22, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

          What do you think the consequences will be if a European Federal Superstate comes to pass, based on the Lisbon Treaty and the 5 Presidents Report? Such states invariably want power – lots of it. Indeed, throughout the EU’s history, Germany has been prepared to trade money for power.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

        I’m sure that a vote to remain in the EU would be interpreted as a vote to carry on with every aspect of the process of integration.

  11. matthu
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Cameron has guaranteed that the UK will not stand in the way of further EU integration. Any further referendum on transfer of powers (assuming this act is not swept away after our EU referendum) will simply be ignored by the government.

  12. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    “2. The UK applies the veto to the Treaty of Political Union.”

    If the UK threatened to veto the new treaty as an EU treaty, wouldn’t its proponents do what Merkel did with the “fiscal compact” in December 2011?

    Convert it into an intergovernmental treaty outside the framework of the EU treaties, but with the expectation written into it that in due course it would become an EU treaty, and meanwhile make use of the EU institutions even though the UK government had indicated that it would not allow that to happen?

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted April 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      That sounds true to form. I wonder what would happen if we, as well as using our veto, spread paralysis throughout the EU.

  13. alan jutson
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Thank you John for this post.

    At long last we have got to the crux of the choice.

    A VOTE TO REMAIN will be a vote for an ever changing EU with ever more powers and money being sent to Brussels, it most certainly is NOT THE EU AS IT IS TODAY.

    The media and the Remain Camp have so far hidden the agenda for the future of the EU from the General Public, but the future has already been mapped out if you care to find it, contained within the Five Presidents Report, you just need to Google it.

    This argument has to be made by the leave side and sent out loud and clear, and it needs to get air time.

    The future plans of the EU simply have to be exposed, it is a fact as our EU Masters have actually printed it themselves to outline the future as they see and want it to be.

    If the Five Presidents Plan comes to fruition then the UK will cease to exist as we all know it, we will simply be run by foreign politicians who we have never elected.

    SIMPLES.

    • Know-dice
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      “A VOTE TO REMAIN will be a vote for an ever changing EU with ever more powers and money being sent to Brussels, it most certainly is NOT THE EU AS IT IS TODAY.”

      Unfortunately the Remain protagonist use the simple phrase “The UK has a opt out of that”…

      Those on the Leave side need more powerful arguments to prove that Remain means further integration and loss of sovereignty. History shows that this [EU Superstate] is likely to be the result of Remain.

      The Leave groups have to convince the “fence sitters” that this is the case?

    • getahead
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

      “and it needs to get air time.”
      And therein lies the difficulty for the Leavers. The Remainers have the government propaganda channel.
      If we don’t get to leave the EU it will be mainly because of the BBC pushing the Remainers’ “might, could, possibly”, scare tactics).

  14. bigneil
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    “The government after all has promised ” – -promised? – -CMD has a fantastic reputation on his promises and pledges so this one clearly has to be another pack of Porky’s.
    I’d trust a starving tiger more than Dave. How Sam ever believes a word he says is unfathomable. and she’s married to him.
    The EU is plainly and ONLY the formation of a massive dictatorship, by stealth. Anyone who dares to defy the EU on their own country’s subjugation will be threatened and lied to, false promises of reform made to drag them back in ( “just sign this and all will be well – till the rest of us change our minds and vote for what WE want” – accompanied by echoing laughs and rubbing of hands).
    May our exit bring about the collapse of the whole corrupt lot – and may all of them end up (in difficult circumstances ed)

  15. Antisthenes
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    That is pretty much what is going to happen. The EU already riddled with crises that they cannot solve will be adding many more as integration gathers pace. We are being sucked ever further into the maelstrom that the EU is creating. All for what? To pay for many things that the majority of us do not want to be part of. The core stayers are leading us by the nose they know that pledges to keep us out of the integration is not possible yet they promise it anyway. If the public realised the truth I am sure that those that are going to vote to remain in without integration will change that to leave.

    David Cameron has not reformed the EU as he boasts nor has protected the UK from the future integration or bailing out of the euro-zone. Both are already happening. All the laws etc, emanating from Brussels are uniform. They do not differentiate between euro-zone members and non members. Part of our contribution is also being used for projects to prop up and administer the euro-zone. On top of which we are made to contribute directly and with the unlimited power Brussels has it will demand and get more.

    We do have a few opt outs and a deal that gives some protection but we know that they can be given away or circumvented at any time as we have seen it happen before many times.

  16. Cheshire Girl
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    I see from the BBC website today, that eight former US Treasury Secretaries have now warned that it would be a risky business if we left the EU. I suspect that they have been put up to this by Number 10, although it denies it.

    I lived in the USA for 15 years ( late 60s to mid 80s) and I can assure you that the USA would not have welcomed such an intervention in their affairs by the UK.

    • miami.mode
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      CG. Perhaps we should respond by saying that they should pay a bit more attention closer to home, as there appears to be quite a large movement for Texas to secede from the US.

  17. alan jutson
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:50 am | Permalink

    Every Leave politician should have a copy of the five Presidents Report to hand, ready to use it as a prop in any argument/media interview about the future route of the EU and say this is what remain means, if you really care to read it.

    Simple and powerful, just like the “we have run out of money” note.

  18. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    3. and 4. – firstly I note that Channel 4 is falsifying the UK taxpayers’ net contribution to the EU budget by knocking off a substantial sum paid to private bodies in the UK. The recent report from the House of Commons Library here:

    http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06455

    is clear that the UK government’s net contribution in 2014, the last year for which there are final numbers rather than estimates, was £9.8 billion after “Total Public Sector Receipts” of £4.4 billion, and those receipts include the agricultural subsidies and structural funds, and there are no grounds for adding on any EU largesse distributed to private bodies to try to buy their support at the expense of the UK taxpayer.

    Secondly I noted yesterday:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/04/19/what-does-remain-look-like/#comments

    that since we first joined the EEC our net contribution to the budget has increased tenfold in real terms, that is corrected for inflation, corresponding to an average compound rate of increase of 6% a year, far higher than the rate of growth of the UK economy to provide the tax revenues to pay it, and just projecting that forward to the end of Osborne’s forecast period, 2030, that would become £26 billion while projected forward 41 years to the next time we might be allowed a referendum it would be about £112 billion.

  19. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    “The UK claims to have an opt out from Euro area bail outs”

    As we know this is just a political agreement, not a treaty opt-out, and Juncker was quite prepared to break that political agreement last year:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11737286/EU-demands-Britain-joins-Greek-rescue-fund.html

    And as far as I’m aware turning that flimsy political agreement into a legally binding treaty opt-out did not even figure in Cameron’s “reform” demands.

  20. John Bracewell
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Even the Remain side has said that the UK will never use the Euro currency, the EU open borders (now being closed by some countries under extreme duress from migrants) do not apply to the UK because of the opt-out from the Schengen rules and the UK is not in agreement with the EU response (such as it is) to the migrant crisis.
    When a country (the UK) opposes the three main principles above that the EU espouses and we know from the recent UK renegotiation debacle that ‘staying in and reforming the EU from within’ is blue sky thinking that will never achieve anything, the EU just does not do change especially on major policies, then there is a fundamental problem with continuing to belong to an EU club whose main rules do not suit even the side that is campaigning to remain in that EU club.

  21. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    No names no pack drill but there are one or two Remain campaigners where the EU in terms of gravy-train jobs seem to be family businesses. Why the media bothers asking their opinions: possibly because they wish to convey a broad tent of views.

    • getahead
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

      Is there anyone who espouses the Remain cause who does not have a vested interest?

  22. Anonymous
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    The BBC reported Michael Gove’s speech as though he were a nutter.

    It doesn’t matter how well reasoned the Brexit position is if the Government can send lies through the post and the BBC sends them through the airwaves.

    • Paul H
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Yes, but a part of the problem is that the speech lacked real bite (a) in terms of some necessary specifics and (b) pulling punches. One of the problems with Vote Leave’s designation is the major Blue-on-Blue element. As a result, people like Gove will not use words like “lie” about Cameron’s and Osborne’s pronouncements when doing so would be perfectly justified and, indeed, people like Farage would have no problem doing.

      • Paul Kiver
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

        The ‘Leave’ camapign needs an ‘orator’. As precise, measured and logical Gove’s speech might have been, there was no ‘fire’, no rallying call, no call to arms. We need someone who can stir the blood of the British voters.

        The US presidential candidates oration ability put our politicians’ to shame and ours could take some lessons in how to whip the audience.

        • Ken Moore
          Posted April 21, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

          Agreed, step forward John Redwood!.. he can speak with great authority and conviction. Measured and poorly prepared representations in the media will not do.

          Has the official Vote Leave campaign been infiltrated by No.10 sleepers…it’s almost as if they don’t want to win it’s been so low key……

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cKtP-9zJl7U Redwood

      • Anonymous
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        Where he did not pull punches was on the desired outcome of triggering the collapse of the EU. ‘Liberating’ all EU nations. The BBC reported this as though it was treasonable.

        Many people I speak to say they don’t know how to vote – in which case I suggest it’s probably better not to vote.

        It’s no use trying to convert them under this pressure.

    • stred
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      R4 news at 6pm had the speech covered the part of the speech where Gove tried to put forward the goal of an open trading area,presumably having read Flexit and other ideas from Leavers. Following this their newsreader Zebeddee (not the one on a spring) said they would analyse the idea and show that it was untrue or fictional. The a Grammaticus as the expert told us that no such trading area existed and that it would take years to set up. Making Gove look like a nutter. No mention of the well known Flexit plan or any other plan that would materialise after a Brexit. Straightforword lying propaganda, which will be accepted as neutral, as also on their Facts website.

      Also heard from the posts here yesterday. Osborne saying he has not seen anything from Leavers showing what they plan to do after Brexit. Does he not read the JR blog, Conservatives for Britain, Flexit or anything apart from his civil service propaganda. Then Tristram Hunt said he did not know about the 5 Presidents Report and Andrew Neil had to show it to him.

      The Flexit book covers absolutely everythin and even has charts showing the process and proposes changes to UK goverment to make it more democratic. It may be a good idea for the other Leavers to make up and quote this but also point out in capital letters that various options are available and that the threats can be overcome.

      Meanwhile we now have multiple Amaricans telling us to stay in, as their agent in Europe. A Mr Reuben made this clear on Newsnight. American policy is to spread their and British style democracy and they need the EU as a base to go East. It’s called ‘transformational diplomacy’ and force will be used if necessary. re Wiki Condo Rice. This is why we have millions of refugees and economic migrants. Such has been its success.

    • Horatio
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      The BBC barely reported it! They forget and never prefaced their reporting with Mr Gove’s position as Justice Secretary. A position of knowledge and real experience of the impingement of the EU. You are absolutely correct Anon.

      The BBC holds a 40% marketshare of all UK news media yet it’s news and political dept (Andrew Neil excepted) come from the smallest and least profitable newspaper, The Guardian. Market forces have shown, therefore, how little the Guardian’s (word left out ed) views chime with those of the electorate. It is a travesty that it is those views, so little entertained by the general public, which are held and trumpeted by the ‘impartial’ national broadcaster.

  23. Bert Young
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    The “Ifs” and “Buts” of the campaign are riddled with innuendos ; I have little patience with the way so called “facts” are presented .

    The most effective approach is to pull the plug , get out and stop our financial contribution immediately . The clarity of our democracy will then be clear and our voice in the world meaningful . If the EU then collapses – so be it .

    Negotiations that have been made and the others that some suggest will be necessary , will be meaningless ; it is all about Politicians and not voters . Keep things clean and simple .

  24. Ken Moore
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives

    Dr Redwood,

    Have you a view on the governments latest propaganda piece ?. I’d be interested to know why the chancellor has chosen to assume that disposal income and GDP have a direct relationship. He also assumes NO growth in the number of households in his analysis which is ludicrous. Again the costs of extra infrastructure and Eu compliance have been ignored..yet he is expecting us to believe he can calculate a figure 30 years into the future to the nearest £100!

    Doesn’t the public at least expect a measure of honesty and competence from it’s treasury officials ?.
    Isn’t the truth the ludicrously precise £4300 figure has been purely ‘cooked up’ by a rattled No.11….why do they think it acceptable to behave in this outrageous way?.

    There must be consequences from the party’s ‘grassroots’ for a man who has shown himself to be dishonest and therefore dangerously unfit for office.
    Is there a mechanism in your party for dealing with members that have clearly ‘lost the plot’ and brought your party into disrepute.

    • stred
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      The Righ Honourable’s document even has a news, speech and press release at the bottom. There is a ‘could we do better’ box in which readers can comment. Lies and breaking civil service neutrality was mine.

      The reason that Oz wants to continue high levels of EU immigration is that the GDP growth/head is really on 40% of his published figure. Without it the whole plot falls apart. Even the contributions to the EU, based on GDP are fiddled. The figure given areproportionally 7-3+4 ie we get 42% back. For 2014 the ratio was 32%. The 2015 figure that Remainiacs and the EUBC use are estimates and the percentage is also lowered. The document is a fraud and any private finance company would find themselves in trouble with the regulator. Bearing in mind that the true figure for workers with NI cards issued is around double the ONS figure, the fraud may be even greater.

      • stred
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

        Sorry- on my tiny tablet today. -only 40% and 7-3=4.

      • Ken Moore
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        Thanks for the lead re comments I will be adding my own to Mr Osborne’s propaganda document shortly.

        The document is a fraud. My view is Osborne is running the Uk economy along the lines of a Ponzi scheme and needs high immigration to maintain the illusion that the economy is growing and producing jobs. In reality he is simply recycling borrowed and printed money and forcing the economy into a lower skilled/low wage part time work model.
        Jobs and industries that create value are being replaced by those that recycle it which isn’t sustainable..

        Osborne has previous form …having failed to lower the deficit in cash terms he changed the yardstick to %GDP and magically the deficit was halved.

        His deceptions and con tricks will buy him more time but when the inevitable crash occurs the carnage will be even greater.

  25. Ken Moore
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Comparing the twitter StrongerIn and vote Leave campaigns….as much as I dislike the StrongerIn’s daily affront to honesty and decency their campaign is obviously better funded and run.

    Although Vote leave have the better arguments they present them often in an uninspiring way and with little imaginative thought or creativity. Stupidly despite John Redwoods well researched and thoughtful pieces there are no links to his work on the Vote leave site. I still suspect ego’s are getting in the way of a united and coherent campaign.
    Could Mr Redwood take a more prominent role ?. Why can’t your blog be linked to the campaign directly ?.
    It’s now a week since the official designation was given and I’m still waiting for them to get their act together….
    Mr Gove and Johnson enjoy a high profile but are more ‘showmen’ used to making big and a at times gaffe laden political speeches rather than setting out carefully thought out ideas. There is no room for complacency or poor preparation in this campaign.

    • Paul Kiver
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

      Completely agree.

      The arguments for getting out of the EU are overwhelming; ‘Remain have absolutely no inspirational vision whatsoever.

      But the Brexit campaign has to get their message over very loud and very clear.

      Its time for the gloves to come off , some shouting from the rooftops to begin and ‘liars’ called ‘liars’ and exposed.

      • Ken Moore
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        Agreed, How long are the few decent Conservative Mp’s going to sit on their hands while their leaders busy themselves locking the Uk into the Eu by stealth. Do they want this to be their party’s legacy for it is being done in their name ?
        Are they going to sit by and watch everything they have worked and stand for torn to shreds by a PM who has simply let his ego grow too big ?. When a politician believes it’s no longer important to tell the truth and act with integrity it’s time to go.
        The deceit to which the British people are being subjected to is truly BREATHTAKING . To deliberately misrepresent facts and then put a government stamp on them is a wicked act – anyone with a shred of decency or integrity would never have agreed to the publication of the treasury document.
        Why can’t the 1922 committee do something to rein in the leadership ?….if the 10 million mail drop and the dodgy dossier doesn’t spur them into action..what will ?

    • Ken Moore
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      On the daily politics today Kate Hoey Mp failed to make the crucial point that the governments propaganda document was based on a series of falsehoods.
      Andrew Neil was also very weak – he failed to ask the Conservative Mp any sensible questions about the validity of conclusions of the report.
      She could have told Andrew Neil about the failure to factor in higher population , the falsehood of linking GDP with personal income..but it seems the Brexit campaign is poorly briefed and prepared.
      Why can’t there be a forum to exchange ideas and key points ?

    • getahead
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      As I commented elsewhere Ken, the government holds the BBC. That is enough to provide the perception of the StrongerIn campaign being better run.

      • Ken Moore
        Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        I completely agree the BBC is in the pocket of the Conservative ‘modernisers’ and it’s paymasters in the Eu who all share a common and radical liberal agenda.
        ‘The Uk economy would be 6% poorer if we left the Eu’ according to the BBC. If we had a truly impartial national broadcaster Mr Osborne would never have been allowed to get away with pretending GDP and household income amount to the same thing.
        Just taking the twitter feed of the official campaigns – the IN side make better use of graphics and visual imagery despite the campaign being utterly dishonest which is alarming considering the case for withdrawal is absolutely overwhelming.

        Out need to raise their game and quickly…John Redwood needs to be allowed paint his picture of what OUT would look like to a wider audience.

  26. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    Reverting to the topic of the economic catastrophe which supposedly awaits us if we are so foolish as to vote to leave the EU, very largely owing to the anticipated intransigence of the German and French governments during the subsequent negotiations:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/the-eu-will-play-hardball-with-post-brexit-britain/

    and even though the IMF has warned that our economic catastrophe would not only be their economic catastrophe, as well, but also a global economic catastrophe, and even though those governments have willingly assumed EU treaty obligations to the contrary which will still continue to apply to all the EU member states during the withdrawal negotiations, in particular Articles 3, 8 and 21 TEU:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2016/02/07/the-uk-will-not-be-alone-outside-the-eu/#comment-800346

    I would like to once again draw attention to this chart of the annual growth of the UK economy going back to 1956:

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-annual

    Over those six decades annual GDP growth has bumped around, as high as 9.8 % and as low as -5.9 %, with an average, the long term trend growth rate, of 2.5% a year.

    Firstly, on that chart there are no discernible beneficial effects of either joining the EEC in 1973 or the later development of the Single Market. Unless one looks with the eye of eurofanatical faith there is simply no indication on that chart that either of those events led to an acceleration of economic growth in the UK. So why are we now being led to believe that leaving the Single Market would significantly cut our trend growth rate?

    Secondly, it is perhaps unsurprising that the supposed, theoretical benefits of the Single Market to the UK economy cannot be detected in practice, that is looking at the actual empirical data rather than constructing an unreliable model of what would expected, when it had been projected beforehand that it would increase the collective GDP of the EC member states by about 5%, or perhaps more, but in reality the EU Commission’s own estimate is that it has produced a one-off boost to GDP of much less than that, only about 2%, and even if that is true the beneficial effects have gradually emerged over a decade or two so that in any one year the increase will have been barely measurable.

    And moreover according to this article:

    http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160418/1038194260/brexit-impact-germany-loss.html

    of all EU member states the UK is the one which has benefited least from the Single Market, in fact hardly at all compared to Denmark and Germany in particular, but also much less than France and Italy and so.

    Thirdly we do have some prior experience of a Chancellor badly misjudging how policy decisions can change the trend growth rate of the UK economy; in that case it was Brown who thought that his policies had lifted the trend growth rate from 2.25% to 2.75% or possibly even 3.00% a year, and soon after he was proved totally wrong on that; while in this case it is Osborne claiming that if we leave the EU our trend growth rate will suffer a drop of a similar magnitude, and it is likely that he too is totally wrong on that.

  27. agricola
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    The Treaty of Political Union (TOPU) is the EU’s answer to a problem they have themselves created. The Euro came about with little thought for the responsibilities of all those nations involved in a common currency, or as I have always suspected as a deliberate ploy to create political union. Are the net contributing nations ready to subsidise the dependant nations. More important will their populations agree with it, as it has all been done within a democratic deficit. There are growing signs that the people of Europe will not buy into it.

    To the questions posed:-
    1.
    If a referendum on TOPU is merely about which sweeties we fancy and those we do not, it is largely irrelevant. It means we are still in the EU, led by politicians all too ready to lie on their backs and have their tummies tickled by the EU.
    2.
    If we veto the TOPU, it does not release us from control by the EU. In their eyes it makes us a pariah .
    3.
    Whatever happens politically the Euro will not be free of crisis. I will guarantee that whatever our politicians say, we will be forced to contribute. They have a track record.
    4.
    More migration to the UK means more financial pressure within the UK to expand our services in education, NHS, transport and housing. As we can barely afford to cover the cost now, such pressure could trigger those rarest of political events in the UK, a revolt of the people.

    Why put ourselves through the agony. Prey God in June we cut loose and start again as a sovereign nation. All the above questions presuppose that the other component countries of the EU just lie back and think of Europe. Evidence suggests that they are close to saying enough is enough. Our departure could give them the courage to totally re-think the direction the EU is going in.

  28. ChrisS
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Whether or not we win, after Cameron it’s odds-on that the next leader of the Conservative party will be a proper, paid up Eurosceptic. If we are unfortunate and don’t win the referendum, and as long as he doesn’t go native like so many before him, the new PM will be prepared to use the veto if we do not get sufficient opt outs.

    He will have to start by having a cull of the F & C Office and get rid of as many Europhiles as possible so he will at least be getting unbiased advice.

    I hope we will return to a period similar to that under Margaret Thatcher when the UK took a more strident attitude in negotiations. Nobody with any self respect will ever want to see a repeat of the unedifying spectacle of Cameron shuffling unsuccessfully around Europe with his begging bowl. Had he had his heart in the negotiations and more guts the outcome could have been so different.

    If I were doing the next round of negotiations I would also insist on a limit on budget contributions for non-Eurozone members to make absolutely certain that we are not caught up in the inevitable bale outs that will be required before the Euro eventually collapses.

  29. NickW
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Will the EU do what the UK Government did in the Independence referendum and make a last minute offer if the polling is going against them?

    It would be worthless without the agreement of all Member States.

    Offering concessions that Cameron was unable to obtain would undermine him completely.

    Juncker is on record as having said “When the situation is desperate, you have to lie”.

    However; pro EU media could use such an offer to (try and) swing the referendum.

    If the gambit failed, it would leave a lot of people with egg on their faces, ties, shirts, trousers—–.

  30. Ian Wragg
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    The main reason for leaving the EU is to regain control of our borders. It seems Vote Leave want to ignore immigration. This makes me more suspicious that the organisation is a Trojan Horse which wants some sort of associate membership.

  31. Denis Cooper
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    I’ve already made several long comments this morning but I would like to add this:

    Economically it will matter very little in the longer term whether or not we are in the Single Market; its potential benefits were significantly over-estimated beforehand and its actual benefits to the UK are now being grossly exaggerated. Clearly there is something wrong, or at least questionable, about a Treasury model which predicts far greater losses from leaving the Single Market than the gains we have ever made from it. And if the German government, in particular, stubbornly refuses to come to its senses and dump its longstanding ideological, eurofederalist, fixation with linking trade policy and immigration policy in the Single Market then we will be much better off out of it.

    However the Single Market is where we are now and in the shorter term there are strong practical reasons for wanting to stay in it to ensure a smooth transition, even if it proves impossible to do that and simultaneously sort out the nonsense of unrestricted free movement of persons. Nothing would be set in stone forever if we stayed in the EEA after leaving the EU, it would be the start of a journey along a new path rather than its final destination, and by making a convincing pledge about protecting the jobs and incomes of voters it would make it much more likely that we would win the referendum.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      Your contributions on the benefits of the single market today have been illuminating Dennis.

      I hope facts4eu grass roots out and vote leave use them widely.

  32. They Work for Us?
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Thank you once again for an excellent column, a refreshing beacon of light amidst the deliberate fog of “remain “.

    I offer two further scenarios following a close vote to remain

    (Unlikely because we have no one in power who is a statesman, JR excepted)
    David Cameron or whoever replaces him, tells Angela Merkel and the others, “Wow, that was a close run thing. As a major contributor facing massive trouble with my own electorate, then our influence must reflect that we are a large net contributor. We must consider a larger rebate and actual exemption from integration and Euro support costs and have a visible influence commensurate with our net contribution. In the future people must expect that changes will need the agreement of the trio Germany, UK and France or a second EU referendum will be demanded and we will lose it.

    Following a close vote to remain, those in favour of leave, askance at the self serving MPs and tactics of the remain campaign, look to the deselection and removal of ground level campaigning support of Conservative MPs who were “remainers” and or a large increase in UKIP vote forces causes more and more MPs of all parties to lose their seats. A second referendum would be demanded and leave would win this time.

    • bluedog
      Posted April 20, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

      Given the current performance of Cameron, it is impossible to imagine the Conservative Party ever being the same again. As the referendum campaign drags on, the bitterness and frustration of the two sides with each other seems likely to get far worse rather than better. At what point the party splits into clearly defined factions that are scarcely on speaking terms is not clear, but it would be a very bad day for Britain if that were to occur. A formal split of the party would greatly strengthen the Labour Party and might even breathe fresh oxygen into the Lib-Dims.

  33. Atlas
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    Hmm,

    It is all ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’…

    Last night’s Beeb programme on the EU revealed explicitly from the mouths of those who did it, just how much governments have sought to deceive the UK electorate.

    A telling indictment of the UK supporters of “The Project”.

  34. a-tracy
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Telegraph today “Britain tried to team up with Italy to call for a “multi-currency union”, but was squashed by heavyweight German opposition; and while early drafts suggesting the UK’s opt-out from “ever closer union” might apply more broadly, this was soon ruthlessly expunged under French and Belgian pressure.”

    How does Germany have more weight than us? Why are they heavyweight and the UK lightweight? Do we want to be the lightweight paying in but with our mouths taped shut in a Germany/France/Belgian controlled Union.

  35. bluedog
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Once again, it is of the utmost importance that the parliamentary Conservative Party deposes Cameron, preferably before 23rd June. Osborne should be forced leave office simultaneously. MPs who continue to claim that Cameron is a very good Prime Minister are completely misreading the situation and under-estimating the damage being done to the United Kingdom by Cameron’s lies and misrepresentations. Look at today’s example. Unemployment is up so Cameron blames Brexit for creating uncertainty. Yes David, but who called the referendum? What the man says is utterly ridiculous. Action this day, Dr JR!

  36. Phil Richmond
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    I keep coming back to the collusion of the media. In PMQs just now Liam Fox asked Cameron about the manifesto pledge to reduce immigration to the 10s of thousands. Dr Fox quoted the reports which had it at way over 200,000 per year for the next decade. Camerons reply was that the report didnt take into account the (non)deal he had struck with Brussels over welfare payments.
    This is an outrageous lie. We all know this is not going to make any difference to immigration. Why should he be aloud to get away with this? Immigration is the no.1 concern of the British people. The media should be reporting this.
    Cameron & Osborne have to go! How did these Blairites take over the Party in the first place!

  37. MickN
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    I have an idea for a political broadcast for the Brexit campaign.
    It would be along the lines of Dragons Den (although not an exact copy as the EU funded BBC would not allow it)
    Several top businessmen from the Leave campaign would be the Dragons.
    A couple of suits could come into the den and make a pitch. They would offer them a deal whereby they wanted the Dragon to be one of the largest investors into their business in return for a 1/28th stake in the way it is run. The Dragons could then ask questions like ” can I see a signed off audited set of accounts for your business ” etc etc and use the phrase “…..so for that reason I’m out” at the end.

    As an aside it would be interesting if when prominent businessmen in the remain camp are interviewed they could be asked whether they would ever be tempted to “invest” their own money into such a venture. I cant think for one minute that the Sugars and Bransons et al would see that as a good deal for themselves.

    • The Active Citizen
      Posted April 21, 2016 at 5:31 am | Permalink

      Superb idea Mick!

      JR’s readers are full of such great ideas and analysis, I wish some of you were working for the leave campaigns, with JR as boss!

    • a-tracy
      Posted April 21, 2016 at 8:22 am | Permalink

      Great Idea the Brexit campaign should do that as a youtube video and share it widely.

  38. @UkipTrips
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I’m all for the EU, personally. I think it a wonderful institution that has brought peace, stability and prosperity to mainland Europe. Our real-terms 10-fold increase in contributions since the 70s has corresponded to burgeoning social and regional development and benefits. A lot of that increase has returned to the UK regions in subsidies, development grants and all-round goodwill.

    Brussels, and increasingly the EU parliament have done a fantastic job in bringing much-needed legislation that frankly the individual member states are often too lazy or inept to think of themselves. This has helped bring a level playing field to our much-beloved penchant for free trade, freeing us from the costly regulations and transaction charges previously encountered when crossing European borders.

    They have also reduced the cost of government and the time it takes to adopt multilateral agreements. Having the EU provide us with some of our laws is a great thing: think of all the extra tax we’d have to pay our own MPs and civil servants to sit around plush London clubs and smoking rooms to come up with it all!

    Leaving would give us back some control, but also so much responsibility. I fear it would further frighten off the greatest minds from entering politics. Indeed, it would most likely be only a privileged elite, with nothing to lose and only their own self-interest to serve who would most likely join politics. Then where would we be?

    Oh, hang on….

  39. Roger parkin
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for yet another excellent column. May I put on record a general concern I have at the way this debate is being conducted. I have been an active conservative supporter for over fifty years contributing greatly in time and money. David Cameron never wanted this referendum it was forced on him by the rise of UKIP culminating in a manifesto pledge and the surprise of an overall majority. Despite his Bloomberg speech he went into negotiations asking for and getting very little. Against the wishes of the majority of his supporters who put him in power ( like myself ) he established himself as the leader of remain. He then proceeds to encourage every vested interest to support him, issues dodgy and misleading propaganda at the the taxpayers expense ( like myself ) and stifles a fair and honest debate. It was always anticipated that this issue would split the party. Owing to his disgraceful handling of this’s important matter he is doing just that. I sincerely believe that remain will win and myself and so many others will be lost to the party for good.

    • a-tracy
      Posted April 21, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      I agree Roger, Cameron is behaving like the Labour party in Scotland and look at their meltdown, luckily there are still many good and true Conservatives who are standing on their principals and word.

  40. Anonymous
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    “My heart says out but my brain says in.”

    This is the Project Fear effect.

    People hate the EU but are scared to leave it.

  41. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Our economic competitor the USA is just now hell-bent on us staying in the EU. Yeah, a competitor in swimming is not likely to win with lead water wings. Thanks USA for your welcome advise. God Bless. Try burying your electric wiring from the side of sidewalks. Ugly.

  42. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted April 20, 2016 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    I see the Labour MPs from “Up North” are all piling into London to support the Labour Party prospective Mayoral Candidate. Canon to the left of them, canon to the right of them. Canon is a very popular camera.

  43. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted April 21, 2016 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

    If we vote to Remain, then almost immediately the EU will try to implement the 5 Presidents Report, at the very least attempting to impose it on the existing EuroZone members. So what are the possible outcomes?

    Scenario 1: The Project succeeds and a European Federal Superstate (German Empire) is formed, combining all the existing EuroZone Member States plus those legally committed to join the Euro in due course. This state would have a population of over 500 million and be the European superpower that we have feared for centuries.

    Scenario 2: Some of the EuroZone Member States would join and some wouldn’t. This is the most likely scenrio. Blame would be heaped on Britain, not on the countries that wanted too much.

    Scenario 3: The Federal idea would fail completely and Member States would reinstate their national currencies, amidst disruption and bitterness.

    I note that the PM, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have not said a word on this subject. Whyever not? Is it not their job to plan and propose?

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

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

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

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

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page