A guide to getting out of the EU – we have a plan

GETTING OUT OF THE EU

 

 

The vote requires the government to take back control of our laws, taxes, borders  and spending. It left open how the negotiations would be handled. Vote Leave did rule out the Norwegian and Swiss models (and any other named country). By ruling out Norway the campaign also knowingly ruled out EEA membership, as this too entails accepting freedom of movement. Vote Leave said there would be a British model. The campaign argued that it could not predict what would result from the negotiation, but could live with the worst case which would be no special status, requiring the UK to rely on WTO rules.

 

WHAT DOES OUT LOOK LIKE

 

Model One

 

Special deal after negotiation:

The UK refuses to accept freedom of movement and explains the points based system to control numbers, geared to reducing total flows into low paid jobs. Also refuses to pay general contributions to EU budget. After haggling the rest of the EU decides they have a lot to lose from WTO levels of tariffs and other barriers against their exports to us. WTO allows 10% tariffs on cars which the Germans do not want, and much higher tariffs on some agricultural products which the French do not want, so there should be scope to bargain these down or keep zero as at present.

The City wants to keep the passports for services. There are ways round its loss, through the equivalence provisions of MIFID II and/or through subsidiaries in other countries. Most UCITs are anyway already based in Luxembourg or Dublin. The passports could be a trade off for not putting a 10% tariff on German cars. We also need to remember that many of them want passports to London as the largest market by far in the EU.

The ideal deal would be no new tariffs or barriers on access to single market, with no freedom of movement or contributions.

 

Model Two

 

No special  deal – exit and rely on WTO rules

 

The US imposes an average tariff of just 3.5% under WTO, with 45% of all items tariff free.   The EU imposes an average tariff of 5% on the rest of the world, which we can negotiate down as we develop trade deals with other countries in our own right. If they insist on their 5% average against us we will still be more competitive, as sterling has fallen by more than 5%.

 

BEST NEGOTIATING STYLE

 

Inject pace, and make clear we do  not want it to drag on for 2 years, as neither side rally wants that length of uncertainty. If they have no intention of giving in on money and movement then end the talks and go for WTO. If they will flex, then we can seek to persuade them that it is in our mutual interest not to place tariffs and barriers  in the way of their very profitable trade with us.

 

WE ARE ONLY OUT WHEN WE HAVE REPEALED THE 1972 ACT. 

 

We need to progress the repeal, transferring all EU law into UK law pending review and amendment. This could be done immediately, leaving the question of date of bringing into force until we know the negotiating timetable.

 

 

 

 

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

179 Comments

  1. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:23 am | Permalink

    Sounds sensible but under which leader?

    Now that the foolish Gove has stabbed Boris and shot himself in the foot it looks as though Leadsom is certainly better than the cowardly, tedious, bossy, remainer Theresa, but then almost anyone would be.

    Someone who can assure the nation that we have control of our borders under Schengen while still in the EU to try to win for remain is either a total fool or a blatant liar. We have had enough of that with cast iron, no if no buts, at heart a low tax conservative. Cameron was neither low tax nor even a conservative I suspect Mrs May is not either.

    Fortune hopefully favours the brave. Not pathetic, tedious fools or liars. Anyway grammar school girls are usually rather more in touch and rather brighter I find.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:15 am | Permalink

      Someone like Theresa, who accepted a position as Minister for Women and Equality clearly does not understand the meaning of the word equality.

      You can surely be one or the other but not both. Anyway things can never be made fair or equal unless you are a god perhaps. Trying to often causes more harm than good.

      Hopefully we will get a sensible leader and get rid of such silly names also the Dept. Of Energy and Climate change. Just Department of Energy will suffice please. If it must be longer then The Dept. of Reliable, Cheap and On Demand Energy will do.

      The number of departments and their huge costs could easily be halved and should be.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

        Lifelogic. If it must be longer then The Dept. of Reliable, Cheap and On Demand Energy will do

        Best title for a department ever!!!! Also makes a lot more sense.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

          JR, sounds good but who in your party agrees with you?

          May has already stated she will not get rid of ECHR after stating she would, not stopping freedom of movement either. Although the public voted leave if she gets into office of PM the public will be betrayed and we will have an EU light. Parliament and your party are mainly Remain supporters the exact opposite of the public vote and it appears will be acting against the public wish to leave the EU and all its controls over us such as ECHR. We want democratic self government and at also means getting rid of the Undemocratic five year parliament rule brought in by shyster Cameron.

          Therefore your first hurdle is to get someone into the office of PM who believes in leaving the EU and it appears Gove just mucked this up. Was his betrayal at the heart of his actions all along so that even if the public voted to leave we end up with a remain result?

          • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

            It appears Gove’s loyalty to Cameron remained after all. He knew he would never become leader and made sure no leave person would either. Is this correct?

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:23 am | Permalink

      LL

      Don’t get yourself distracted by an Tory internal tiff. The position of the PM matters not. The power is with the EU.

      We need to focus on leaving the EU.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:11 am | Permalink

        @Mark B; The position of the PM matters not. The power is with the EU. We need to focus on leaving the EU.”

        Isn’t that an oxymoron?! 🙂

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

          No its an analogy

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        Mark, Cameron is leaving (thank goodness) and has said he will leave Article 50 to his replacement. Unless parliament can do it without a prime minister, I fail to see how we can focus on leaving the EU without the new PM.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:01 pm | Permalink

          Agreed. Hence why it is so important to have a leave person to make sure we leave and we leave with the best possible deal for the UK not an EU light deal as some sort of associate member per the five presidents report! I am sure the likes of May will be happy to spin that we had to accept ECHR, freedom of movement and all other ties including a contribution to gain access to the single market.

        • Posted July 3, 2016 at 8:49 am | Permalink

          Parliament won’t do it, with or without a Prime Minister! Exactly the opposite, with its present membership Parliament will stop it.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      Peter Oborne has Osborne spot on, why oh why is he still around, running the country down and blaming his many abject failures now on Brexit. Someone needs to start undoing the huge damage this man has done to the fiscal system, the economy and confidence in the UK. They need to start cutting out the endless waste that is almost everywhere in government. Above all they need to address the appallingly incompetent NHS by addressing its huge systematic and structural problems. More tax payers money for it is not the solution at all.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3670905/PETER-OBORNE-Mr-Project-Fear-s-talking-Britain-go.html

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

        Osborne failed to meet envy one of his targets and now has the bare faced cheek to claim Brexit means abandoning his surplus! He was never going to achieve it as he did not achieve the structural balance by May last year! He is an utter failure and is now working hard to change the vote of leve to some EU light in acceptance of the economic conditions bollicks. He failed every one of his targets and as John Humphries recently said to him what do you have to do to get sacked!

        • Posted July 4, 2016 at 6:49 am | Permalink

          Indeed his whole tax borrow and waste, tax complexity increasing, IHT ratting, pension and landlord mugging agenda is entirely misguided.

      • Posted July 4, 2016 at 9:10 am | Permalink

        To say nothing about his ‘brilliant’ £2bn+ Stonehenge tunnel and the one which would cost 7x as miuch at Glossop running 20 miles under the Pennines to link up his Northern Powerhouse instead of the M62. A poerhouse urrently up and running, but fortunately not doing much,withan unelected Labour Mayor. Time to study wallpaper.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      We have Remianer lawyers angling for A50 needing approval in the HoC because there were so many on their side ie 48%. Then the 50% Con MPs and much higher proportion of opposition will make it impossible. When Corbyn was interviewed by A.Marr he was his usual honest but daft self and said clearly that Remain would mean unlimited immigration, which he and his Buy a Vote army support. They want a one world utopia run by Trots, trotting all over.

      When the professional politicians heard this they were horrified- to be a leader you have to know when to lie or avoid answering. Mrs May was on and said that we control our borders already and did not need to leave, hoping that enough viewers were thick enough to believe that showing a passport would control numbers. The Labour Mps about to form a New Labour party know how to lie too.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      May will be toxic for Brexit.

      For three days the country was left to run out of control during the 2011 riots and it took six years to get Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada out – even then they only left because they got bored with her.

      All she will do is keep us in the EU and keep the seat warm for the next Blairite which is why the BBC are quite keen on her.

  2. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:24 am | Permalink

    Has anyone seen an analysis of our economy in terms of exports and imports with an eye to wto rules?

    I would assume that our industry has been skewed by access to the customs Union however what would it actually mean on day one of wto rules in terms of tarifs and competitiveness?

    Which industries would then likely profit and grow, which would be at a disadvantage? How much would we likely raise on the £100 billion trade deficit? How much would our fisheries be worth with 100% of our quota back under our control? Given that this should be quite a handy figure surely investing in some patrol vessels is merely prudent and a show of intent.

    I note that the only official analysis claimed that 10yr gilts would increase in price by 40 to 100 basis points by now, seems to me they dropped by more than 50 and still seem to be dropping. None of its other conclusions look likely either, quite the opposite.

  3. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Thank you for laying this out, I agree with your KISS strategy.

    The government should plan, budget and spend on the basis of WTO-only now, any more beneficial arrangements subsequent to this point would be a bonus to accelerate deficit/debt reducation and/or fund goodies like HS2 or whatever.

    I believe the replacement leader and PM must be a brexit supporter from the off, not a conciliatory born-again ex-Remainer, and they have to start delivering significant returns against the promises for those most damaged by the EU before 2020. Fail in that and it won’t matter who is leader of the Conservative Party.

  4. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    (Hear hear on the low-paid labour flows)

    Will any progress be made whilst both major parties are undergoing leadership distractions of one form or another? Parliament, the current PM and the civil service ought to be getting all that can be prepared prepared. More of this needs to be visible so that the UK knows it is happening.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Hopefully the Civil Service will do what they think for once is right for the country. They will listen to sage advice with a detailed exit plan and to to someone with a simple bullet point sheet of paper.

      Know thy enemy. There are people out there who know the people we will be dealing with. They have very little good to say about them.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Sorry should read:

        . . . and NOT to someone with a simple bullet point sheet of paper.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        Unfortunately the biggest obstacles are in our own country.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink

      Additionally, Dr Redwood, w.r.t. Model 2, if UK WTOs with EU27 for now, it might have some chance of jumping onto the TPP, UK may not be anywhere near Pacific but there have been several articles discussing this before. US is an ally, and the TPP partners include Canada, Mexico, NZ, Aus, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan each of which have reasons to be keen for this.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        Caterpillar

        It would seem that the US are already moving a Bill through Congress for trade with the UK on the same terms as now, with a timescale for completion within one year.

        heatst.com/…/us-uk-trade-bill-in-congress-just-one…/

        I would suggest many more Countries will want to do the same.

        Far from being put at the back of the line, we have been put at the front by two Congressmen (who put the bill forward) who think the UK is worth something to the US, unlike their President.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

          Alan Juston,

          Thanks for the heatst read, excellent news.

          (I do hope the civil service have been tasked with looking at the TPP and hope the UK has reached out to signatories thereof, it does after all include the other four of the Five Eyes countries.)

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        Have you read the 5500 pages, to much power to US global corporations, investor protection, private courts. I am certainly not impressed with the Australian/New Zealand negotiators if they think TPP is a good deal. Equally how can shipbuilders like Korea, Japan and Vietnam accept it without access to American coastal water with the Jones Act still in place. Look it up.

        We need straight forward KISS free trade deals.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

          Tedgo,

          I don’t think KISS trade deals will be happening, hence the angst around Brexit.

          The returns to capital vs returns to labour (and to which labour) of TPP will probably vary with country, and I don’t know whether there has been modelling of this beyond US. But if migration is controlled, then countries in which the larger returns are to capital then they can introduce redistributive policies.

          NZ looks to benefit, Aus neutral and with largest net gains in Asia.

  5. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    We need to have Plan B and, preferably C also. And most importantly, be prepared to walk away. Your ideas fit the bill.

  6. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    It is useful to see a plan, but currently there is no one to implement it and without publicity the media will continue to spin the tale that “Leavers have no plan”. Hopefully both of these problems can be solved quickly.

    The major threat to the city of London has to be the merger of London Stock Exchange with Deutsche Boerse, which is still on. There is now no reason for Deautsche, which would hold a majority, not to strip the LSE in favour of Frankfurt. They are now suggesting that Brexit means the combined head office should be in Germany. Unless a regulator stops this, it represents a significant loss to the City’s future.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

      Politicians have sold this country short since the First World War. Patriotic they ain’t.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      The major threat to the city of London has to be the merger of London Stock Exchange with Deutsche Boerse, which is still on. There is now no reason for Deautsche, which would hold a majority, not to strip the LSE in favour of Frankfurt.

      ==================

      I wouldn’t buy into the deal.

      Regulators are pushing for fast settlements to reduce settlement risk.

      You have blockchain on the horizon.

      Block chain is instantaneous settlement effectively for free. No fees.

      Deutsche Boerse is going to go the way of the dodo.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

        The LSE is a tiny part of the financial sector. Worry far more about the loss of several hundred thousand jobs if we lose financial services passporting.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

          Tony Baverstock

          “Worry far more about the loss of several hundred thousand jobs if we lose financial services passporting.”

          Really? these 700,000 jobs ( thats 80% of ALL financial services jobs !!!!) are doing what that would cause them to be lost in the event of us losing passporting ? You do realise that the other EU countries need to do business in the London markets too right? So if they removed passporting it would hurt them as well. Oh by the way the LSE has a market capitalisation of £4 trillion. However a merger with owners of Frankfort or Toronto or any other suited is a business merger NOT to move London to somewhere overseas.

        • Posted July 3, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink

          I disagree about this being a small issue. The LSEG group moving to Frankfurt would take things like the AIM market with it. The LSEG 2016 report suggests that alone was “731,000 jobs, paid £2.3bn in tax and contributed £25bn to UK GDP” The whole market is suggested to be over 1% GDP. If the headquarters move as suggested following Brexit, this will no longer be part of UK GDP, and the fintech industry around the LSEG will decline or relocate.

          While people are working on keeping the financial passport, the LSE sale appears to be being overlooked, but it would still be a significant loss.

        • Posted July 4, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

          As a customer, I noticed that a lot of my insurance is through firms like Axa. Just as big continental car makers would not with things to change, would not these big financial firms put he screws on Junker and his empire builders? When I visited my French bank in London to repatriate my savings after being forced to close the local branch account the staff there spent some time telling me how much

  7. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    The referendum was about leave/remain, not about how we would leave, so the view of Vote Leave is irrelevant. It is up to the Government & Parliament to decide on that.
    The EEA option (as an interim measure) seems the best/most likely option and there is always Article 112 (the Liechtenstein option) to deal with immigration from the EU.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

      The EEA option would be the end game for the Remainiacs . A worse deal than we have now
      Free movement and large contribution under ECJ jurisdiction.
      No thanks.
      There is also a plan by the Remainiacs to shortlist 2 Leave candidates for Tory Party leader and find endless excuses for not implementing Article 50.
      .

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

        Should be 2 Remain cost candidates

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Ian Wragg: Free movement – solved by Article 112. And it only an interim quick fix solution while we negotiate something more long term.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      I fully agree. It is interesting that our kind host only ever talks about; “a new relationship with the EU” and never actually leaving ?

      reply I campaigned to leave, we voted to leave, and I have set out a plan to leave

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:50 am | Permalink

        Just because we voted to leave doesn’t mean that we will leave.

        https://euobserver.com/opinion/134158

        “As a UK national, I am sorry that our inept political establishment has caused this mess.

        As an EU citizen I accept that ‘in is in’ and ‘out is out’ and the fundamentals of the membership rules cannot be changed.

        But I would like our European friends to understand that many Britons do not think that the referendum outcome is sufficient for us to give up our European identity without a fight.

        The UK remain camp will seek to delay and reverse the referendum outcome using all democratically legitimate means.”

        • Posted July 3, 2016 at 5:26 am | Permalink

          The vote was not about giving up a ‘European identity’, it was about governance.

          • Posted July 3, 2016 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

            True.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply

        Not without invoking Article 50, which even the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission said was necessary before, I repeat, before talks can begin.

        If you want the EU to sit down and talk to us, you must first issue Article 50.
        No Article 50, no talks – simple !

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      bratwurst

      Yes of course we have to leave, but not with some half baked idea which then needs further negotiation years down the line.

      John has given a number of scenario’s.
      Plan one in my view being the most simple and straightforward, with plan two as a back up.
      You may of course even end up with some of plan one and some of plan two , but at least we and they need to know what we want at the outset, and above all we must be prepared to walk away from anything which is unsuitable for us. (Cameron’s huge mistake)

      The important thing is speed and momentum here, so the make up of the team is vital, as will be the will of our Government/new Prime Minister.

      The last thing we need is bit part negotiation with long time intervals in between, as that is no good for any future investment decisions, and if it all drags on too long may be tampered with/complicated by a change of government.
      Likewise for the same reason we do not need another general election anytime soon

  8. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    We needed this negotiation plan, now we need the team to implement it. They require intellect, deep knowledge, friendliness, languages, detail oriented, tenacious and brass balls. Not all in one person but I hope JR will be on the preparation team.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      Yes. I hear Oliver Letwin is to head the Team dealing with our exit negotiations.

      If you want to read what any subsequent deal may look like, I would like to direct you to the nearest public bin. And in this case, as he is involved, it would actually turnout to be the right place for it.

  9. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:21 am | Permalink

    Thank you for laying this out so simply, though it presumably isn’t that simple or else we wouldn’t need a building full of Civil Servants preparing costed options for the new Government. At least that’s what we’re all assuming they’re doing. I agree with others here that we should flatly refuse to budge on freedom of movement unless the haggling requires us to allow EU migrants with scarce skills who have a confirmed, highly prized job offer, engineers, doctors, pharmaceutical researchers etc. Then we start from WTO rules, given the drop in sterling and the fact that our £10bn net fee was compared to an average 7% anyway, and see where France & Germany wish to end up. I presume we’ll be able to source much replacement food from non-EU countries in due course which would offset higher prices with the EU.
    It looks likely that Tory MPs will favour Theresa May for leader, which is disappointing as she was clearly in the Remain camp and went into hiding during the campaign. This only confirms that they’re out of touch with party supporters who when polled always seemed to favour Brexit. The “final two” if not the winner must include a Brexiteer or the country at large will be very suspicious of the true intentions and motivation of a new Government team. So it looks like Andrea Leadsom is our new Thatcher-esque dark horse and I for one would take that risk against the “big beast” option of Theresa May whose flawed track record and “nasty party” comments of old make her much less endearing to the masses.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      There is masses of support for Leadsom with the public.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      It seems that Mrs. May was quite content to sit on the fence and let others do the dirty work, knocking huge political lumps out of each other, but at least they had the courage of their convictions. Now the decision is made, Mrs. May seeks to profit from the spoils of war. That is pretty low in my opinion. Coming across as ‘the unity candidate’ might wash with some of the more gullible parts of the Tory party, but it wont wash with those who can see right through it.

      Personally, I want no Remainiac residing in Downing Street at any time in the foreseeable future thank you. We have seen how untrustworthy and duplicitous these people have been during the past forty years, and we must now cast them aside wherever possible, or the EU could eventually be foisted upon us all over again. Unfortunately, the Tory party is lousy with such people. We must not let down our guard.

      And I notice the good old BBC never misses an opportunity to place seeds of doubt into people’s minds about whether the vote to leave was the right choice. Newsnight has been full of it, trying to drag up so-called ‘experts’ from wherever they can to fuel their cause. That will continue until there is a definite plan to negotiate our severance, and I urge that severance is far sooner rather than much later.

      Tad

  10. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    I am glad you are ruling out EEA and other template plans for Brexit. The ones you suggest are all eminently sensible., Apart from a few areas that the UK wishes to continue to cooperate in with the members states of the EU there is not much to negotiate. Although EU being a technocracy it will no doubt make everything very complicated. Bureaucrats have to justify their existence and show us how important they are. Otherwise we may wise up and sack most of them.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      A U turn by me. A compelling argument for remaining a member of the EEA on the Adam Smith site http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      Lichtenstein is a member of the EEA and as I understand it has considerable control over the free movement of EU labour. So no reason why the UK cannot have the same deal.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Sensible until the EU ask for an Article 50 declaration from the UK. No Art.50 not talks, no leaving the EU.

      All it would be is a series of endless talks going nowhere. The issue is to be kicked into the long grass. Just you watch.

  11. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    What are the reasons you are NOT on the negotiating committee? Why are you NOT standing for leadership? Your Models seem eminently sensible.

  12. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    A deal based on cars and agriculture doesn’t seem likely to offer much to the Central European countries whose interest seems to lie more with an agreement that enables their citizens to work in the UK. Unless we offer that I suspect we have to fall back on the WTO option. That appears to forfeit the UK’s ability to offer financial services in the EU, and that is one of our largest export earners.

    It seems to me we have to chose between allowing free movement of workers or getting poorer, and I think we have chosen to be poorer.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:40 am | Permalink

      Alan

      EU citizens can come to the UK when we have a points system, all they have to do is apply through the proper channels, like everyone else.

      It is of course up to OUR GOVERNMENT to place whatever limit they want on such a scheme NOT the EU or its Citizens.

      Thus WE then set the rules and control the numbers and Quality.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        The United Kingdom already has a points-based 5 tier visa system for migrants from outside the European Economic Area (EEA), wishing to come to the UK to work, study, invest or train. We have had it since Labour introduced it in 2006. You do not have to piss about importing a new one from Australia.

        EU migrant skilled persons, would apply for Tier 2, which currently says ‘skilled workers’ from outside the EEA with a job offer in the UK. It includes skilled workers who are transferred to the UK by an international company, skilled workers where there is a proven shortage in the UK, ministers of religion and sportspeople.

        It is at times like these, that you find out just how badly run this country has been for the last three decades. We have a parliament that can’t even remember which laws it passed and when!

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:43 am | Permalink

      This is the problem. There are just too many countries with too many differing needs. We cannot satisfy them all.

      If we invoke Art.50 and negotiate in good faith, even after 2 years with no deal we move into the EEA. We would then get control over our borders and much else besides. We could then negotiate from a position of strength once we have trade treaties with other countries and can purchase their cheaper and sometimes better goods.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      Alan, you are confusing the interests of Eastern European peoples and their governments who are decidedly not in favour of losing their young people to emigration or to the severe skill shortages that that creates. Furthermore, when it comes to negotiation on tarrifs, the voices of the producers as opposed to those of the parasitical alphabet soup in Brussels will be heard loud and clear.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      Uncontrolled mass free movement of persons within the EU makes us poorer.

  13. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Absolutely.

    If it is WTO then that is far far better than the EEC!

    It would encourage diversification and lead to us making more things. Our new partners will undercut some of mainland Europe.

    I can see factories being set up here to avoid tarrifs from places like Germany. British wine selling more and an explosion in market garden horticulture.

    Not interested in those wanting us to join the EEC

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      The EEC no longer exists, it was replaced by the EU.

      I assume you mean the EEA ? That is the European Economic Area or, as it is called, the Single Market.

      Outside the EEA we would be seen in the same way by the EU as any other country. So why would a company build factories here when they cannot escape the same tariffs but with higher labour and social cost compared to their native country ?

      I think you are basing your arguments more on anti-european emotion rather than sound knowledge.

  14. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:52 am | Permalink

    This is a sensible plan and a necessary plan. The underlying message to the remainers and the doubters and those who hesitate is “get over it and get on with it”.

    It needs a leader who is fully committed to this approach. That, I conclude, will be or actually is Andrea Leadsom and that your post (significantly in a different font) is the key element of her pitch for the leadership of the Conservative party. As a founder of the Fresh Start project she is well placed to understand how the EU is involved in so many stands of life in the UK and why it needs to change. If she makes it to the final two, I think she stands a good chance of winning.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

      Oldtimer.

      With you all the way on Andrea Leadsom.

      Not only do we need commitment but we need,belief and ownership and her performance in the debates clearly showed all three.

      Leading the right team Andrea could get us more than a good deal.

  15. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Model #1; This will not happen without freedom of movement, whilst you still seem to think we buy stuff from the EU out of some kind of charity. We buy because we need to buy, if tariffs are applied that will hurt us far more than it hurts others as they have a ready market elsewhere. 10% on so many makes and models of motor vehicle will hurt us far more, or substantially reduce the choice the UK fleet and consumer has, and as our own exports of UK assembled motor vehicles will also attract tariffs when entering the EU27 (or core components enter the UK from the EU27) there has to be uncertainty as to how viable many of the UK car and van factories will be.

    That said, I still favour Model #2. (Brexit should mean exit) and as quick as possible, in the years ahead tariffs etc will no doubt be revisited, the UK will find alternate markets to buy from or we will have re-industrialised and have no need to import so much. What is more important today is keeping our exports alive and flowing, and to that end perhaps we need to start quoting the true export figures that take into account the “Rotterdam fudge”, what is exported to the EU and what is exported to the world by way of the EU and hence at the moment often gets counted as an export to the EU.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

      When the pound v euro rate or the pound v dollar rate alters by more than the potential tariff rates we in the UK have still managed to trade and prosper.

  16. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    The time for negotiation is passed the EUSSR should be told they can either like it or lump it

  17. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Looks like an acceptable strategy, now all we need is a government to turn it into action. I have said all that is necessary about the two obvious candidates for leadership, neither of whom I could vote for. The first for his duplicity and the second because I see her as a Trojan horse, and not to be trusted. I speculate on how the Conservatives at large interpret it all. They seem to be stuck with what the parliamentary party hands down, and their loyalties are highly suspect. For sure you need to get it right or the door opens for UKIP.

    Once plan A is put into effect, to what extent can we who voted for leave anticipate the 100% support of the parliamentary party to put it into effect.

  18. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    If we end up with the WTO model what will be the implications for work travel and study by uk citizens in the EU and vice Versa?

    Which countries have indicated a desire for an early free trade deal with the U.K. As you posted yesterday?

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

      Richard1

      Which countries have indicated a desire for an early free trade deal with the U.K.

      So far the ones I’ve seen mentioned by senior officials or members of the government of each country have been Australia, New Zealand, India, Ghana, USA, Switzerland and Canada. The Pacific Association ( 210 million people in Latin America) Via member country Columbia and Iceland has issued an invitation to join Nordic Alliance.

  19. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Wrong ! All wrong.

    First of all, you never state that the UK is to leave the EU. Irrespective of what the official leave campaign thought of the world after BREXIT, the vote was to LEAVE the EU, not some EU-Lite membership.

    Your flaw is that you assume that you are dealing with reasonable people. You are not ! Remember, these are people who are more concerned with maintaining their fabulously paid and maintained positions (x1000 earn more than our PM) in the EU, than what happens to some country like Greece or the UK. They are not interested in trade, just power. Their greatest fear is the spread of what they call; “Contagion.” They are terrified that other countries will leave and accelerate the disintegration of the EU thereby weakening their power. To that end, they will seek to punish, or at least thwart your plans. They will not yield an inch, knowing that you have no intention of leaving the EU. You have effectively thrown away your own bargaining chip. They will endure

    It is the EU Commission that negotiates and signs trade deals not the governments of member countries. Merkel and Kenny do indeed have skin in the game, but the Commission does not. If they are happy to let the whole of EU rot, which they have so far, then so too will the UK.

    The ONLY LEGAL way to leave the EU is via Art.50, as you have been told countless times. On this matter, you are not only plainly wrong, you are in a minority. Your approach will lead the UK to be frozen out on a number of key agreements.

    Am I to take it that, your view for the UK is to remain in the EU but with, as you put it; “a new relationship ?” If so, you are committed to the concept of EVER CLOSER UNION with the EU and that includes political.

    What I find striking is, that so many people cannot see what the EU truly is. Guy Verhofstadt is a prominent MEP and a raging Eurofanatic. He gave a speech post BREXIT in which he explicitly stated that a report will be coming out in October on the future of the EU. In it, it highlights a need for full political union and an EU army. They are pressing a head.

    People need to understand this: You are either IN the EU or you are OUT. If you voted out, where does it say, a part from the headline, we LEAVE the EU ? It does not !

    Judas Goat me thinks.

    Reply My aim us to leave!

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 8:43 am | Permalink

      In terms of the law that matters most, our national law, it would be legal to leave the EU without making use of Article 50 TEU. However when the UK ratified the Lisbon Treaty it agreed that if any member state wished to withdraw then it should use that procedure, and that is where we should start. We can hold unilateral abrogation of the treaties in reserve in case the other governments muck us about.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      I saw an interview with the Commission official in charge of making us boil kettles and hoovering more slowly because he thinks it will save electricity, possibly on the Paxo programme. He was wearing the same sort of weird specs as Verhofstadt and sounded almost as bonkers. Whether he had a qualification in electical engineering or was a political appointment would be interesting.

  20. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    The trouble with these two Models is that th Remainers are hijacking the agenda. Cameron staying until October is a direct ploy to delay the process. If Mrs May gets in we will see no Brexit. She is an amoral careerist that has no problem changing her views for personal advantage. Even if she doesn’t get in there are plenty of alleged Leavers that aren’t really Leavers at all. In the meantime Washington, Wall St, the City and Brussels are all working to stop us leaving. This is a battle and a lot of Leavers don’t even see the enemy forces massing and surrounding us. The only to leave is to do it fast even if we have no agreements at all. Get us out now or fail.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      Did we know John Kerry had been here? I didn’t see it reported.

      Reported in Mercopress:

      “This is a very complicated divorce,” Kerry told the Aspen Ideas Festival, referring to Britain’s negotiated exit from the EU after last week’s “Brexit” referendum. Kerry, who visited Downing Street, said Cameron was loath to invoke “Article 50” of the Lisbon treaty, which would trigger a two-year timetable for departure.

      US Secretary of State John Kerry said that Britain’s vote to leave the European Union might never be implemented and that London is in no hurry to go. Speaking one day after talks with Prime Minister David Cameron, Kerry said the outgoing British leader feels “powerless” to negotiate a departure he does not want.

      Asked by the panel moderator if this meant the Brexit decision could be ”walked back“ and if so how, Kerry said: ”I think there are a number of ways.“

      ”I don’t as secretary of state want to throw them out today. I think that would be a mistake. But there are a number of ways,” he said.

      Washington has long supported a strong role for its British ally in the European project, and was dismayed when British voters chose last week to quit the Union”

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      Well, the man who authorised an official referendum booklet saying:

      “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

      is ducking out and leaving to somebody else to break that pledge.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      Tend to agree with you, Pete. Many of the Remainers with any sort of power or influence are endeavouring to keep us in. In the newspapers there is talk of a stitch-up in the competition for PM in favour of Mrs May.

      Our host has spent years getting the vote and subsequent result, and it appears that he will now have to keep on fighting to get an actual Brexit.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:49 pm | Permalink

        Surely, if a majority of MPs wish to stay in the EU, they will elect two Remainers as candidates for PM.
        In any case, as we all know, the referendum is only advisory.
        Sorry to state the obvious.

  21. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    I hope he government will take private soundings from business as to which model would be best. It would be a pity to announce a result and get a negative reaction and a lot of exits, closures, investment slow downs etc.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      I don’t think any group, be it big business, the City or British nationals living in the EU should be allowed to hold the 60+ million people in the UK hostage.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

      If we consult business they will want FOM for cheap labour and won’t care a fig about how much taxpayers’ money continues to flow to Brussels.

      In short, if we listen to them we will be staying in.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

      We do not need business to tell us how to run our country and how we wish to be governed thank you.

      Business need stable government, a skilled and plentiful workforce and good infrastructure. That way they can make long term plans and investments and can get their goods and services to market. Government also provides a stable regulatory and tax regime which is beneficial to their needs.

      We are talking about democracy not jobs.

      • Posted July 3, 2016 at 8:35 am | Permalink

        I’d be careful of that argument if I were you. If people start to feel a threat to their livelihoods support for Brexit will evaporate. We need maintenance of business confidence.

  22. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:28 am | Permalink

    Good sensible and simple plan, well explained.

    Now it needs a leader to take it through. Coming from the Brexit side and with a knowledge of the City, Andrea Leadsom could be the one. Don’t know enough about her to be sure.

    The accepted wisdom that the single market is ultra-important will be shattered if we can make the WTO model work.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      She has done the preparation and will do fine. I await the debates with interest when she will walk all over (intellectually and in practical Brexit measures) Theresa May….. They are desperate to just keep this to the Tory MPs. Party members must be given the opportunity to express their opinion on Mrs May and her Damascene conversion….

      zorro

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        Dear Zorro–Which Damascene conversion? If you mean she is now saying that she has become pro Leave I cannot have been paying attention. As for Gove, he is always described as very clever–pity he wasn’t clever enough to realise that his support, such as it was, would vanish like a puff of smoke after treachery of this order. Whether he was being, or intended to be, treacherous has got nothing to do with it: surely he should have had the nous to work out people weren’t going to like it. The idea of his having an epiphany at one minute to midnight again was obviously not going to be believed, whether true or not. Don’t often agree with Clarke but Gove should jump under a bus.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

          Boris was not decisive enough when he needed to be. Such is life.

          zorro

  23. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:34 am | Permalink

    Our membership of the Single Market is something that needs to be challenged . So far the Remainers have been allowed to witter on about its importance without ever having been made to quantify it. It is uttered as some from of incantation by its supporters without them ever having been made to justify it, and being used as some sort of holy grail that our Brexit negotiators should do everything to achieve in their negotiations.

    What does the single market add in value to our trade?

    The only report I have seen that has sought to quantify its value to us is by the independent German research company , Bertelsmann, who estimated it was worth no more than Euros 10 per head to us per year, in total in the region of £500 million. If correct this is peanuts. As such, if supporters of the Single Market are not just plain ignorant to its value to our economy, then one begins to suspect it is being used as a Trojan horse to get the policy they are really after, the policy they have lost the argument on, that of free movement of people and continued mass immigration.

  24. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    “We have a plan.”

    Yes, but I still have a sneaking suspicion that we have been massively outplayed by the government who had probably been planning for just this eventuality years ago.

    E.g. how to safeguard bankers’ interests? Get a banker to stand for parliament. Then IF Boris wins the referendum, how to prevent him being elected PM and get the banker elected instead? Get Gove to knife Boris, engendering huge public sympathy for Boris, Boris banks the banker and public support switches to the banker.

    Oh! Andrea Leadsom was a banker?

    (I hope I am wrong on the conjecture above, and my support is currently for Andrea Leadsom who appears to have genuine Eurosceptic opinions. With John Redwood of course either for Chancellor or highly placed in the Brexit negotiating team. I can’t support anyone supported by the likes of Ken Clarke, Osborne or Mandelson.)

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      Typo: Boris backs the banker, not banks the banker!

  25. Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    Good. Clear. Just lay it out for them (whoever ) It will be read.

  26. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Er, well? Get on with it then.

    There is a lot of policy to develop on other issues … eg BASIC Income, all public finances on block chain … instead it seems that we’re wading through treacle when we’ve got what should be a done deal.

    Also, you talk of negotiation as though there will only be one negotiation. We could all live with the worst of your models and when both parties agree that it is crap: re-negotiate. Except that the re-negotiation would be done against the background of the new reality of an independent sovereign state negotiating with a failing anti-democratic globalist institution. The sooner we get to this position, the clearer it will be for everyone who doesn’t have the vision, to see it. Not forgetting of course that this is a dynamic process, as 27 goes to 26 we will need to re-negotiate, bearing in mind that a crap EU deal may put pressure on 27 to go to 26 …

  27. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Lichtenstein has eea without free movement so it’s got to be a good bargaining chip

    Also how will the European communities act get repealed when most mps do not support brexit?

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

      It’s in Schengen though which defeats the propose of avoiding free movement…..

      zorr

  28. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    John,

    Will we not need a Mutual Recognition Agreement with the EU so that our products do not require to be checked at EU borders? Without this our products will be sitting at EU borders causing delays which would adversely affect all of the just-in-time supply lines.

    How can we ensure that the MRA is achieved?

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      Isn’t the CE mark designed to show that a product complies with the regulations? We do not trade with the EU commission, only the member states signed up to it. We could all trade successfully minus the EU. The WTO option would show this and hasten it’s demise.

  29. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    Both options seem good John but what is important is having the right leader to follow these options to the letter and not bowing to demands from Europe. Andrea Leadsom is the right one for me. I would trust a leaver more than May. Whatever happens, we do not want any part of the EU, do not want to pay any contributions especially in light of the fact that Italy is failing big time, do not want freedom of movement or tarrifs.

    The politicians must be made to understand that we want what we voted for and what we were promised. LEAVE means LEAVE. It does not mean picking bits and joining this part and not that. It does not mean a Norway solutions. It means having back control (complete control) over our sovereign nation and going forward into the world to do better things. Please don’t let the establishment take this away from us.

  30. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I would be reassured if JR is on the negotiating team, preferably leading it. Getting the 1972 Act repealed looks like a major stumbling block, unless Labour can be brought on board, the Remain Conservative side led by Heseltine and Clarke in their school childish (although now elderly men) fit of pique, seem ready to vote down any Brexit measures, even if that would be non-democratic after the Referendum result.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      Why I doubt the voting intentions of some MPs.
      I doubt the credentials of some MPs because I have heard all the excuses that the people get from them, such as, although I represent my constituents I am not bound by them, I have to follow my own principles and vote accordingly, circumstances have changed so I must change my vote. In effect, some MPs do their own thing once elected and seem to care little for the views of the voting public, especially if in safe seats and are therefore unlikely to be held to account at the next election.
      Whether they would have the effrontery to vote against a democratic referendum vote (although not binding) we will have to wait and see, but this is one of the reasons why politics in general is held in such low esteem.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        Indeed …

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        They would have that effrontery.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

        The venomous vendetta against Brexit is gathering, with Sky and the BBC promoting it round the clock. The excuse given is that we were lied to.

        I do hope someone will rebut this and make clear the lying was on the other side, together with threats and bullying, both physical and moral. Were any Remain meetings broken up? Did any Remain speakers, apart from Cabinet ministers, have to have bodyguards? Did any Remain speakers have hundreds of death threats made against them on line? Were Remain speakers consistently shouted down and interrupted? Are Reamain voters being subjected to abuse and incitement now?

        Young people were lied to by Remain and came to believe they wouldn’t be able to travel abroad. Old people were told they would lose their pensions and their bus passes. Everyone was told peace in Europe was at stake and the economy would crash. They really came to believe that the EEC was set up to preserve peace in Europe when in fact it was to stop the French farmers and later the Italians going communist. That is what people were worried about in the fifties. There was a common enemy facing the Western European countries and they weren’t going to fight each other. NATO provided the security. No-one died in the war for the European Union. They died for national independence and freedom from foreign rule.

        Everyone was misled on the £350: it was in fact £365 and the rebate is precarious to say the least. It is not what it was when Mrs T negotiated it (Blair surrendered part of it), and it is in constant danger of being taken back again as the other countries plead poverty over further enlargement; and the contribution goes up steeply.

        This argument, that those who voted to Leave were lied to, is being orchestrated to such an extent that the perpetrators are coming to believe their own propaganda. It is in this way that the MPs will be persuaded to overturn the result of the referendum, and the electorate will support them. It must be countered.

        • Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

          Sorry, £350 million and £365.

  31. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    I was reminded of the winner of the “IEA Brexit prize” (search term for those who wish to download it in case JR hasn’t time to approve link given in reply to this) – strangely, Iain Mansfield has not been mentioned that I have seen ever since the government insisted he make no public appearances after he won. His solution may not be quite the idea one, but it has many sensible features. There are some useful guides to alternatives, including reasons why the EEA may not be the right answer and other issues such as trade with the rest of the world in his paper, which only loses a little from now being 3 years old.

    Mr Mansfield was posted Manila, working on trade – proof indeed of exile of capable diplomats as far away from the EU as possible. He should be recalled to join the Brexit unit, as he clearly has the flexibility of mind needed to think of positive alternatives and to think ahead about potential obstacles and how they may be surmounted.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink
      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink

        This would ideally be achieved by
        joining the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), similar to Norway, Iceland
        or Switzerland, but could also be achieved by joining European Union
        Customs Union (EUCU), similar to Turkey

        ===============

        Wrong. The problem with his analysis is that he doesn’t consider the option of walking away from a bad deal.

        How about a deal where the EU pays the UK? Why is that not considered?

        Its because its a paper by someone in favour of Remain, wanting to push a scare story about Brexit.

        The UK holds all the cards.

        When ever someone gives you a choice of A, B and C, alarm bells should be ringing.

        Namely which options have they left off. Is there a D, E, F, ….

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

      The plan that he submitted was a basic ‘cut-n-paste’ job from others. Little was original or his.

      The iea were so embarrassed by it, the whole thing, as you have yourself stated, was quietly dropped.

  32. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    The word is going out – ANYONE BUT MAY
    and I have to agree.

    I like your plan, trade without freedom of movement.
    Events are moving in Europe, EU member states are planning Referendum’s.
    They no longer want Schengen and freedom of movement. Rule from Brussels is no longer welcome.

    I believe we can have what we want without any concessions.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but does, “Anyone” have a veto ?

      Thought not.

      May it is then.

  33. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Model one strikes the right note with me ; immigration control is the vital ingredient . If we introduce incentive tax breaks for financial institutions it should prevent losses .

    The negotiating style John outlines also is right ; it is much better to clear the lines at the outset and move on from there .

    Overall I am very confident we have the weight on our side ; the EU is in turmoil and will have more difficulty coming to a negotiating norm .

    I hope Johns’ recommendations are heeded and that he plays a prominent role in guiding the process .

  34. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    Very sensible, Dr JR. The most important thing to do is to keep faith with the British electorate.

    Once a new leader is appointed, the first parliamentary act should be repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The Conservative government can then say, ‘look, we’ve done what you asked’, setting up a degree of trust that will be critical in the next general election campaign. Silencing the Remainian rump with an early decisive act will help them confront reality and accept that Leave is here to stay.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Remain are working hard to convince the Leave voting public that they have made a dreadful mistake.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:29 am | Permalink

      That sounds good and bold but potentially it would be catastrophic.

      If we had a new Prime Minister next week and she immediately exercised Royal Prerogative to send in the Article 50 notice then there is a still a good chance that would succeed. The longer it is left, the more likely that the Remain camp will get sufficiently organised to challenge and eventually defeat it.

      On the other hand if we had a new Prime Minister next week and she immediately introduced a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 then it seems unlikely that she could even get a majority for that Bill at every stage of its passage through the Commons, notwithstanding the disarray in the Labour party.

      Yes, some MPs would say “This isn’t what I wanted but it’s what the people want”, while some will be more worried about the next election, however there are others who would be absolutely determined to block the Bill and could well succeed.

      And that is just the Commons, the chance of getting the repeal through a House of Lords packed with pro-EU unelected legislators-for-life seem very slim.

      • Posted July 3, 2016 at 2:58 am | Permalink

        Dear Denis–Doesn’t do much good saying “if only” but for once in his life it would have been jolly nice if only Cameron had done what he said he would do–Cannot imagine anyone would have argued, not successfully at any rate, if he had triggered Article 50 immediately and stayed on as he very much and many times said he would do. Not that I wanted him to stay on as such but the present limbo is even worse. I increasingly think we should trigger ASAP and damn the torpedoes (Not that Nelson had to face torpedoes but “the boldest move is the safest”). We should keep saying that rEU net export to us and we will, if and only if they are reasonable, allow them to keep on doing so. Apart from all else, the whole shebang with the EU has been much exaggerated, meaning exports are only a small proportion of our GDP and to EU well less than half of that. If the pound stays down and our ridiculous import bill goes down with it the very need for exports diminishes abruptly. Why isn’t it obvious that the pound should stay down? Again it is not that I want that per se but very obviously at least to me that is what the correct floating rate should be. BTW I don’t buy the business about piling on more debt just because it is cheap at present. Isn’t that what happened to Greece when they thought they had died and gone to Heaven on back of low Euro interest rates?

  35. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Inject pace, and make clear we do not want it to drag on for 2 years, as neither side rally wants that length of uncertainty

    ==================

    Well the EU says out first. You know when Junker says jump to keep your feet firmly on the ground.

    Here’s an idea. Stop paying them now. Zilch. They have jumped the gun excluding the UK from discussions before article 50 is invoked. So stop paying them.

    Then when Junker wants to discuss it, say you will add it to the back of the agenda.

    I’d bypass the EU completely. Start talking with Merkel.

    If necessary, include the option of shit stirring. Namely offering advice to people to who want to bail out.

    I’d negotiate first with Norway, Switzerland, free trade deals. That enables them to go to the EU and stop paying money for access to the UK market.

    The big thing that May and others need to state is quite clear. Would you be prepared to walk away from any EU deals? If the answer is no, they don’t get any votes.

    In the case of May, she would make a good PM. HOWEVER, she was a remainer. She has to be absolutely clear, and in public and in writing, she has to hand over the negotiations to brexiters.

    Remember too that the UK has the upper hand.

    1. The EU would have a PR and financial disaster if the UK went WTO. Imagine Junker having to admit that the EU has to pay the UK (net) post Brexit.

    2. The EU’s next disaster is lots of unemployed migrants coming home, looking for work.

    3. It’s got a problem when it can’t export its unemployed to the UK.

    4. Tariffs hit German cars hard, French farmers hard.

    .. .

  36. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    This article in der Spiegel which I linked to yesterday, about the power struggles within the EU is highly significant to the current debate, and it demonstrates how vital it is that we have a Brexiter PM and team in place urgently, and not Theresa May, with her supporters, who are mostly establishment and Remainers.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-triggers-eu-power-struggle-between-merkel-and-juncker-a-1100852.html

    Merkel, Schauble and others are engaged in a battle with the Commission, (which wants swift departure) and are likely I believe to come out on top. Merkel favours drawing things out, plus a compromise, so Theresa May, a Remainer, would greatly suit her plans, which are to keep the UK in the EU in some way or other. This compromise would not be beneficial to the UK as we would still be effectively controlled by the EU, and still be liable for regular and ever growing financial contributions. We have voted to be free from all of this, and that wish should be honoured. It cannot, in my view, be achieved with a Remainer as PM.

    I am very unimpressed by May’s stance during the Referendum, which seemed more about keeping her job so that she could then try for leadership. An aside: The Freedom Association has an interesting post reminding us of her actions which seem to entail curtailing our freedoms (not something I expect from a Conservative). They urge not voting for May.

    My own preference is for Andrea Leadsom, who I believe is honest and sincere and utterly committed to Brexit. Wonderful videoclip of her on Facebook/Leave.eu website at a Sun debate. Strong, bold, coherent. Excellent in my view and such a contrast to an establishment stitch up candidate.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      “9:42am

      Theresa May could be PM within days – but Andrea Leadsom is picking up Brexit-backing MPs’ support

      Theresa May could be Britain’s next Prime Minister within days, it has been suggested.

      Other candidates are expected to drop out of the race over the next few days and the final rival contender may well decide to step back in the interests of fostering party unity without the need for a drawn-out leadership contest.

      Anna Soubry, the business minister and a prominent EU supporter, said that it would be better for Britain to prevent further uncertainty from continuing until September. She told LBC Radio: “It would be best if the candidates among themselves could just back one person and then we can get on with it. This uncertainty — for this to drag on till September — is not great for our country.””

      Well if Soubry thinks that we know to think the opposite, we definitely do not want a coronation of her preferred candidate.

      Out of the others, Leadsom seems the least untrustworthy. Not May, who was happy to opt back into the EU Arrest Warrant and so put all of her innocent constituents at risk of arbitrary arrest and summary deportation to rot in some foreign gaol for many months without any specific charges being laid.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        I should have said “the least untrustworthy with a chance of winning”.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

      Thanks for the link.

      It does appear, from this article, that Merkel is looking for some way to keep the UK in the EU by playing for time – no doubt the reason we are hearing similar noises from the Remain camp in the UK (aided and abetted by the BBC and other media). It reinforces my view that the next Conservative leader must be a convinced Brexiteer, ready, willing and able to get on with it. By a process of brutal elimination, that should be Andrea Leadsom. May did not support Brexit; and she wants to play for time. Charles Moore has written a compelling article in today’s Daily Telegraph on the reasons why she should not be the next PM.

      • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

        I agree.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      The German’s have suddenly discovered that it is time the EU budget was reduced – Quell surprise. That is because they and a few others are going to have to pay more, which will not go down well with the electorate next year.

      I guess they are really regretting not giving, Cameron the trifles he asked for.

  37. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    People may not be able to express why they are against immigration, but there are two issues.

    1. The UK Government selling state services below cost to optional migrants.

    2. The effect on wages of the low paid.

    There’s a very simple solution.

    Introduce a migrant minimum wage, set at the level where that migrant, on average, generates the taxes to pay for the services current and future costs.

    Alternatively introduce a migrant minimum tax. It amounts to the same thing.

    I’d make that public and go over the heads of the EU, EU country leaders, direct to the EU public.

    You’ll find that they say, yes, we should do the same.

    Points based systems don’t work.

    1. The people who made the current mess end up running it.

    2. Someone can have the points and still not work out. You are then lumbered with them. They have selected net consumers, people who don’t pay sufficient tax to cover their costs.

    3. Those MPs/Civil servants will also reject people who would have made a positive net contribution

    The minimum wage or tax approach doesn’t suffer from that.

    Any one of the above is better than the current set up.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      There also needs to be the will to (I’m afraid to say) kick people out who are not working. Do we have the stomach and resources to do this ?

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

      You seem to have inadvertently perpetuated the narrative that the main problem with inwards migration is that it lowers the pay of the less able Briton’s .

      Many of these migrants are younger , fresher , better educated * , better trained , more capable than less able Briton’s .

      * the old Eastern European communists were serious about education of everyone and counties like Poland continue this ethos .

      When faced with choosing between a less able Briton and a well over qualified superstar migrant , the less able Briton cannot compete .

      The effects on the marriages and children of the now indefinitely unemployed / underemployed Briton are devastating .

      I agree with you that having a certain minimum taxable income is a great objective .

      However , like most things in real life , it is difficult to administrate . A migrant might for instance be a contractor and have a lumpy income stream – yet charge a high daily rate when the work is available . They could earn 100k one year and nothing the next and 40k the following .

      Perhaps the visa’s should be conditional on only a certain type or types of work being undertaken .

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      The welfare state is unfundable with the current cost structure. This is probably the same all over Europe , with or without the EU. See the govt deficits ballooning even under the so-called “austerity” of Osborne. You have two choices in such a situation, default on welfare payments or try and build the tax base. The former is politically impossible, you’d have a riot, and the second can be attempted by mass immigration of taxable workers.

      Brexit patently does not have a clue of all the implications of what they have done. They could gain the sealed borders they crave and then either be buried under fiscal debt or lose the welfare state. Hobson’s choice !

      We have reached the endgame and it look very ugly. Best the people wake up to the consequences.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      Let us be honest with ourselves here.

      You cannot have an open door immigration policy and a ‘free at the point of service’ social care system. The pull factors are simply too great. One or the other has to go ! Question is, which one ?

      I will be happy with an open borders MASS immigration system but no government support of any kind. No NHS. No Social housing. No benefits of any kind. No minimum wage etc. An absolute lansfaire economy. Many people, quite rightly and understandably would not. So what is it we the people want ? This the political class have to find out and act upon it.

      • Posted July 4, 2016 at 1:36 am | Permalink

        So , what you are saying is instead of “let them eat cake” , is “let them starve” ?

        Woe betide any of your offspring fall on hard times and you are not in a position to help them .

        You disgust me .

  38. Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    It is essential to repeal the 1972 Act before formal negotiations commence; CMD has demonstrated how negotiating with the Brussels regime from within is good for a few cordon bleu dining experiences accompanied by the most expensive wines to suit the most exacting senses of entitlement of the world’s greediest troughers, but not much else.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      Are you expecting the pro-EU majority of elected MPs, and the pro-EU majority of unelected legislators-for-life in the Lords, to decide that they will respect the will of the people and allow that repeal to pass, multiple stages in each House?

      • Posted July 3, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

        An interesting question, Denis: the answer depends on who becomes the leader of the Tory party and who becomes the leader of the Labour party bearing in mind that a significant majority of both Conservative voters and Labour voters voted for the end to rule by the Brussels regime. The HoL, if push comes to shove can be either persuaded or bludgeoned into not signing its own death warrant.

  39. Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

    This statement by Andrea Leadsom confirms my worst fears about Theresa May:
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/685517/Andrea-Leadsom-swipe-Theresa-May-Theresa-May-leave-EU
    ‘She doesn’t believe in leaving the EU’ Andrea Leadsom takes swipe at Theresa May
    “..And in a swipe at Mrs May, the Brexit-backer said the new leader “must be a Leave supporter” rather than someone “who is reluctantly following the wishes of the people”.

    Mrs Leadsom said: “I think it’s very difficult for somebody who doesn’t agree with that, who is reluctantly following the wishes of the people. I think it’s quite hard for them to really see the opportunities.

    “I genuinely believe that if we want to make a go of it then we need somebody who believes in it.”…

    Mrs Leadsom said the debacle (Boris/Gove issue) had been a “real tragedy” but kept open the possibility of taking both men into the Cabinet if she won.She told the Telegraph: “I got to know Michael and Boris during the campaign and I think both of them were absolutely committed to Leave. “It would be important to have key people who were able to be competent and also believe in the project….”

  40. Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    JR: “We need to progress the repeal, transferring all EU law into UK law pending review and amendment. ”

    This is interesting, but raises a question in my mind. What is the status of EU law if we have to ‘repatriate’ the 43 year block of legislation?

    Are you saying, for minimum disruption, we should repatriate EU regulations ‘en masse’ then repeal the ’73 act?

  41. Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    That’s a sensible plan that should not require 2 years of negotiations.

    A quick settlement – even if we end up with WTO rules – is good for business.

  42. Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Can the Conservative Party please hurry up and select a new leader, then the Government get on with implementing Brexit and sorting out the constitution of the UK? That way we can all get on with our lives and stop living in this limbo.

    Whichever candidate is likely to do this and choose a cabinet with the same attitude would get my vote and might actually stand a chance of winning the next GE.

    Quick, before Labour regroups!

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      Too late. The incumbent Tory Prime Minister did not do what he had repeatedly promised/threatened to do and immediately trigger Article 50, and now the next Prime Minister will have to beat opponents in the High Court to establish her constitutional right to do that. Then if she wins there she will probably have to win again in the Supreme Court. Whether euro-enthusiasts would have the brass neck to then try to take it on to the EU’s Court of Justice to pronounce upon our national constitution is debatable. It not exactly reassuring that the leading candidate has a track record of losing court cases.

  43. Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Dr Redwood,
    Goodness knows how you find time to continue posting excellent articles. We picked your site as the best of all MP sites for intelligent Referendum pieces during the campaign and promoted it, as you know.
    Yesterday morning we called Andrea Leadsom’s office to say we were recommending her candidature for Conservative Leader and PM. If anyone wants to know more about her they can look at the fact boxes on our news page to see why we feel this way. All facts are carefully researched as ever.
    We echo other readers, Dr Redwood, in saying that we feel you should have a senior role in the new Government.
    Best wishes, the Facts4EU.org team
    http://facts4eu.org/news.shtml

  44. Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    Before anyone posts a plan to leave can I suggest they do some research. Financial services passporting is vital for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK. You cannot just dismiss it with comments like a) MIFID 2 may offer an option, MIFID will not be implemented till 2018 and only then can you apply for passporting from outside the EU, the application process is then likely to take 2 years. b) the institutions will already have regulated entities in the rEU. Your correct and that is where the jobs will be moving to unless you get a better plan than you have now.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

      Dear Tony Beaverbrook

      Oh my word you tell people to do some research without having done any yourself. NO passporting does NOT affect 100,000’s of jobs. Of the £79 billion of business done by Financial Services £19 billion is done with the EU. There are just over 1,000,000 people employed in Financial Services in total in the UK. As the bulk of those work in retail banks, building societies and insurance companies & brokerages even if every single job dealing with other EU counties was lost ( they won’t be) it doesn’t add up to anything remotely approaching your numbers

  45. Posted July 2, 2016 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    “WE ARE ONLY OUT WHEN WE HAVE REPEALED THE 1972 ACT.”

    Not so, we are only out when the government revokes the instruments of ratification of the EU treaties. If Parliament – not the government – repeals the 1972 Act that will mean that there is no longer any guarantee that the EU treaties and laws will be faithfully observed in the UK, but it will not free the UK as a state – which in this context means Her Majesty’s Government – from any of the obligations under the EU treaties and laws which were previously accepted when the successive EU treaties were ratified.

    From the Glossary here:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/293976/Treaties_and_MoU_Guidance.pdf

    “Ratification: follows signature and signifies the consent of a state to be bound by the
    treaty.”

    Ratification of the EU treaties was only possible after they had been approved by Acts of Parliament to ensure their domestic implementation, but conversely repeal of the Acts to approve the treaties does not itself cancel the instruments of ratification through which the UK signified its consent to be bound by those treaties.

  46. Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Useful of Matthew Parris to reveal the Remainiacs strategy in quite such detail today:

    1) May is coronated as leader without troubling with a vote of the membership – he thinks this would happen if she got an overwhelming number of MPs votes
    2) Two years of negotiations on an exit deal
    3) A second referendum on the exit deal

    Of course knowing this the EU would have no incentive at all to offer ANY concessions during the negotiations. This plan is fairly clever, probably Osborne’s. It needs to be STOPPED at point (1).

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      Add to this May’s stated intention of delaying the next General Election. Why is this significant? Because she knows it could upset the pro-EU majority in the House of Commons, which is clearly essential for the Remainiac strategy. UKIP could take many Labour seats, and Tory associations could even jettison their pro-EU MPs. Indeed Labour itself could field more anti-EU candidates.

  47. Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Please JR, do you understand the need for much larger government deficits (7DIF)? Scotland and London won’t want to leave the UK if GDP growth is running at close to 10% in real terms per annum.

    Massive tax cuts should be priority regardless.

  48. Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    10 out of 10 for Owen Patterson telling BBC newscaster to get over herself as they backed the wrong horse.
    No mention of Deutsch Bank being on life support or rerun of Austrian election just doom and gloom about UK economy.
    They really need a good slapping.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Ian

      Off switch – Nationally

  49. Posted July 2, 2016 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    John
    This seems so simple and straightforward. Why are these proposals not being aired by other Conservative politicians?

  50. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    I read that parliament has to approve of any negotiating stance such as an end to free movement of people. If this is so we could be thwarted. If someone could assure me that this will not be the case I should be grateful.

  51. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Your plan is the only one that works. I would go straight for Option 2. Why waste time ? Brussels are never going to agree to an unequivocal end to FOM and budget contributions.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that Gove can’t win and if she gets the job, Andrea will have time to firmly establish her position and convince voters that she can be a good PM before 2020. It’s clear that Labour don’t have anyone that could beat her, or Gove or May for that matter.

    Andrea has a very familiar-looking pair of steely female eyes and I’m sure she could stand up to Merkel and would wipe the floor with Juncker or Hollande in her sleep.

    If May were to win, and is surrounded by Brexiteers, it is possible that we will still be able to leave – after all, she has said Out means Out. Can there be, any doubt that, should May be elected and then backtracks, there will be more than 51 Brexiteer MPs prepared to put up a new leadership challenge ? That should not be necessary, as she knows only too well that’s what will happen, as night follows day.

    I only hope that after Tuesday evening there is no deal done to put May in post without a further vote. That’s what May’s team will be aiming for because, if it does go to the members, I suspect Andrea being a committed Brexiteer, could well win.

    Article 50 could be triggered sometime next week.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      Too late, an application for judicial review has already been made and now the government cannot act until the court has given its approval, if it does.

  52. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    There are many interesting observations above, which highlight the underlying political complexities of leaving:
    – The Leave campaign won by a slim margin – we know what 52% voted against, however the necessity for this discussion at all evidences it is not at all clear what Leavers voted for. There is considerable diversity in the views of leave supporters, depending on whether they were motivated by constitutional/sovereignty arguments, migration arguments, or a combination of both
    – Remain won 48% of the vote, a substantial and difficult to ignore chunk of the electorate. Given the splits among Leave voters on what they voted for, this group may in practice represent a plurality of the electorate in terms of a group with a reasonably coherent political outlook. This is an inevitable conclusion unless you assume the 52% are united in their view of what Britain’s role and position vis a vis the EU and the world should be post exit.

    Many Remain voters may prefer the UK to remain in the EEA or a similar deal, as it maintains the current economic trading arrangements, allows freedom of travel and work etc which they clearly value. Yes, this outcome is obviously be worse than where we are currently – we would still be subject to EU law, still paying in etc, but without any say in what those laws are, but many (most?) Remainers will see this as a better outcome given the alternatives, which they voted against, being offered. Hence Theresa May, small c conservatism including a shying away from radical change appears a far more electable proposition.

    In the words of a spokesman for the Institute Suisse (the Swiss CBI) “back to square minus one”.

    What a shambles

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

      They voted to leave the EU.

      The question on the ballot paper was whether we should Remain in the EU or Leave the EU, and the outcome was a vote to Leave the EU.

      It was NOT a vote in favour of any particular alternative arrangement.

  53. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    I’ve just been reading this depressing article:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/01/europhile-crybabies-want-to-kill-off-british-democracy-so-we-mus/

    “Europhile crybabies want to kill off British democracy, so we must fight to protect it all over again”

    Well, thanks, I probably haven’t got another 18 years left in me but if I have I don’t want to spend them fighting the same battle again because despite a near-miraculous referendum victory politicians who say they want to leave the EU won’t insist that the government must take the bull by the horns and tell the EU that we are leaving.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      They cannot handle the fact that, for years, they have offshored their responsibilities to us. Now suddenly, they are faced with that terrible prospect and all that it entails.

      I think it high time that those who do not wish to do the job they were employed to do, should resign their seat and let someone else do it.

  54. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    John, please make sure there isn’t a stitch up where May is made leader without a vote, like when Brown took over. If May becomes PM she will not let us leave the EU, she will wait 6 months and then let us down.

    Please vote for Andrea Leadsom who seems a very capable person and a leaver.

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink

      Brown made sure that no one, and I do mean no one, dared stand against him.

      He made sure he was not going to be denied that which he saw as his.

  55. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    John – If Theresa May is the new PM we are in trouble. She is so far out of her depth its a joke but she is good at acting the part and is propped up by the wet quislings in your party.
    Not only do I not trust her but she will keep the same useless people in place. The cabinet will still consist of Soubry, Crabb, Osborne, Rudd, Greening, Morgan, Oliver Leftwing etc.
    Time to get nasty John and start telling the members some home truths about our Home Secretary!

    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 6:37 am | Permalink

      Whilst I share some of your and others beliefs about Mrs. May, I can think of no better recruitment sergeant for other political parties.

      Mrs. May = Gordon Brown 2.0 – Minus the charisma.

  56. Posted July 2, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Not much of a plan.Sounds akin to a Cameron “ambition to ” or a Gove “mission to”
    In the street, people wish to know :

    1. When? ( As they expected & were promised everything to start …NOW )

    2. My job? ( Will my employer wait while the Tory Party Ego-Votes ? Not. )

    Everything, absolutely every economic disaster and problem, in our economy and world economies will be said to be caused entirely or in part by the Leave vote.

    Time to get a move on with Leave

  57. Posted July 2, 2016 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    There is an elephant in the room, and its called the trade relationship of The City with the EU bloc. This is probably the relationship around which the entire premise of the Brexit was fought, without saying as much.

    It has been written that The City serves as a currency trading gateway between the Yuan(and maybe the USD?) and the Euro, and most of the EURO derivative products. It is part of a huge push by The City to become the Yuan trading area for the world and it worked because The City was part of the EU bloc and therefore had privileged access over areas that were exclusively outside the EU bloc . If this wasn’t the case then it reveals that The City is in fact a sovereign state and the point is moot.

    If the EU decides to halt this access and creates its own gateway, or WTO rules make this gateway uncompetitive, then all bets are off. Then Brexit becomes an even greater own goal than it appears at first blush from a purely Economies of Scale point of view.

    BTW : Economies of Scale(lack of) is in any case a massive problem for Brexit IMO , never mind that trade deals may yet stall under negotiations for years to come.

    This may all be irrelevant, because this debt sodden world is probably unserviceable under any arrangement other than default. It certainly cannot be serviced under any realistic global GDP. This is evident in the ongoing consumer deflation that we are experiencing, despite all the crazy stimulation from the Central Banks.

  58. Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    In all this stuff no mention of Richard North’s Flexcit movie and nothing about Faroes being out of the EU but subject to fishing quotas.

  59. Posted July 2, 2016 at 2:59 pm | Permalink
    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

      Re. the Bow Group. The survey gives over 80% to the Leave side and below 13% to May. Any attempt by Europhile MPs to shoehorn May into leadership would be a gross betrayal. The constituency chairmen should now let any MPs thinking of doing a Parris that there an option called DE-SELECT. Perhaps delivered in a Dalek like voice. DE-SELECT DE-SELECT DE-SELECT….

      Leaving the decision until late September though is not an option. There are too many plotters around in the meantime.

  60. Posted July 2, 2016 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    Why is the BBC giving the remain March a lot of air time, could it be that there hopeing the result to be overturned thereby still to be given money by the dreaded eu, it’s not going to happen because there would be riots not seen before on our streets, so get over it remainers or go live in a eu country if you don’t like our democracy

  61. Posted July 2, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    Off Topic:

    Cameron’s was a immoral desertion after the Referendum.
    He promised Parliament and the Nation he would stay at the helm in the event of a Leave vote.
    He solemnly promised to immediately trigger Article 50.

    Instead he resigned, throwing the government into disarray, affecting the Pound badly.

    Well Cameron cannot now do a Kinnock and move the family business to a foreign country and foreign bureaucratic impingement. Which, leaves the Lord’s as the last refuge of an undemocrat.

    It is to be hoped , given Cameron’s leaving the steering wheel of State rotating willy-nilly back and forth, that some knave in the Tory leadership does not reward such unmitigated churlishness by giving him a seat in the other place.

    In lesser civilised times in this realm he would have his lands confiscated and his assets given to the poor. Some progress, we have.

  62. Posted July 2, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    Andrea Leadsom would be infinitely preferable to Theresa “nasty party” May.

    I hope that you are a principal member of the negotiating team on Brexit. I hope, too, that the 1972 legislation is repealed as a matter of urgency. There has been far too much drift, and it is depressing, after the courage of the Leave voters, to see Heseltine and Clarke lumbering onto the stage and attempting to foist the mediocre and malleable May on us.

  63. Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    BBC Parliament, Cardiff Bay 28th June 2016, “EU Referendum Outcome”

    Some MPs in that Parliament do not accept the Referendum outcome; yet do not dispute the outcome of their own Constituency result in qualifying them to be an MP.
    The first step in any plan is to get a written undertaking from MPs to uphold UK democracy and to uphold the democratic will of the people.

    I did remark in one comment way before this Referendum, that a proper British Constitution should be offered by the Leave Campaign simultaneously on the ballot paper. That is, vote for Leave and in so doing also vote for the new British Constitution.
    This continued un-democratic assault on the United Kingdom by MPs should not just be criticised as though they are somehow abiding by a democratic duty but seen for what it is and should be punished by a custodial sentence.

  64. Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    If the reports in the Daily Express are even near the mark it seems that their are number of countries threatening the stability of the EU.

    The vote of the people has to be respected and honoured and in years to come this country will be celebrating what a very good move it was .

    Hopefully the people in the EU will take the opportunity to fully have their say when it comes to their elections and follow our lead.

    It is essential therefore that we get out and do it right first time, no if’s and maybe’s feel the fear and do it anyway and Andrea is just the person to make this happen

  65. Posted July 2, 2016 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    The most important part is ensure that the Ministers are sitting on the civil servants in the Brexit unit. The initial staffing appointments are not promising, and please do not just rely on their ‘independent’ advice…..

    zorro

  66. Posted July 2, 2016 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

    In addition to the urgent need to enact the will of the people as defined by the referendum, there is another issue at stake here: the survival of the Conservative Party. I believe it is inextricably linked with the whole Brexit issue, and whether the commitment to Leave is honoured. This article refers to Rober Halfon’s claim that the Cons Party faces an existential threat (RF is deputy chairman of the Cons).
    https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/news/76865/tories-face-existential-threat-deputy

    I suggest that the Conservatives need someone like Andrea Leadsom to regenerate the Party, which, according to Robert Halfon, deputy chairman, is facing an existential threat. The Cons need a clean sweep, with a PM who is honest and sincere and who is utterly committed to Brexit. A radical clear out of the establishment figures of the Cameron government is urgently needed. Only then will the Conservatives be able to “reboot” the Party and build up grassroots membership again.

    • Posted July 2, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

      Absolutely agree with your last paragraph. If this is not done, more support will leach away to UKIP. Andrea Leadsom has the experience of banking and business that could achieve this end. Remember her fighting her corner very effectively in the lead up to the referendum alongside Boris. I hope that she is one of the two finally presented to the party at large to choose from. The parliamentary party is a remain tainted tool, unreliable for the final choice.

  67. Posted July 2, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    I know many people including myself who would never vote Conservative again if the same old ‘establishment cronnies’ are in office. We need new blood and new ideas and most importantly people who are committed to life outside of the EU.

  68. Posted July 2, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
    • Posted July 3, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      I’ve signed many petitions over the years, but at this stage I don’t think I’m going to sign one asking the government to introduce a Bill which would have very little chance of getting through Parliament but would instead prevent the government using the Royal Prerogative to put in the required notice under Article 50 TEU and so start the process of making an orderly withdrawal from the EU, and moreover a Bill which legally would not in fact take us out of the EU even if it was passed.

      • Posted July 3, 2016 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        I prefer a quick clean exit to WTO.

        No EU. No freedom of movement.No membership contributions.

        Article 50 concerns me because we could be deadlocked for 2 years.

        Where does it state we can’t exit immediately if we have no prospect of an agreement.

        Must we be according to EU law be bound by treaties for 2 years? Could we not also revoke the 1972 Act as well?

        Is the law intended to serve the will of the people against a potential parliament which chooses to ignore such a fundamental majority view as expressed 0r is it mean to protect us from such a parliament that works to remove democratic choice.

        A lot can happen in a week never mind 2 years. We need to be out of this limbo.

        Delays of years means the majority may wither away due to demographic and further massive inward migration not just from new accession countries with low gdp/capita. but EU dysfunction and worse.

        We cant be subject to EU laws as a member of the EU when these new countries join which they probably will.

  69. Posted July 2, 2016 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

    Andrea Leadsom.
    I’d never clapped eyes on her, heard her speak, or seen her name before she appeared on a Leave Campaign debate.

    As always I’ll be honest: I didn’t get to where I am in this world at the bottom of the heap, by speaking otherwise: I like her.
    Andrea Leadsom in the first minute struck me as ordinary. I wondered why a woman who talks and looks like the woman at the bottom of my street…in fact “is it her?” I thought…. what was she doing on the panel alongside Boris and Gisela.
    Then after three of her answers I realised she always hit the ball, but quietly..ever so quietly.
    (Remarks about Gove and May left out ed)
    None of the 172 Labour dissidents nor the Corbynites would be a match for her. No Liberal could reach her knee caps by way of intelligence and straigthtforwardness which I now see is a pretty big word.
    So, it would be Leadsom if I had to vote Conservative.

  70. Posted July 3, 2016 at 3:52 pm | Permalink

    Roberto Azevedo, the director-general of the WTO, has indicated that resetting the terms of the UK’s membership could take years if not decades, and that the UK would be naïve to expect smooth sailing or quick results. Negotiations over the terms of a country’s WTO membership can easily become contentious and get hung up for years.

    Where is this assumption of automatic WTO status coming from?

  71. Posted July 3, 2016 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know any other conservative politicians who have blogs.

    Ill just repeat here for emphasis:

    According to the UK Sustainable Development Commission, Sustdev comes from the Brutland Commision, whose main source documents were anti-Western screeds, particularly one published in Ecology Magazine. Ecology is not reputable file of academia.

    The United Nation Governmental System has pined its credibility to the adoption of Sustainable Development. The EU is a subsidiary of the UN regional system.

    It is essential that we as a free people reconsider adoption of Sustainable Development as the end goal for human civilisation. It came out of anti western hatred, it had no place in legitimate academia prior to the UN promoting it.

    (Allegations against China removed ed)
    What is their strategic goal in Europe Why does China support the EU? Why are our media whining about a referendum result here but not applying any pressure for democracy or openness in China? Or in Saudi Arabia? Or reporting live from Venezuela? or any third world hell hole? Why do our politicians think their job is to be promoters of the EU instead of voices which represent their constituants? That means the EU is corrupting our democratic system?

  72. Posted July 3, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    *They take our corporations over to China and steal the technology

    thanks

  • 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