3 cheers for France

Reports from Paris indicate that their President understand the Brexit vote well, and confirms the need for the ULK to follow its decision. He  indicated that the special bilateral arrangements over the  Calais border will remain, as Vote Leave predicted and Remain contested. He and Mrs May confirmed the wish to have strong co-operation over security and intelligence, as Vote Leave forecast. He said the UK should get on with Brexit, which is what the majority want in the UK. He said the UK should cease to be a member of the single market in order to control the movement of people, which again is in line with the Vote Leave position in the referendum.

The President did not  make any proposals for new tariffs or other barriers on his trade with us. It is still difficult to see what the issue is over trade. The USA, China and other large players have decent access to EU markets without being EU single market members. The UK currently has tariff free access and no-one seems to be suggesting tariffs up to WTO levels should be imposed, though these would be manageable. Too many so called experts who wanted us to remain now want to make a lot of money out of advising us how difficult it will be. The French President seemed to have a clear and good understanding of how it could be done quickly.

 

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

118 Comments

  1. oldtimer
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    When commenting after the PM’s visit to see the German Chancellor, Laura Kuensberg, the BBC’s political editor, said that the UK’s negotiating position was very weak. She may have a very good grasp of the UK political scene but, it seemed to me, a very weak grasp of the economics of international trade. As you have pointed out here and on previous occasions the issues at stake are clear. The choice on trade in goods and services is simple and it is one the EU will need to make. No doubt it will cause some arguments between the other EU members and with the Commission because of their differint interests. But the UK should be ready, if need be, to default to WTO terms if the EU does not agree to continue with the present arrangements.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      I thought it was quite clear that Merkel was keen to protect German interests – she said so – which is surely code for having tariff free access to UK markets. Germany is not likely to be directly adversely affected by loss of freedom of movement (most Germans who come to the UK would qualify under the restrictions we impose on non EU nationals), although there might be a knock-on effect from other EU nationals choosing Germany as an alternative. I think that she will also value the ability of UK financial services to help finance and insure the German economy, especially with a major German bank being reportedly in some difficulty.

    • zorro
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      Her grasp of economics appears poor. I saw her on the BBC news last week saying that the government had been ‘paying down the deficit’ (exact words) in the last few years. This is of course nonsensical, because you can pay down your debt. By definition, if you have a deficit you are adding to your debt. You can reduce your annual deficit, but you are paying back nothing on your debt. If she had the least understanding, she would not make this error.

      zorro

    • Hope
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

      BBC will continue project fear’s work until an EU light can be achieved without public outrage. Amaretti, who wrote article 50, states it was never designed to be used and the UK must not benefit from leaving economically! Spiteful words and deeds. JR, do not be complacement accepting what May, Rudd and other EU fanatics say. You should have learned they will say or do anything to achieve their aim, Cameron tried and fortunately failed. Conditioning is underway to change public opinion.

      • sjb
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

        Wednesday’s FT attributes authorship of Article 50 to a British diplomat, John Kerr (now Lord Kerr of Kinlochard).

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      Nearly all the BBC staff (and indeed their tame “experts”) seem to have a very weak understanding of economics and indeed energy production, science, logic, competition, competitive advantage, supply and demand, negotiation, maths, the housing market and indeed loads of other things. They only seem to recruit fairly dimmish art graduates with a chip on their shoulders & who read (and trust) the Guardian for some reason.

      One of their climate change “experts” even thought positive feedback (in the engineering & climate change sense) was a positive thing. They even seems to think there is still discrimination against women in pay (when it is very clearly just the work life balance choices they make, the different subjects/careers they choose and the career gaps they take). The market would make discrimination very foolish anyway for any business that did discriminate.

      Some fools even think that laws preventing people working for less than a certain sum helps the economy. In the Osborne “think” mode.

      Magic money tree lefties almost every one of them.

      The new chancellor should certainly reset the fiscal framework now. Start by abolishing inheritance tax & undoing almost everything that the tax borrow and waste/IHT ratter Osborne did.

      They even seem to think Wind, Wave & PV intermittent electricity makes sense (with the current technology and economics).

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

      ‘It is still difficult to see what the issue is over trade. The USA’ – One of the golden rules of economics is to have close trading relations with your nearest neighbours. The countries the USA exports the most to are Canada and Mexico. Not forgetting the USA is dominant in lucrative global brands such as Apple (the UK is not). But it’s not just about trade, it’s also about investment – attracting foreign investors who want to use the UK as a gateway into Europe. There is also the issue of quick trade deals with other countries, opening ourselves up to really competitive players abroad. Lastly, even if the UK economy expanded over time under Brexit, it would take years and it certainly wouldn’t be glorious. And at what price? Years more austerity. Trouble with Scotland (and Trident), Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Losing our influence in Europe, in terms of its economic, political and social future, including security. And when there is no clear evidence that we could really bring immigration down that much. I mean we have more immigration from outside the EU than inside. Australia’s current direct immigrant population is 27% of its population compared to ours at 13%. The EU needs to reform, in particular immigration. Surely we would have been better off spending our time trying to reform the EU, inside it, and spending more money on reducing immigration from outside the EU?

      • Know-Dice
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        I don’t believe that the EU is reformable from the inside, it needs a Brexit or any other flavour of exit to get it [the EU] back on a course than make sense to the UK…

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

          Perhaps you’re right. I wish we didn’t have to go down such a risky road though to achieve it. And I hope that if the EU is radically reformed (in particular, immigration) that we can return as i think there are so many benefits – in terms of economics and geo-politics.

      • oldtimer
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

        Cameron tried the reform idea on other EU leaders and got a raspberry for his trouble. The electorate has responded in kind, despite the many warnings of many “experts” of the consequences of Brexit. Time, events elsewhere and the policy choices made by the May government will determine the the economic outcome of Brexit. Any predictions made now are no better than guesswork.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

          ‘Cameron tried the reform idea on other EU leaders and got a raspberry for his trouble.’ – It needs much more time and effort than Mr Cameron was able to put into it. In fact, I think we should have a department focused on just Europe (focusing, above all, on how to reform the EU, in particular, in terms of immigration – that all 27 countries would agree to, obviously). What the EU needs right now is a down-to-earth, pragmatic, British approach (for the benefit of all, above all, the UK). But we’ve cut ourselves off onto the sidelines, allowing Germany and France to run the show.

      • getahead
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        Nope. We needed out.

      • libertarian
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        Ed Mahoney

        ” One of the golden rules of economics is to have close trading relations with your nearest neighbours. ”

        Really says who? Its the 21st century. Globalisation happened. You’ve just proved once again that economists know nothing of business and trade. Please try to remember that governments dont trade, countries dont trade, geography doesn’t trade. Trade has always and will always be matching buyers and sellers and only ever takes place between sellers and buyers

        • Roy Grainger
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

          There aren’t any rules of economics. It is or a science. Saying it is a golden rule to have close trading relationships with your nearest neighbours is rubbish – I doubt China could care less about trade with Tibet and Mongolia. It is important to have trading relationships with people who have money: USA, Germany, France, China. Geography is nothing to do with it

          • Ed Mahony
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:12 am | Permalink

            ‘There aren’t any rules of economics. It is or a science’ – Economics in practise (as opposed to just an academic approach) and in its broadest form is both a science and an art at the same time. Again, I hark back to the diversity of products and services. Some products and services almost sell themselves e.g. products such as those sold by the Apple brand. But other products require a lot of selling, negotiating, meetings and so on on to sell, because they’re not so well-known, and/or in a highly competitive environment with little difference between the competition (and where price, quality control, quick delivery is essential). If you’re selling this kind of product, then it’s much easier to sell in Europe, than for example, Japan (1. don’t have so far to travel in plane for meeting, 2. easier to communicate in terms of language 3. more similarities culturally which can be really important in business 4. product can be shipped quicker and more cheaply, and so on).
            ‘I doubt China could care less about trade with Tibet and Mongolia’, no, but that’s not a strong example. A better example would be to look at the USA, and how the two countries it exports the most to are Canada and Mexico, and how 75% of Canada’s export trade is to the USA!
            Lastly, regarding Mongolia and Tibet, no doubt China has a geo-political policy towards these countries and would be looking to increase trade with them for geo-political reasons (which also has long-term economic results as well as creating political and social stability, important to China’s long-term defence and security in general).

            Reply Canada does not have to agree her laws with the USA in order to export to the US.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

          Hello.
          ‘geography doesn’t trade’ – I disagree, to a degree. For example, the countries the USA exports the most to are Canada and Mexico. With Canada exporting 75% of its trade to the USA. Therefore, I think you need to differentiate between what’s being traded. Apple is a truly global brand. It can trade in any country, anywhere in the world. But other goods, non-brand type goods (and services) not so much. And I think it is economists who understand this kind of stuff well. But it’s not just trade, it’s also countries outside Europe investing in the UK as a gateway into Europe. And there’s more. When we create trade deals with countries around the world (and its very difficult anyway and can take years), we could be making it much easier for countries abroad to compete with our local businesses, putting them out of business, and leading to more unemployment (unless, of course, we take our time creating these trade deals but we don’t have time!). Also, we’ve got nothing saved up to pay for the risk involved in Brexit (after worst recession in 50 years). Lastly, countries from outside the EU will benefit, economically, from trading with us more. But from a geo-political POV, it would be better for those countries nearest to us (e.g. the EU) to benefit instead, for geo-political reasons. In other words, by trading more with EU countries, we help to build up Europe’s prosperity and peace which has positive, long-term economic and security benefits for us. (Not forgetting all the other problems of leaving the single market such as Scotland, Trident in Scotland, N. Ireland, Gibraltar, and so on. (And I agree, the EU has to be reformed, in particular, in terms of immigration). Lastly, regarding globalisation, there’s a lot that can be achieved when you’re part of a large group of countries, such as the EU, working together in so many ways, than a country a tenth of the size working on its own.

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

          Lastly, what we need, in my view, is not to lie down and let the EU dominate us, nor to run away from the EU, but rather to go into the heart of it, guns blazing, saying we want radical reform for all the EU, not just the UK. Germany and France shaped the EU, why can’t the UK re-shape it in a way that best suits us and the rest of Europe. Not easy, but it’s the better more pragmatic option, i think, than leaving the single market, or remaining in the EU and allowing the status quo to continue.

          • Know-Dice
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 7:17 am | Permalink

            My rhetoric – “Cooperate with Europe not rule by the EU”

          • libertarian
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

            Ed Mahony

            Oh my word…. Please join us in the 21st century. the EU has always been a German/French club allied to 25 poor countries looking for hand outs. It NEVER has had a single market, it NEVER will have a single market. It is a busted flush. You know what you do when the game is up? You walk away and join a new game. The UK just joined the world if the snowflake tendency including most of the media stop trying to prove that they weren’t totally wrong ( they were) about Brexit and stopped talking us down w’ed be even further forward than we are, and to be frank at this early stage we’re doing pretty well. The thing the EU politburo needs to focus on is to prevent any more of their citizens having a say because if they did, certainly France, Holland and Italy would also leave

          • Brigham
            Posted July 23, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

            What part of referendum result leave does Ed Mahony not understand.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:20 am | Permalink

    Indeed it is just as (perhaps more) important for the EU members that this happens smoothly, as it is for the UK.

    Governments are generally a block on trade & business not an enabler of it. Trade happens despite all the government inconveniences, red tape, fees and taxes.

    • getahead
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      I said something similar elsewhere today, that all Theresa May should be worrying about is getting us out of the EU. Trade will go on irrespective.

      • getahead
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

        regardless

  3. Jerry
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    “Reports from Paris indicate that…”

    …the current President faces re-election in May 2017 and thus his promises are currently about as water tight as a sieve! By the time the UK gets around to concluding Brexit Mrs May might well be dealing with different leaders in both France and Germany, or different internal politics.

    “the Calais border will remain, as Vote Leave predicted and Remain contested”

    Vote leave think the glass is half full, Vote Remain think the glass is half empty, and don’t the two half bicker about who is the more ‘correct’. Neither knows what French internal political policy will be by mid 2017, and for that matter nor does François Hollande.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:04 am | Permalink

      I agree that we need to focus on the more likely next presidents of France – M. Juppé and perhaps even Mme. le Pen in terms of understanding what the French are likely to accept. In both cases, it is probably more in our favour than M. Hollande.

    • formula57
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      Indeed François does not, but what if Marine does! That would be a game-changer, would it not?

    • libertarian
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      Hi Jerry,

      Thanks for that insight into the future uncertainty of politics.

      Would welcome some views from you on what religion the Pope is and where bears go to do their ablutions . Cheers

  4. Mark B
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    Good morning – Again.

    It is still difficult to see what the issue is over trade.

    The issue is not one of trade, it is one of administration. All the other countries have not had for +40 years have a Supranational government making their laws, negotiating their deals and signing treaties for them. We cannot adequately police our own fishing grounds. This is the fundamental difference.

    Until we realise that we have not been a sovereign county for many years, and that leaving the EU is not as easy as one might think. They designed the system that way precisely to make leaving next to impossible.

    As for President Hollande, the kindest thing I can say about him is, he is yesterdays man and will not have to trouble himself with BREXIT if and when Article 50 is invoked.

    • Kenneth
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      Surely it’s just a case of

      1. Leaving the eu AND the Single Market
      2. Copy and pasting the eu regulations so we can repeal at leisure

      Both tariffs and bank passporting are matters for eu member states and we will react accordingly.

      What specifically is the problem?
      Why do we need long negotiations?
      What are we going to negotiate about?

      • Mark B
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        It is not so much problems as one of readjustment. For example. We do not have any negotiators. Why would we when the EU was doing it all for us.

        Negotiations need not be long if we just use something ‘similar’ to the Norway Option. The UK can get a better deal. And even if not, it is only a temporary measure until we are ready to ditch it in favour of something better.

        We need to realise that the EU is going for full FEDERAL EU. The only country the UK has a land border with is Rep. of Ireland. Currently, they are not in Schengen but, should they be forced to then we may have to have a ‘hard border’ with them.

        • Kenneth
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

          Mark B,
          In my humble opinion there is nothing to negotiate and no need for negotiators.

          I very much doubt that Ireland will join Schengen but if they do, we will no doubt have a ‘hard border’. That will be something for the future if it ever happens.

          I am sure the UK will propose zero tariffs as that is our traditional position as a free trading country but if the eu member states decide to impose tariffs then we will no doubt reciprocate. This is not something that needs to be negotiated.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

      Leaving the EU is far less complex than leaving the Soviet Union was for the non-Russian republics of the USSR.

      • Mark B
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        And let us hope a whole lot less bloody.

  5. Elsey
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    It is becoming quite clear that the government of Mrs May is not nearly as committed to a prompt Brexit as they claim. The question is will it happen at all?

    • Peter Stroud
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      It will be the job of John Redwood and the many other Eurosceptic Conservative back benchers to keep the PM on the straight and narrow.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      I don’t think Mrs May ever claimed a prompt Brexit. She did claim a thorough one though – “Brexit means Brexit” can hardly be taken to imply some half way hostel.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

      Indeed, can we trust Mrs May when she leaves so many talented “leave” MPs on the back benches (JR, Lilly, Mogg, Patterson, Zahawi…..) this while employing so many people who are clearly not really up to the job.

      We shall see. “Brexit mean Brexit” is just a politicians way of saying nothing at all, while pretending to sound firm. What does she personally mean by “Brexit” and what is her time scale? Why on earth did she lie to the public that we had control of our borders under Schengen in order to trick them into voting remain?

    • Tad Davison
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      Well we need to stop people like Labour’s Owen Smith, who according to an interview given to the BBC this morning, would have us vote all over again until they get the result they want, ably assisted in their quest by the very same BBC who waste no opportunity to sow the seeds of doubt by portraying a doom-laden scenario unless we reverse the democratic vote and cancel out the will of the British people to leave the EU.

      Tad

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        Indeed plus the Welsh and the Scottish and the perhaps 70% of MPs who were for remain. The war has not been won as yet by a long way.

  6. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:49 am | Permalink

    Perhaps Missuer Hollande is aware of his own precarious grip on power.
    With Marine le Penn snapping at his heels and promising a referendum he must be worried.
    Large swathes of rural France are kept solvent by UK expats. They’re treated quite badly by the French bureaucracy and any more onerous rules could see a mass exodus.
    We owned property in Cyprus before they joined the EU. There was never any problem and it was after joining the EU that we sold up.
    Only the wilfully blind couldn’t see that things would end badly.
    Contrary to Cameron and his mates we have a very strong hand so no backsliding.
    Farage in America says he’s keeping a close eye on the negotiations so fudge won’t be tolerated.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Unfortunately the BBC is in full-on “Brexit is destroying the economy” mode.

    • hefner
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

      172,806 British expats in France according to the French 2013 census, 33 % of percent aged 60+, out of a population of 60 millions.
      Given that they are mainly in Dordogne or around the Côte d’Azur, I’m not sure they qualify as keeping rural France solvent. Something you read in the DM, Ian?

      • ian wragg
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        Contrary to what you may think some of us travel extensively all over Europe and Middle /Far East.
        We do see the picture on the ground and don’t have to rely on the Mail or any other publication.
        My colleague who lives in Alsace and Nice is well aware of the contribution made by British expats in rural France as his business makes a lot of money out of them.

        • hefner
          Posted July 27, 2016 at 7:56 am | Permalink

          “Large swaths of rural France are kept solvent by UK expats”.
          “… the contribution made by British expats in rural France as his business makes a lot of money out of them”

          Sorry, is that the same thing? Or are you still thinking as a 19th century British colonialist would have been, considering that making money out of a country is making that country solvent?

  7. graham1946
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    Why then , don’t they get on with it? Why wait until 2017? We know what we want, Brexit, access to the market free of tariffs, no access fees and no freedom of movement. The rest may be complicated to untangle, although you have said previously this could be done fairly easily.

    So the question is why? Are your government really accepting of full Brexit or are they really ,as many here suspect, trying to delay to make a fudge so we don’t actually leave, or we leave on less favourable terms. Why would they do this? What’s in it for them? Still hoping for some kind of special jobs at the end of clapped out careers like many others?

    We must reserve judgement until something solid is offered, but we are right to be wary, having been cheated by politicians over so many things over the years. We need something fairly quickly before the gilt wears off and people lose interest and others stoke up the second referendum, especially the Scots.

    • ian wragg
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      I think our government is hoping that a new treaty is announced after the French and German elections., This will give them a wait and see excuse to drag their feet.
      We will then be offered Associate Membership with ever larger contributions and accepting the 4 freedoms.
      The politicians will continue to believe we are completely stupid and tell us this is a good deal. Meanwhile back at the ranch, 2 million more immigrants are let in whilst we prevaricate and at the next election the 3 main parties are wiped out.

      • Mark B
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        That is what I believe will happen.

        • graham1946
          Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          Yes, but why? Whats in it for the politicians or us?

          Cameron tried to sell us a pup, thinking we are stupid, but he found out, to his amazement that the posh boys couldn’t pull the wool. May could go the same way if she tries it, but part of me thinks the public, constantly fed the drip, drip of doom by the BBC and the other broadcasters, which is where most get their news these days, may get the jitters and go along with another arrangement, or worse another referendum. It must not be allowed to happen. We must get on with it and some reward be given the voters soon. I have suggested here several times before that the VAT on domestic energy bills be zeroed. Let it happen in this years Autumn statement. What if the EU don’t like it? So what? Are they going to cast us out ? We need to crack on and JR and co. are the only ones who can hold May to it. We the people have no power this side of 2020, despite the illusion politicians like to promote of democracy.

      • getahead
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        Tell Theresa you expect her to stand by her word. “Brexit means Brexit”.

  8. Nig L
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    It depends on what news you read. One of the feeds was saying that he made it clear freedom of movement was a red line if we wanted free trade and Mrs Merkel, although a softer line was saying something similar. The FO is known to be extremely pro Europe so I am expecting to see fudge high on the menu.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Hollande indeed stuck with “four freedoms” (I listened to the entire press conference in French, available on the Elysée website), while also sticking to maintaining the Le Toucquet agreement. Both were asked about the security of each other’s citizens already living in the other country. Hollande seemed to go out of his way to emphasise that the British are welcome in France, while May pursued her previous line that it was something that should be agreed, but the agreement still has to be put in place.

      • Sandra Cox
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        I’m pretty certain that Hollande (in the English translation during the interview) mentioned movement of people, rather than movement of labour which I understand is the official interpretation of one of the “freedoms” – it would be interesting to know what you made of the French version. Thank you.

  9. Anonymous
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    President Hollande said that there could be no access to the single market without free movement.

    The majority of the people have said that – through the referendum vote – that they accept that we may have to lose this access.

    What use a single market if it means we have to import poverty into our country ?

    What other traders insist “You want to deal with us ? Then we must control your borders.” ?

    • ian wragg
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Access and being part of are 2 separate animals.
      168 countries not in the EU have access to trade (some with free trade deals) without accepting the 4 freedoms.
      Only the ones in the EU,EFTA and EEA accept the 4 freedoms , free movement being the vehicle to neutralise the voter by diluting their strength.
      If we get enough foreigners on the books they will of course vote for free movement. Christmas and Turkeys spring to mind.
      This was Cameron and Osbornes modus operandi but it all went wrong when the voters took away their bat and ball.

      • hefner
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

        According to MigrationWatch, 13.1% of UK population is foreign-born, only 8 % are non-British. I still am not convinced that this “dilutes voters’ strength”.
        Before crowing about “voters taking away Cameron and Osborne’s modus operandi”, just realize that this happens because the referendum was run on a one voter one vote basis. At next GE, with FPTP, it will be the same as in the last 2-3 parliamentary elections, with roughly the voices of 2/3 of voters not being represented.

  10. Antisthenes
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    The euro-sceptic movements who are now attracting considerable support in Europe I guessed would have a considerable influence on how France and Germany react to Brexit. I feared that they would take a tougher stance so as to undermine those movements. However they are going for the appeasement route. So much favouring us. However if after next years elections those movement do not appear as strong as they are now that stance may well change. On the other hand if those movement gain the ascendancy then Brexit will be a breeze apart from the fact exits will be happening in other countries as well.

  11. forthurst
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    According to the DT, Hollande said that full access to the Single Market was contingent on accepting the four freedoms, not three; he said that if free movement of terrorists, rapists and murderers, peope traffickers and other assorted gangsters was not acceptable to the British government, then access to the Single Market in order for us to continue to enjoy the provenance of heavily subsidised French farm produce and tariff free German cars should be subject to negotiation which could only be commenced on invoking Article 50; in other words, the French would like to control the negotiation from the off and wring the maximum benefits to themselves and the minimum to us resulting in even higher trade deficits including probably from the continuation of the theft of our fish and the ending of passporting with major impact on on financial services.

    Repeal the 1972 Accession Act, explaining to the opposition that without our being able to negotiate with the EU from without, we will be ******* from within, if that is what they want.

  12. margaret
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    That holiday cottage in France I was planning in France for 2 years hence wouldn’t be affected by bad will then ?

    • hefner
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

      Only by the fall of the pound, if you had not already converted £ to € before 23 June.

  13. a-tracy
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    What about work visas and Erasmus? I can’t see France or Germany blocking British students from Erasmus exchanges so why has this been threatened? Why are the Universities scared about this? If the Germans for example blocked German language students from a year in their Country where would that leave their language in the world, I’d suggest with even fewer people able to converse with them.

    Scientific research, I was reading we were getting blocked from future research projects? Is this true or the BBC scare agenda and what can we do about this?

    Southern Ireland leaders are getting a bit presumptuous too, where is most of their trade? Where do most of their people want to train and emigrate too, don’t threaten measures to weaken the United Kingdom whilst they’re on the European stage and scare people in Northern Ireland it just isn’t on. It was the UK the Irish came running to to bail them out and we complied even though they’re in the Euro and we’re not. We keep propping up their mistakes and yet keep allowing them advantages. I hope your party isn’t planning on selling the English out today like you always do: Only English students with student loans; prescriptions charges; hospital parking; no regional high level representation in talks. For example today if Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, Ireland?, and the RUK are meeting does England have at least nine senior level representatives at the table?

    • oldtimer
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      The Erasmus programme extends beyond EU members. A list of them can be seen here: https://www.erasmusplus.org.uk/participating-countries

      Looking at the list of non-EU countries presently covered, UK-EU relations would have to drop to an extraordinarily hostile level to preclude further participation by UK students.

      • Qubus
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

        IN the Erasmus scheme, they’re are far more EU students come to the UK than the other way round. SO, it would not be in the EU’s interest to drop Erasmus.

        • hefner
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

          About 27k non-UK students coming to Britain vs. 15k UK ones going to the continent or elsewhere. But the UK is overall only the fourth country of destination for Erasmus students, far behind Spain, Germany and France. I would think the UK is not such an essential part of the overall Erasmus+ program.
          As pointed out by oldtimer, it might be worth reading figures in context.

    • Peter Parsons
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Universities will be negatively impacted as, once out of the EU, the cost of studying at a UK university becomes significatly more expensive to students from the rest of the EU. At John Redwood’s local University (Reading) the annual fees for UK and EU students are £9,000, and for international students are £14,350 or £17,350 depending on the nature of the course. Upon leaving the international rate will apply, which makes it more expensive for those students to come here. If they are funded by scholarships, fewer of those will be available as the size of the funds to pay for scholarships isn’t going change to cover this increase. The rest will be expected to pay much higher fees than today to study in the UK, and therefore may look elsewhere e.g. the USA where courses are often cheaper. Therefore, overall, the likely outcome is a reduced number of EU students coming to the UK, and therefore, depending on the size of this reduction, a drop in overall income received from the teaching of EU students by the sector.

      As an aside there is already concrete evidence of research consortia asking UK researchers not to be part of applications for future research funding as it is perceived that having UK participants will impact negatively on how the application is viewed, and thus its chances of success. This is, unfortunately, true.

      • Tony Wakeling
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

        EU students’ fees are paid with student loans from UK government. Few get repaid. At the moment the debts amount to £146m.

      • Mark
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

        EU students benefit from access to the UK’s student loan schemes. So far they have a very poor record in repaying loans, with significant numbers ceasing to keep in touch with the student loan company. That is a very real cost to UK taxpayers, and not an income at all. It would be no bad thing if EU students had to pay for their fees up front just as non EU students have to.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141810/Students-EU-studying-Britain-fail-repay-43million-tax-payer-funded-loans-untraceable.html

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:09 am | Permalink

        My sons were rejected by many universities because of shortages of courses, yet they got top scores in IB and A levels and are now studying STEM subjects at Russel Groups. As others have said, international students have a poor record of repaying loans. This is particularly galling for a resident Briton.

        There are still too many universities providing unecessary university degrees. We need more real apprenticeships.

        —-

        To others in this discussion. ERASMUS includes many nations outside of the EU. If there are any problems with it through brexit then this will be down to spite:

        Macedonia Iceland Norway
        Liechtenstein Turkey

      • a-tracy
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

        Peter, you say courses in the USA are often cheaper is that at equivalent universities because when I looked into this it certainly wasn’t the case.

        If our government is having to up-front fund eu students how does this help the UK? Especially if it’s true, as others have indicated, European students just aren’t repaying our taxpayer funded loans. So many UK born citizens got turned away at the courses my children were on I hadn’t realised that there were so many universities only viable by UK taxpayers loaning EU students their fees to come here.

    • Tony Wakeling
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
    • hefner
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

      Re research projects: Given that writing a research proposal expected to be funded by some EU money can take several months to be written, then several other months going through the EU funding committee, and then possibly running over several years (2 to 5 generally, 10 for space projects), it has recently been noted by various scientists that new projects based on international collaboration have decided not to put a British scientist at the forefront of the proposals given the uncertainties introduced by Brexit.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:13 am | Permalink

        EU projects, one presumes.

        Otherwise what you are saying is that a scientist has to be an EU citizen to head up a scientific project.

      • a-tracy
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

        Which projects? Which scientists? I think we need to know who is threatening these things, we need to protect our own Country, we have to give two years notice whilst still paying in full contributions, the second biggest contributor in the block, this needs reducing if these threats are actually happening! I think the public has a right to know what we are blocked from as it could change our support.

  14. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    The only reason for making a simple proposition sound extremely complicated is the belief that if delayed long enough events will conspire to enable the will of the British people to be overturned. Mrs May made a good start to her premiership but I’m afraid continually repeating “Brexit means Brexit” whilst delaying to take even the first step to make it reality is not good enough.

    • Mark
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

      The first step has been taken: the appointment of a pro-Brexit team in cabinet to handle negotiations. If we rushed into exercising Article 50 before we are ready the likely outcome would be botched negotiations followed by a plea to stay in exchange for giving up our rebate in two years time. That would have been the route if a Remainder team had been chosen.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      I agree with that Brian. We have been stuffed by the pro-EU people many times before, and I can see it happening all over again. Let’s hope Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and David Davis have both the guts and the power to stop it.

  15. alan jutson
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Perhaps the simple solution would be to abandon the words “SINGLE MARKET” with all of its various meanings to different people.

    Perhaps we should just seek a “NO TARIFF TRADE DEAL”

    Thus all parties can agree we do not seek or want a Single market deal, but instead a simple Trade deal with No Tariffs.

    If they want us to pay tariffs then we simply reciprocate with tariffs on their products.

    Hopefully that should satisfy everyone on both sides.

    Immigration is of course down to us completely and is absolutely not up for discussion, as it is a totally separate issue, as indeed it is for every other Country around the World that is outside the EU.

    Why do politicians want to make things complicated.

    Cannot see why the need to delay Article 50, enact it fully so they and we know we are leaving, and then start to negotiate completely new terms from zero, without all of the baggage and terminology of the past.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

      Alan,
      Agreed. The only reason for making things seem complicated is so that Brexit will never happen and the instructions of the British people will be ignored and overturned.

      • zorro
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

        I feel like saying something vacuous…… ‘Brexit means Brexit’…… OK, we’ll talk about it again in the New Year!

        zorro

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/fund-manager-among-leaders-brexit-legal-challenge/

      “Gina Miller launches Brexit legal challenge”

      “A legal challenge to the UK’s exit from the European Union had its first court hearing this week, with SCM Investments founder Gina Miller one of the leading challengers.

      The case will be heard in the High Court in October, the FT reports. However, on Tuesday judges were told details of the challenge which centres on whether MPs should vote on triggering Article 50, the Lisbon Treaty clause that starts the two-year deadline for the UK to leave the EU.

      Miller is represented by law firm Mishcon de Reya, which is also representing other businesses in the action.

      The High Court was told that at least six cases will be brought on the matter, including one from a Polish national and one from French expatriates.

      A case has also been brought by law firm Edwin Coe on behalf of UK citizen Deir de Santos. Tax barrister Jolyon Maugham QC is also understood to be joining the challenge.

      In a statement earlier this month, Mishcon de Reya says it has been been contacting Government lawyers since the referendum decision to ensure they will uphold the UK constitution and protect the sovereignty of parliament when invoking Article 50.

      The statement says: “If the correct constitutional process of parliamentary scrutiny and approval is not followed then the notice to withdraw from the EU would be unlawful, negatively impacting the withdrawal negotiations and our future political and economic relationships with the EU and its 27 Member States, and open to legal challenge. This legal action seeks to ensure that the Article 50 notification process is lawful.””

      • Tony Wakeling
        Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        Suggest you refer to http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/articles.shtml where you will find comprehensive debunking of these challenges

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

          It’s outrageous that these cases have even been brought, but the High Court is prepared to listen to the arguments.

    • Roger parkin
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Very well put. It’s not rocket science. We expect Total control of immigration and a sensible trading arrangement to suit both sides. Unfortunately with the exception of our host too many of those involved are not only Remainers but lack business acumen.

      • hefner
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

        As you say “it is not rocket science. We expect total control of immigration and a sensible trading arrangement to suit both sides”.
        Where I do not agree is when you think that our host is in any way involved. He made a huge mistake, either strategic or tactical, anyway, by supporting Leadsom, a very poor candidate.
        I reckon he has now as much stature as the Statue of the Commander, big nice words, but I am afraid, not much more. Do we have to “wait till Earth opens under the feet of the mecreant”?

  16. ian
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Like i said there is nothing to negotiate in trade, the government has to work within the frame work already set up, that is to say free trade or wto, the only thing you might need is list goods you do not want sold in this country but i dare say they already have that like gm food or guns, things like that, i never did understand TIPP only as far as it was bad for people and good for USA companies, you only negotiate if trying to con somebody into something, Its all government and media lead, the usual BS, the government wants to employ loads of people on 500,000 to 2 million pounds a year with pensions to match and set up a load more quangos and the media is helping them out as usual by telling the people that is what needs to happen, so they borrow a load of money and give that to the usual group of people which in turn puts up tax receipts on sales of houses at the top end and shop sales also in work taxes so the media can report that everything is great, look how well we are doing and the best of it is that the people who get jobs they have very little work to do.

    That is all that has been happening for last 25 years.

  17. brian
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    M. Hollande only understands how to try to weaken Britain.

  18. rose
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    “Too many so called experts who wanted us to remain now want to make a lot of money out of advising us how difficult it will be.”

    People like Mrs Nick Clegg , who was interviewed the other day without the broadcasters properly identifying her or declaring her interests.

    • zorro
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

      Indeed, I mentioned this on another post a couple of days ago….. Miriam Gonzales indeed! Tricksy hobbits……

      zorro

  19. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Is the French embassy in London less efficient than the German embassy?

    On Tuesday the High Court set the third week of October for hearing the cases which have been brought to try to prevent the government sending in the Article 50 notice without further authorisation from Parliament, in the hope that members of either or both Houses would refuse their consent and in the end we would stay in the EU.

    On Wednesday May visited Merkel, who did not press her to put in the notice.

    On Thursday May visited Hollande, who told her to get on and put in the notice.

    Surely both should have been informed that the UK government’s hands are now tied, it cannot put in the notice while that is still the subject of legal proceedings?

    Or is it the case that Hollande would have no problem with May breaking UK law to put in the notice as soon as possible, while Merkel has more respect for the rule of law?

    This one will run and run, and as far as some of the bad losers are concerned it would not necessarily end with the UK Supreme Court, after that there could still be the EU’s Court of Justice in Luxembourg, and perhaps the ECHR in Strasbourg as well.

    Possibly if May was put under enough pressure by foreign leaders she could get the UK courts to expedite the cases, and possibly if some Remain diehards did take it to the ECJ – apparently they have deep pockets, and no doubt the lawyers would be happy to keep dipping into them for as long as possible – then maybe she would say enough is enough, the British people voted to leave the EU and she is not going to allow them to be held prisoner in the EU by the EU’s court, here’s the Article 50 notice.

  20. Chris
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    The problems with delaying Article 50?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/692065/Article-50-NEVER-to-be-used-Europe-Brexit-Italy-Prime-Minister
    Article 50 was designed ‘NEVER to be used’ – says the man who wrote the EU divorce clause

    Giuliano Amato, a former Italian Prime Minister, claimed Britain must “lose” when it comes to finances – so they are forced to stay in the single market. ….

    Mr Amato said: “If another leader is as mad as Cameron to offer a referendum on EU membership, for example in Holland or Austria, there is a risk (they would vote to quit).”
    To show Britain the error of its ways, Mr Amato said the EU had to be “especially tough” in the Brexit talks. He said: ”Don’t give Britain the possibility of thinking that Brexit is a better way of doing what they have always done, grabbing what suits them (in the EU) and opting out of what they don’t like. Brexit is a total opting out. “They know this very well. “The more they realise that they are losing, then the more chance there is that in 2020 someone will do something about it.”

    Britain is due to hold national elections in 2020 and Amato said he hoped a party promoting a pro-European agenda might win power and put a brake on Brexit plans.
    For that reason, he said it was important to stretch out the talks. He said: ”I hope that the negotiations are dragged on so they won’t be wrapped up by 2020. (Prime Minister) May wants to wrap things up by 2019, but it will be easy to prolong matters.”……”

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      All you have to do when faced with the likes of Giuliano Amato is to call their Bluff and leave without agreeing anything, then let WTO tariffs/rules apply to both sides.

      Then when they want to negotiate better terms with us for their products, negotiate hard with only trade on the list.

      Nothing to stop them or us negotiating a trade deal after 2 years, when we are then a Sovereign Nation.

      They either want to trade with us on simple and Mutual beneficial terms, or they do not, simples.

      Trying to reach some sort of agreement before we leave is just getting far too complicated for our own good.

  21. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    There was an initial French knee-jerk support for President Hollande’s criticism of the Brexit vote,seeing it through their historically residual anti-English prism….even a renewed support for France staying in the EU. It has passed.

    The realities of the terrorist attacks in Nice which had ignored that a nation’s borders are kept secure and intact by a unified mindset much more than filling gaping holes in barbed wire fences.
    France is in trouble. The rush of its gendarmerie to border posts. Pathetic. Giving double-bluff fake palliative response to reassure the French public.
    Ms Marine Le Pen of the Front National is waiting patiently for the French to realise their own mental borders…and who, if any among them have minds with gaping holes.

  22. ayayay
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    If, as you say, the USA, China and other large players have decent access to EU markets without being EU single market members, why have the US banks had to set up subsidiaries in enormous skyscrapers in Canary Wharf?

    • Newmania
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

      …quite so and why would they stay there and what will that do to the Nations tax revenue . John Redwood has previously ysaid there are ways around it ;the mountains of galss and concrete show he is talking dangerous nonsense .
      Banks are by no means the onl sector on the menu and altogtehr the damage would not be far short of apocalyptic

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 23, 2016 at 8:24 am | Permalink

        Perhaps they’ll go to France where Marine Le Pen is likely to take office… or even Germany which has (since Brexit) become single mother to broken Italy, Greece, EU southern states and pregnant to quintuplets (new members) of ill financial health and cultural stability.

        If all was fine and dandy in the EU we would not have needed a referendum, let alone voted to leave it.

  23. Newmania
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:35 am | Permalink

    Well that one way of looking at it !!! France confirmed that without Freedom of movement there would be no access to the single market and gave no hint of wishing to reduce tariffs to non EU members.( You have this the wrong way around as usual )
    Were we China or the USA we would have considerably less to worry about of course as they are of comparable size to the EU .The EU is 7-8 times the size of our economy and enormously more important to us than we are to it . Nonetheless the USA has thought it worth trying desperately to get a proper trade deal with the EU a really exciting new epoch in world prosperity and cooperation form which we are excluded thanks to you
    We are still in the EU and whatever the core EU haters would like we are likely to stay that way for 2 to 3 years. During which time the full extent of the threat to the Nations Jobs and ability to trade as a centre or services and high tech manufacture will emerge.
    I can hardly imagine a worse outlook for the country and to think we brought this upon ourselves.
    Just unbelievable

    My own view and this is backed up by people I know who ,might know , is that France has resented London for decades and would love to take over as the Financial services centre , as would Frankfurt. They can probably hardly believe their luck

    • zorro
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      ‘France confirmed that without Freedom of movement there would be no access to the single market’…. Yet more drivel from Newmania… Lots of countries have access to the Single Market and sell lots of stuff to its members. We don’t want to be members because we cannot accept the problems associated with free movement. We can discuss tariffs but we are happy to have free trade axis, and they may come off the sacred mount of the Single Market and realise that you can trade freely with other countries without these supposedly irreversible extras like free movement….. particularly as they have a trade surplus with us…..

      Although you seem to imply that France/Germany don’t have our best interests at heart for some reason… 🙂

      zorro

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 1:42 am | Permalink

      Better sell your house while it’s still worth something, Newmania.

      Do let us know how you get on. It’s important that you prove the strength of your own belief, if only to yourself.

  24. Cuffleyburgers
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    With respect John, Hollande has no understanding of how it can be done quickly. He doesn’t care, and is parroting the EU line that it should be got over with as quick as possible presumably in order to deny the time to achieve a good solution.

    However as you have pointed out repeatedly, on trade and everything else we have a very good negotiating position and we need to make the most of it, a rushed exit will make that more difficult hence their rush.

    It is complicated. Undoing 40 years of integration trying to ensure as few unintended consequences as possible is not a job to be rushed.

    However taking the time to do the job well is one thing, deliberate delaying tactics by a lukewarm UK administration is another, and it is up to you and your colleagues and our friends in the press to keep May’s feet firmly to the fire to achieve the required result timeously.

    • zorro
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

      Yes, but some of the un-tying can be done in slower time (adopting measures and repealing in time) and does not need to impede Brexit and our engaging in a more effective, international and global manner with international partners…. Rest assured that the PM’s kitten heels will be kept under thorough and effective surveillance 🙂

      zorro

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

    I wouldn’t trust May, why is she stalling? She doesn’t want to rush, but it’s two frigging years woman.
    Just bite the bullet already.

  26. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    I can’t imagine French businesses being happy about trade being made difficult with the UK. Just as business owners in the UK are worrying, so will the Europeans. Hollande will be most unpopular if he makes things difficult and that will leave the door open for Penn. I don’t think he could be that stupid??? Question is, will we ever leave?

    On the other hand Sturgeon is making life difficult for Scots. Scotland is already reeling from lower oil prices and loss of jobs and trade figures are really bad but what is her answer to all of this? She carries on blocking fracking which could make Scotland very wealthy again and ignores all the advantages it could bring. She also has no problem with war ships being built on the clyde but doesn’t want Trident in Scotland. The woman has no vision.

    • The Prangwizard
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      Maybe Mrs May could return warship building and the submarines bases to England. The rat Cameron gave all away construction to Scotland to buy votes there, with the support of Tory unionists. Just what is so bloody important about the UK union that it must be must be maintained, and always at the expense of England? Just what do we owe the Scots? F… all.

      How can we possibly have such a vital industry and our security in the hands of a hostile and subversive neighbour? Perhaps unionist Tories need psychiatric help to overcome their personality and loyalty deformities.

  27. Atlas
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    John,

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why the ‘remainers’ are obsessed with staying in the Single Market. To me the Single Market just reads like an imposition of standards that are designed to squeeze out innovation. Or have I missed a vital point?

  28. Gareth
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I too look forward to the UK finally taking the step to leave the EU.

    We already know the trade terms can be no worse than the WTO rules govern.
    We know that we will no longer be sending £19 billion outside this country every year.
    And we know that we have control of our immigration and fishing grounds.

    I also look forward to then seeing all the civil servants and experts who have predicted all kinds of difficulties and doom laden scenarios proven wrong, again.

    • zorro
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

      It will be a joy to see 🙂

      zorro

  29. treacle
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, I am encouraged by everything that you say, but it seems to me that Mrs May wants to give us some sort of half-in, half-out arrangement. This is what she said yesterday: “The message the British people gave in their vote for the UK to leave the EU had a very clear message: that we should introduce some controls to the movement of individuals from countries in the European Union into the UK.” I don’t find that at all reassuring.

    • ken Moore
      Posted July 22, 2016 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

      ‘Some control to the movement of free people’…either you have control or you don’t. Mrs may seems to be something of an expert in the art of using weasel words to say one thing while quietly doing another.

      Either a country is sovereign or your not despite the nonsense spouted by the remainers about ‘pooling sovereignty’.

      I hope Dr Redwood is suitably primed to ‘hold feet to the fire’ and ask difficult questions. Mr’s May’s honeymoon period might be very short…

  30. R. De Witt Jansen
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Surely the slow down in explaining exactly what “‘Brexit means Brexit”‘ means and more importantly the delay in triggering Article 50 has nothing to do with negotiating a Trade deal with the EU or securing Markets and Trading Partners around the world both of which , as many here say, will not be difficult to achieve as in the end MONEY talks the language of Politics. However could it be that it has everything to do with the Scots behavin’ badly, the Welsh perhaps being influenced by them and “that Province” undecided whether to join them OR join an All Ireland leading to a possible break-up of the United Kingdom. Is this what Government fears hence the ‘moon walk”? Irresponsible and wholly daft that my next suggestion may appear to be and although I couldn’t have a more foreign name I’m an Englishman born and bred and to me Ëngland First”” and I don’t give a Tinker’s Damn about the rest – TRIGGER ARTICLE 50 NOW and be done with it and for goodness sakes LET’s REALLY MOVE ON – CONFIDENTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY!!!

  31. agricola
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    Channel 4 News this evening is claiming that Brexit will deprive Great Ormond Street Childrens Hospital of vast tranches of EU funding for it’s research into currently incurable diseases.This money is presumably just part of the £20 Billion per annum that GB pays to the EU which then at the discretion of the EU comes back to worthy projects in the UK.

    Please confirm that this is the case and then prevail upon the Chancellor to get up in the H o C and spell out in detail what we currently pay to the EU and what finds it’s way back to the UK. Farmers, Research project, and Local Government projects need reassurance that such funding will continue whether it goes via Brussels, or after Brexit direct to current recipients at least until the end of this Parliament. No government can be expected to make promises beyond it’s term of office.

    This constant drip feed of propaganda by thwarted remainers via a compliant remain media must stop. If not it casts doubt on the longterm intentions of our new government.

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      If it’s true and we’re being blocked we need a rebate.or a law suit to reclaim our losses. We can use these threats, blockages etc. to get us out quicker and sue them to pay in less in the meantime so that we can protect our own scientific research. If they don’t don’t pay them.

  32. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

    Unfortunately, Mrs May does not have a clear and good understanding and still seems to hanker after EEA membership, full access to the Single Market and a Norway type deal but with some restrictions on immigration. There seems to be no other explanation for her conduct in seeking delay. Mrs Merkel and M Hollande have told her it ain’t on.

    I can’t understand why Conservative Eurosceptics gave her a clear run.

  33. turboterrier
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    May be a good idea if the major players over the water concentrated more on their precarious financial problems and how their countries are suffering and think what the UK can bring to their assistance from outside the “club”

    If the elections due in 2017 go the wrong way for their present leaders there will not be a union come 2019.

    Still find it amazing that no commentators even mention the perfect financial,political storm that is heading towards Germany, France, Greece, Spain and Portugal and why they do not highlight the potential disaster to the public at large. If nothing else it might just sow doubts into the minds of Empress Nick and her generals.

  34. miami.mode
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    It beggars belief that any of us would want the so-called “Jungle” in Calais on our doorsteps. It’s pleasing to see that the bilateral agreement on the border will continue but surely it would also be in our interests for the authorities in Calais to get rid of this unauthorised camp.

    It seems that Mayors in France have considerable powers and, as has been seen in Turkey, if you pay an appropriate amount the problem can be virtually eliminated at source.

    The cost to the UK of illegal entrants through Calais must be considerable so why not get an agreement on a suitable annual payment with the local Mayor to get rid of the camp, bung him or her plus the Deputy a new Range Rover each every couple of years and try to solve a problem? It could come from the Foreign Aid budget.

    • Mark
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      We’re already paying for the fencing and other border controls in Calais.

  35. Chris S
    Posted July 22, 2016 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    I’ve been of the view for at least two years that we could never get a satisfactory arrangement that means a proper end to FOM and budget contributions while staying in the single market. So why bother even trying ?

    We have repeatedly been threatened by the Project Fear shower that the City will lose thousands of jobs and HMRC billions in tax revenue if we lost passporting.

    However, the EU could only insist on stealing Euro trades that involve both parties being registered businesses within the EU. As soon as one party is not EU resident Brussels could have no control over the transaction. Euro to Euro transactions are nowhere near as profitable as those transactions that involve two different currencies.

    If this is the case, the question is : How much of the total trade in Euros would really be at risk and what would be the potential loss of tax revenues and jobs ?

    I suspect it will be a very small part of the total business done by the city and an amount that could easily be replaced with our more global trading focus.

    • Mark
      Posted July 23, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      I suspect that as with the Eurodollar market, businesses of any size in the EU will find it advantageous to use London as a “one stop shop”.

  • 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