We do not want a 7 year transition for freedom of movement!

The UK did not recently vote for a slightly beefed up version of Mr Cameron’s attempted renegotiation with the EU. We voted to leave, to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. Those phrases were repeated throughout the Leave campaign, heard and understood by many, and approved by the majority of voters.

The rest of the EU is missing the point. There should  be no negotiation over taking back control of these important matters.  When the Conservatives lost the 2005 election – partly based on Labour’s lie of no more boom and bust – we did not try to overturn the election result, take them to court, or demand a re run! We accepted the verdict of the UK voters.

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


  1. Paul Ruskin
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    “Those phrases were repeated throughout the Leave campaign, heard and understood by many, and approved by the majority of voters.”

    I think you’re right. But so were the promises of more money for the NHS, no reduction in other funding, and a more successful economy. If we come out of the single market (as say Bill Cash wants), then that seems to me an impossible circle to square. The fluctuations in the market now are purely about confidence – it’s the long term effects of losing single market access on single market terms that could really hit the economy.

    There are three Brexiteers in charge of negotiations. Let’s see what they can deliver. (We haven’t even heard an idea of a plan yet). And if it’s tangibly worse than we have now, the choice will be clear.

    Reply We voted to leave the EU including the single market government it has. We also voted to carry on trading with them as 165 other non EU countries do quite successfully!

    • A different Simon
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

      Paul Rushkin ,

      The leave campaign was made up of a number of disjoint factions as was the remain campaign .

      There was no “official” leave group which was able to speak for the leave sentiment throughout the country (UK excluding London which is not because it is not really part of the UK) which spanned classes and the political spectrum .

      In both cases there was no manifesto on offer , just as there was no single leave campaign or remain campaign .

      The referendum was purely on the single issue of whether to stay or whether to leave .

      Not levels of immigration , not promises of extra spending on peoples pet projects or anything else .

      I might add that I believe the electorate made up their minds on that issue and decided to leave policy on movement of people and all other issues to the HM Govt – a govt they can change through democratic process if they want .

      • acorn
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

        46 million voters, basically didn’t have a clue what the consequences of their vote would be, basically they did 33.5 million coin tosses.

        Binomial theory will tell you that many coin tosses will get you close to a “chance” of 50% heads and 50% tails. The Smithsonian will tell you there is a bias introduced, if the coin always has the same face up, when it is flipped, not likely in this case. But, in this case, I would suggest the “immigrant” meme, was the face up side bias of the coin toss.

        IMO, the result of 48.1% remain and 51.9% is pretty near to a “chance” result with only a small proportion of voters actually having an educated preference.

        Reply What condescending nonsense. I met many voters who were strongly engaged and knew exactly what they were voting about. Most understood it was about taking back control. All knew they were voting either to stay or to leave. There was no question of half way houses or new negotiations for a different relationship within the Treaties.

        • acorn
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

          If we held the referendum again tomorrow, with the voters knowing what they now know, since June 23rd; what do you think the result would be?

          How come they didn’t know then what they now know? To be exact, which specific bunch of 650 Snake Oil Salesmen, is responsible for that?

          • A different Simon
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

            I think a rerun would return the same result but with a bigger margin for leave .

            However the referendum should not be rerun because it would be incredibly damaging to the UK’s reputation and image .

            What material information do you think the voters know now that they didn’t know during the referendum or indeed years before ?

          • fedupsoutherner
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

            Oh dear, Acorn, what a sad person you are

          • Pud
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            If the referendum was held again I suggest that Leave would win by a larger margin because none of the dire consequences threatened by Project Fear have occurred.

    • APL
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

      JR: “We voted to leave the EU including the single market government it has. We also voted to carry on trading with them as 165 other non EU countries do quite successfully!”

      That’s a matter of interpretation. We certainly voted to leave the political arrangements of the EU.

      We don’t need to leave the ‘single market’ immediately, we want continuity of trade and economic activity.

      We sever the political ties as soon as possible, then we disentangle ourselves from the other arrangements at our leisure.

      We are forty years into an interventionist programme, that by the way your party promoted, yet denied every single year was progressing.

      We need to halt that, and reverse it. But the trade we can still benefit from.

      • APL
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

        “an interventionist programme”

        an intergrationist program.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

        Dear ABL–There were plenty of disbenefits even as regards trade–Rules and Regulations like there was no tomorrow

    • Dennis
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

      I have trawled the internet, seen TV, listened to endless radio discussions but have never heard any prominent person, Nigel Farage or Vote Leave executive/campaigner or the Vote Leave campaign bus poster etc mention the word ‘promise’ or ‘guarantee’ any money to the NHS.

      The bus poster said ‘Let’s fund …..’ It seems those (including the BBC) who read promise/guarantee in these words don’t have English as their first language.

      Let’s means a suggestion only as in Let’s have fish tonight. The answer to this can be yes, no or maybe – there is no promise or guarantee in this.

      Even Mathew Elliot the executive of Vote Leave interviewed on the Daily Politics last week had Jo Coburn saying that the bus poster promised £350/week to the NHS and he did not correct this so perpetuating this myth.

      I seem to be the only person pointing this out – am I wrong? Please correct me if so.

      • Jon
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 7:01 am | Permalink

        Semantics. “lets do X” on a bus asking you to vote for something is pretty straightforwardly suggesting that if you vote for it, you will get X. Pretending that it wasn’t really that is a sure way to make people hate the whole business of politics and their weasel words even more than they already do.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:43 am | Permalink

      It is not the question of taking back control, but how much and how much and how quickly.

      If we go for a bespoked bilateral arrangement, that ‘could’ take many years, if ever, because we would still be members of the EU. Article 50 sets a time limit but, this can be extended and, if it is in the EU’s interest they will extend it.

      All the time we are in we are subject to all their laws and have to pay large financial contributions. A quick exit with the view to getting all we what we want at a later stage would be beneficial.

      • Casbah
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

        The laws are not ‘their laws’. They are the laws agreed by a compromise between 28 member states, including the UK. Many oth r states don’t like the laws the UK has pressed for, just as the UK dislikes some of the laws other members have prioritised. The EU is a sophisticated and complex organisation and any deal will take time and entail compromise. I am afraid those who think 27 other countries will roll over and do the UK’s bidding are deluded – they have as much agency and as many strong opinions as we have, and they hold an awful lot of the cards. Leavers will have to be realistic. No responsible government will sell the entire UK down the river to appease a very small minority of hardline extremists among the mass of hopefully realistic brexiters.

    • Casbah
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      indeed. Mr Redwood, just over half those who voted simply voted to leave the EU. They did not vote on the shape of Brexit. Taking back ‘control’ may be their motive. The U.K. a government has done that and, as our elected representatives, is now controlling the shape of the deal. I am afraid that just because you do not like that deal, you and the Leave campaigners have no mandate to oppose it. You wanted the UK to control, and it is. That is all. You cannot make any assumptions about the motives of Leave voters other than yourself. And I am afraid that 16m remain voters will also have to be mollified. The deal will be a compromise and because we are not living in a dictatorship, everyone will have to accept that.

  2. Roger parkin
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    What worries me is that our government is also missing the point. Our new PM and Foreign Secretary to name but two are using the language of compromise when they talk of free movement. I genuinely feel that we are not going to take back total control of our affairs. Am I worrying unnecessary? Can you put my mind at rest?

    • Hope
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      Time a general election is called, May is not fit for purpose nor does she have a public mandate. This is what you get from 200 Traitorous Tory MPs. After wasting millions of pounds of our taxes trying to force the public to stay in the EU by scare stories they are now trying another tactic. Remainers could not refute mass immigration even with veiled smears for being racists people voted to stay out. Leave ministers shunned from seeing papers to do their job. Scare stories about the economy was and is all they have.- scare stories, no fact. Schauble admits Osborne asked him to intervene! How many others of the good and great encouraged by Cameron and Osborne? The media have not stopped with their campaign to condition the public to change its mind. JR, time you and your colleagues really spoke out including the few leave. Insiders skewed caning towards remaining. Boris needs to wake up fast. Time for country not career.

      • Peter Stroud
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

        I am not sure that a GE now would be such a good idea. Certainly I have little doubt that the Conservative vote would increase, and as a Tory, I would welcome that. However such a move would do nothing but cement Mrs May’s premiership. Better the many Eurosceptic MPs fight suggestions of weakening our resolve to make a clean break with the EU. And that we Outers make sure our MPs know our views in a very firm manner.

        • Hope
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

          I understand your point, but disagree with the outcome of any GE. May is an unelected PM without a mandate who is leading a Europhile govt that does not agree with leaving the EU and she thinks the UK should stay in the ECHR! Tories will leave in their droves, rightly so. The Tories wrongly assume Labour is in a mess and are invincible. I have not spoken to anyone who voted out who is happy with current events.

    • casbah
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      Hi. The UK IS ‘taking back control’ even now. Whether you like the shape of any deal or not is irrelevant – the referendum wasn’t on what sort of post-Brexit deal voters wanted, just on whether the UK should leave the EU. As our elected representatives (and May et al ARE all elected, whether or not another general election is called for), our own British government IS now controlling the shape of the deal. I am afraid that just because assorted Leavers may not like that deal, they have no mandate to oppose it. You wanted the UK to take control, and it is. As the government knows, a compromise will be inevitable. First, because the other 27 EU states are not just going to roll over and give the UK what it alone wants, because they have as much agency and strength of opinion as the UK does and hold a lot of the cards. Delusions of Britain’s grandeur are sadly just that – delusions. Second, there are also 16m Remain voters to mollify: the result was very close, the UK is divided, and again the Leave side has no sweeping mandate to ride roughshod over half the country. Third, simply walking away with no deal sounds tempting for the hard Brexiters, who just want to stick their finger up at the EU with no regard for the economic, political or social consequences (and these would be negative and widescale – it’s no use pretending otherwise. Unless people think economic chaos, isolationism and xenophobia are desirable outcomes). But no responsible UK government will allow that section of opinion to sell the nation down the river just to assuage their own petty grievances/egos. So I don’t think anyone can set your mind at rest, if you think ‘control’ by the elected government simply means doing Mr Redwood’s bidding. Compromise and realism are necessary for the good of the whole country. It isn’t just about you.

  3. Marc Shaw
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    The campaign to Leave was clear that a trade deal (similar to the one we currently have) would be forthcoming. The difficulty is that access to the Single Market seems only to be possible if we compromise on Free Movement. Because Leave promised incompatible things, it is not clear how the referendum mandate should be interpreted.

    • Matt Grimes
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      I am fed up of hearing the lie that ‘access’ to the single market means freedom of movement. It doesn’t. Every country on earth has access to the single market, it is just on what terms we have it.

      Throughout the campaign Vote Leave made clear we do not want to be inside the single market, just to have access.

      Only countries inside the single market need to accept the four freedoms.

      We don’t want to be inside.

      • getahead
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, what we want is free trade, not the Single Market which is an EU construction. The Remainers like to confuse the two just as they like calling the EU “Europe”.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

      It doesn’t really matter what various Leave campaigners said, none of them were the government, and what matters far more is the crystal clear promise that the government made to voters in its official booklet delivered to all households:


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

      The decision was that the UK should leave the EU, not remain in the EU, and now we expect the government to implement that decision not interpret it.

    • Nick
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      A bad deal is worse than no deal.

      Walk away.

      1. no freedom of movement.
      2. Tariffs – with a trade surplus that means the EU pays the UK.

      Then I would, to paraphrase a certain movie, let loose the dogs of the city. ie. Banking secrecy, tax avoidance for EU citizens, allowed. ie. Legal structures that hide the ownership and roll up profits, free of taxation.

      Even the DBourse merger, and irrelevance when its all going to go block chain

    • NickC
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

      Marc, The Leave campaign did not “promise” anything of the sort. Leave stated that a free trade deal was in the best interests of both parties. Which it is. Moreover the vast majority of the rest of the world has access to the Single Market without suffering unlimited migration and without contributing, by using WTO rules.

      So if the UK left the EU completely tomorrow, we would still have access to the SM using the already agreed WTO tariffs. No migration and no Danegeld. Lower tariff levels, or free trade, can then be mutually agreed, as would be negotiated with any other country.

      So it is clear that control of our borders is not incompatible with a free trade agreement. Whether the EU wants to cut off its nose to spite its face is another matter, of course. The UK, as an independent state, can set whatever tariff levels best suit us, irrespective of the EU’s opinions.

  4. Ed Mahony
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    ‘We voted to leave, to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders’ – Sorry, I disagree. The vast majority of people voted because of immigration. Only some voted because of the economy and laws. Important difference.
    ‘The rest of the EU is missing the point’ – the rest of the EU doesn’t really care anymore. They’re not going to negotiate on free movement of people because others in the EU would demand it and this could lead to the break of the EU (which would cost Germany and France more than not offering us control of borders). Secondly, with us out of the EU, the EU could take over some of our financial services and other market opportunities. Thirdly, with us out of the EU, the EU can get on with whatever they want to do without the UK bothering them wanting concessions and special treatment all the time. Yes, to being tough with the EU, but not like this. The way to do it in my opinion is to make a proper effort at trying to reform the EU overall, including immigration – but reform for all the EU – that all 27 countries would agree to.
    (I’d be much more accepting of Brexit if Brexiteers offered us a plan of what’s ahead. But they haven’t. It’s like they’re depending on a wing and a prayer. If I went into a bank and said what a great idea I had for a business but had no proper business plan, the bank would quickly show me the door – similar with Brexiteers and their extremely sketchy Brexit ‘plan’).

    Reply We have a clear plan. Leave the EU. Spend our own money on our own priorities. Pass our own laws. Control our own borders. Carry on trading under WTO rules or better.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Dear John–But if it is as you say why is it so abundantly clear, right left and Boris, that to them it is NOT sufficient to trade with the EU as does the rest of the world? It is as clear as can be that they want full tariff free access and that to them that comes first.

  5. MikeP
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    I really don’t see what the difficulty is and I hope Theresa May isn’t going to be bullied into some watered down solution to pacify the SNP (35% of whose suporters voted to Leave) and other Remainers.
    Those countries further afield who trade quite happily with the EU, even without a “Trade Deal” don’t have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ (do they?) or accept free movement. So our start-point surely should be an end to these great pillars of faith, added to which we will continue to co-operate on security, policing, intelligence, NATO and Council of Europe membership. Then we turn our attention to trade, where we wish ideally to accept all the EU’s exported goods and services free of tariffs in return for our exports being tariff-free too. This last point will be unacceptable to them of course so they must come back and propose the level and type of tariffs that will be acceptable and we will reciprocate. Any deal that costs us net £10bn or less is a price worth paying for the other objectives being met.

  6. Lance Hope Baxter
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    We are ill informed of treaties that Bind us with the EU,there are lots of reasons to vote out
    And can I suggest less to stay,what I do know is ,euro sceptics should always voice there concern and not vote with the party line,the way forward is to have some control,I am concerned that the electorate who did not vote with there pocket are not being listened to
    Modern conservatives should promote modern conservatism, it is note “One nation for conservatives” I have been a regular conservative voter and want more middle ground policies and less Controll from outside sources, just to be able to trade and listen to their laws etc,I hope Theresa is not just washing over the cracks,

  7. Alexis
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    This won’t do.

    What are they playing at?

    What do they expect the response to be? It will be ugly.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

      “Brexit mean Brexit” says Mrs May but what does she mean? After all she had the temerity to assure the public (totally wrongly) that we had control of our borders within the EU through Schengen.

      She need to clarify urgently the government’s position.

      • turboterrier
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:32 pm | Permalink


        “Brexit mean Brexit” says Mrs May but what does she mean?

        It means if the Sunday Express is to believed that BoJo is already leaning towards “doing a deal”

        This is not what we voted for. Get him out and get rid.

        He may be better serving on the back benches and trying to understand the way he rest of the country (the real people) think.

        • JohnF
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

          ” This is not what we voted for. Get him out and get rid. ”

          I disagree. I voted to leave but with an agreement on freedom of movement I may well vote to remain. I know several others who would do the same.

          It’s nonsense to suggest we all voted for the same thing. We most definitely didn’t.

          • alan jutson
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:01 am | Permalink


            The question was “leave” or “remain” not something in the middle, or a bit of both.

            Brexit was short for Britian to exit.

            The remain politicians are simply trying to deliberately confuse people now with all sorts of different terminology and spin.

            We voted to LEAVE by a majority.

            We want a trade deal with the EU we do not want entry to their so called single market, with all that this would entail.

            We have an immigration policy for everyone in else in the World we should simply apply that to the EU members as well.

            Why do we want two immigration policies ??

          • Know-dice
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:05 am | Permalink

            You, me, Joe Bloggs may all have different reasons for voting the way we did, but, each and every one of us who voted either voted to Leave or Remain, nothing more nothing less…

    • JoeSoap
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

      Or a UKIP vote by 52+ percent. Let the Tories hang themselves using their own rope.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      Alexis; “What do they expect the response to be? It will be ugly.”

      This is what comes from politicos promising what they knew could not be delivered, either those who detest free movement of people will be angry [1] or those dependant on free trade will be angry (either as supplier or purchaser).

      [1] but their anger will be nothing like that when they are told that they or their darling children are going to have to do those NMW, dirty, unsociable hours, jobs that the migrants willingly did before…

      • Mark Watson
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        Migration won’t stop under Brexit, it will just be controlled (hopefully)

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

          Not do I want it to stop, I just want it to be selective, quality controlled and under democratic control at Westminster level.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

          @Mark Watson; But many companies need free movement, not just migration with all the paper work that will be involved (remember that visa waver schemes are free movement by the back door), it’s called being able to plan.

          • JayCee
            Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

            And by the same token, Jerry, governments also need to plan – housing/schools/doctors/roads etc etc ……
            Free movement of people means that the UK government has no control over the number of people moving to the UK and therefore is unable to determine the level of services and infrastructure to be provided.
            Controlled Borders NOT Open Borders
            Quality over Quantity

          • Jerry
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

            @JayCee; How do you plan for what a free market needs when that free market do not know how many immigrants they might/will need [1]. We can only plan properly for housing, schools, doctors, roads etc. in a planed economy, like we had in the immediate post war era, otherwise there will always be at least some element of playing reactionary catch-up. Also, if we are into such catch-up planning don’t we just need to know how many have officially entered and taken up residence in the county (no one can ever plan for illegal migrants as the numbers are by definition unknown)?

            Around here we desperately need better roads and parking capacity, this has not been caused by immigration but poor planing due to the vagueness of the free market and our lack of integrated planning, new factories have been allowed, new retail outlets have been allowed, highway improvements have been made elsewhere that affect up and down stream traffic flows etc. but little or nothing has been done to the roads locally, what has been done has been done cheaply and was out of date by the time the plans left the drawing board. This in a true blue Tory, but cost cutting, area.

            [1] around here, until they start trying to recruit seasonal indigenous workers

          • Edward2
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

            Your continued claim that the UK is a free market economy is wrong Jerry
            The UK is a complex mixed economy where the State involves itself in most areas of life spending huge sums of money.
            Planning can be done in our country by Govt.
            It doesn’t need to be a “planned economy” in the style of a socialist model.
            The Govt has recourse to huge amounts of statistics, data and reports to guide its decisions.
            Immigration was around the tens of thousands on average post war, and this is what we need to get back to.
            We do not need 600,000 new arrivals a year.

      • Alexis
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        They always did do them, Jerry.

        Life did exist before the EU, and we never had full employment.

        ‘Doing the jobs the Brits won’t’ is an unsubstantiated myth. Repeating it doesn’t make it true.

        • APL
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          Alexix: “Doing the jobs the Brits won’t’ is an unsubstantiated myth. ”

          It’s a half truth.

          ‘Brits’ didn’t want to do those jobs at the rate of pay the (often) public run operations intended to pay.

          While the government devalued the pound sterling, over 9,000% since 1913, it’s hardly a wonder that people couldn’t or wouldn’t live on the largely static salaries the public authorities intended to pay – solution? Import cheap labour.

      • Patrick Geddes
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

        I think this is your most awful post Jerry.
        “Those that detest free movement”
        No one does Jerry
        Its about control of numbers.
        Is there any upper limit for you?
        Ten million a year twenty million a year?
        Do tell.
        Then that class ridden sacastic snear that ” their darljng children..et al”
        When several million existing people in the UK are looking for full time work.
        You are so out of touch its comical.

      • anon
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

        Jerry, re: nmw and migrants is very disparaging to non-migrant populations. It completely detracts from any point you are making.

        Some would if the assertion were reversed, call you some kind of word.
        The one which people use to close down debate.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

          @Patrick Geddes; @anon; Sorry if the truth hurts the both of you.

          • Patrick Geddes
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

            No, not at all Jerry.

    • Hope
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      There were not meant to be any form of talks before article 50 triggered. So the cunning hatch of a plan came from where?

  8. Dioclese
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    Quite so! Perhaps 4 million signature on this petition would help?


    • Nick
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      Or allow free movement, but do not allow free access to state goods and services.

      12K per person per year in tax, plus another 20K per year for the increase in the state pension debts.

    • oldtimer
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      You need a better link. The one you provide does not accept registration.

  9. Ed Mahony
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    BTW, this might be pie-in-the-sky, wishful thinking but I’d like to see smart British people like Mr Redwood and Michael Howard (or whoever) inside the EU, trying to reform it. But reform it for all 27 countries (which would benefit us more than being outside the EU where our nearest and biggest trading partners are, with important geo-political consequences as well, benefiting us economically in the long-run, as well as in terms of peace and security, and so on). Then we could have the best of both worlds, keeping what is best about Europe, and throwing out what doesn’t work (and I admit, there is a lot). Thanks for letting me comment here (I’ve had my say so won’t be back again).

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:51 pm | Permalink


      Cameron tried under threat of leaving to get changes, Fararge has tried for 20 years, Dan Hannan has tried.

      For 40 years we have tried to get some sort of common sense but to no avail.

      Sorry but you are deluded if you think we can change this lot, they would rather collapse the whole pack of cards rather than change.

      We voted Out, and that means out.

    • Alexis
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      this has been talked about and tried, repeatedly, for decades.

      It never happens.

      We would be fools indeed to wait and hope any more.

    • Know-dice
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink


      “Then we could have the best of both worlds, keeping what is best about Europe, and throwing out what doesn’t work (and I admit, there is a lot).”

      In my experience of life and producing/managing technical projects, sometimes you have to stand back and say “this is not working”. Your options are to try and fix/patch-up what is not working (which may be as a result of poor decisions and planing early on in the project), or just start from scratch again. You then use your and your colleagues experience and accumulated knowledge to build a better solution.

      I think that’s where we are with the EU…Leave now and go through some pain to build a better solution for the UK. For me it’s really now or never.

      If we stay (not what I want), then there is no point in not joining the Euro, Shengen etc. and accepting that we should become good assimilated EUpeans 😳

  10. alan jutson
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Its not just the EU that is missing the point, its most of our own MP’s and seemingly all of our Civil Service.

    The time for any negotiation is after we have actually left, we then become like any other Country negotiating a trade deal.

    I am getting increasingly worried that our so called Brexit politicians are getting hamstrung and tied up with all of the so called detail, when the solution is so bloody simple.

    Never underestimate that our politicians are capable of engineering a defeat, just when the jaws of victory are open and for the taking.

    We do not need to talk with the EU about negotiations before we enact article 50 because it just confuses everyone.

    Any negotiations need to start from a position of ZERO, not a modification of what the position is now.

    All real Brexit Politicians need to be on their guard against any backsliding.

    • Hope
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      Vote of no confidence in May would help.

    • Noel
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

      We voted out. We want out. No ifs no buts.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

      Dear Alan–I hear on the News that there is a possible Free Trade deal with China in the offing–Good–Will that necessitate Free Movement?–No, I thought not–What is it that makes Hollande for instance so keen on Free Movement, for I have no clue?–Does he want the French to be able to come to England ad lib for instance? –Didn’t think so–Perhaps that Germans should be able to move to France?–Again I don’t think so–Perhaps somebody could explain–In particular what this has to do with Free Trade.

      • alan jutson
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:03 am | Permalink



      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

        No answer–The only the reason the EU maniacs want Free Movement is so that they can pretend to themselves that Europe is a single country–Free Movement is absolutely not a requirement for Free Trade

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

          Apart from Alan I now see–But I still really really would like to understand where Hollande’s head is at–Why should he care, and apparently so strongly?–Wait till Merkel’s net inward migraters get German passports and then move to France–He might not be so keen then

  11. Anonymous
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:47 am | Permalink

    The British people might have voted to Remain had a few concessions been granted during Mr Cameron’s round trip of the EU.

    In the event this showed up fully our lack of influence in the EU and our inability to gather the democratic concensus required to address a specific national problem – the EU is not designed for nuanced solutions to local issues.

    The one-size-fits-all approach to the single currency applies with equally damaging effect to Greece as the one-size-fits-all approach to freedom of movement damages an economically successful country such as Britain.

    I might add that Britain has been economically successful because it is not in the Eurozone. Britain has ‘thrived’ by virtue of what it does NOT have in common with the rest of the EU but the future of Remain would have been for that to have been abolished soon enough.

    On the approach the the referendum a fully informed public (informed by virtue of Mr Cameron’s thin gruel) saw that nothing could be done about immigration while in the EU.

    Newmania would describe people who want to preserve Britain as ‘ultra’ nationalists. This is truly offensive against people who – time and time again – have used the appropriate peaceful and democratic process to make their point that they were unhappy.

    These many warnings (including UKIP victory in the EU elections*) went unheeded.

    And so the people waited patiently and forced a referendum and then won the referendum – yet still this is not good enough. They must be ignored or forced to vote again (As is very well precedented in the EU) so that we deliver the result that is right.

    Newmania knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Least of all the value of his own people who have been the model of patience, tolerance with full respect of due democratic process even when it lets them down.

    *If MEPs really had influence in the EU then their election would be vitally important news in Britain. To date it isn’t. Hence the UKIP successes in EU elections were not met with hysteria by the BBC. Why ? Because they know MEPs make no difference at all ! So do the people. They used them to give full and early – yet measured – warning of how gravely they viewed the EU and open borders.

  12. Margaret
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    Obviously it is paying some to stall.

  13. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    As floated here:


    “Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK for up to seven years”

    “Diplomats working on deal to give Theresa May greater concessions than those won by David Cameron, despite French doubts”

    When I read that article I understand that the UK would not be in the EU but would stay in the EEA with a concession on free movement. The details of that are not made clear but the mention of a seven year period says straight away that it would be inadequate.

    However when I read this:

    “… diplomats believe it could go a long way towards addressing concerns of the British people over immigration from EU states … ”

    that kind of language does remind me of what was being said after the Irish voted against the Lisbon Treaty in June 2008.

    The Irish voted again on the same treaty but with a promise of a protocol to the EU treaties – which promise was actually kept, like the promise of a protocol previously given to the Danes, which eventually materialised, but unlike the promise made to the Czechs where the protocol never materialised.

    And the title of that Irish protocol? Here is the UK Act of Parliament to approve it prior to ratification by the UK government:


    “An Act to make provision consequential on … the Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, adopted at Brussels on 16 May 2012”.

  14. Oggy
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    We voted to LEAVE the EU ! The position that should be made quite clear to the EU is that only trade is negotiable the rest WE ARE TAKING BACK whether they like it or not.

    JR – ‘we did not try to overturn the election result, take them to court, or demand a re run! We accepted the verdict of the UK voters.’

    It sounds to me like you are also having worries and doubts that the UK will ever leave the EU because of the forces actively working against it. From our point of view if you are worried then WE really should be.

  15. Colin Hart
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    What exactly, or even vaguely, is the EU proposing? Seven years in which we have some control over EU immigration and then none? Seven years in which we gradually impose control? Or just seven years in which to forget we ever had a referendum.

    Knowing the way the sophists and spinmeisters of the European Commission work it will probably be a confused mish-mash of all three.

    Tell them to get lost. It’s the only language they understand.

  16. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    You’re fighting an uphill battle John. All the movers and shakers want to remain chained to the corpse of the EU.
    We the little people are too stupid to understand how good mass displacement of the population is.
    We just worry whilst we are becoming second class citizens in our own country.
    Keep fighting otherwise your party is doomed like the Labour Party.

  17. Tad Davison
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    I agree. It is called a democratic process. This situation calls for men (and women) of action!

    Labour’s Owen Smith said again this morning that people ought to be given another chance to vote because of the lies pedalled by the Leave campaign. I can think of quite a few pedalled by the Remain campaign, by I suppose by his twisted logic, that doesn’t count.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

      Without the remain’s control of the government propaganda machine and the bias of the BBC it would have been 2:1 for leave.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:45 am | Permalink

        I absolutely agree with that!


        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

          Me too–I’m still trying to understand how it can have been that the Government was not neutral as it should have been–Apart from that (and ignoring the abuse of its position by the Government, a separate story) for the Government to have a position and then lose was a disgrace

  18. Chris S
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    These reports are truly alarming !

    We very clearly voted for a complete end to FOM, no contributions to the EU budget and freedom to do our own trade deals and set our own regulations to suit us.

    As our greatest Prime Minister once said : No! No! No!

    Any attempt to water these four principles down would be profoundly undemocratic.

    Any kind of emergency brake would be completely unacceptable, especially if the decision to activate it would require the approval of the EU.

    We are on the cusp of a new era of freedom and independence with the ability to do our own trade deals. Would that still be possible of we are still tied into the Free Market ?

    What about our fishing industry ? Would we still be bound to open up our waters to everyone ?

    The very last thing we want is to be made to vote again on any attempt to keep us in.

    This is the combined weight of the Foreign Office and the Civil Service, Pro-EU almost to a man, working to keep us in the EU in any way they can.

    Mrs May said Brexit means Brexit. Well this proposal does not meet that criteria.

    If she does not stay true to her word and fails to provide us with a proper arrangement for Brexit which incorporates total control over FOM, Regulation, Trade Deals and Fishing rights with no budget contributions, I, and millions of others, will never vote Conservative again. It will be UKIP from then on.

    With Labour in retreat, and UKIP in the ascendancy, North of Watford the only way the Conservatives will then be able to remain in power would be as part of a UKIP/Conservative coalition.

  19. yet another fine day
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Have seen mention a few times here and there re
    Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan of which eg Merkel and the other main deutsche dude are prizewinners.
    I think it advocated globalisation ie big melting pot for Europe.
    If this is the underlying agenda then it needs to be out in the open and analysed.
    See eg, ie, re, etc are being binned according to Telegraph.
    Must start brushing up on my OrwellSpeak.

  20. Andrew Ralls
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    Perhaps if Vote Leave had actually published a comprehensive and coherent manifesto and statement of what a Government should do if the referendum vote was to leave the EU, there would be no room for doubt and the vote decision would have been easier for the electorate to grasp. Since you and your colleagues in the campaign declined to offer such clarity and, instead, to hide behind populist soundbites to dupe those less inclined to actually investigate the implications of leaving the EU, you can’t now complain that your intention is not being adhered to. Maybe you should have a chat with the Foreign Secretary since he did far more than you to bring about this state of affairs.

    reply We stated clearly the aim is to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, not to enter some new negotiation.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

      Are you saying that the question on the ballot paper was not clear enough?

      Voters were asked: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”, and more said that we should leave rather than stay, so now we should leave. It’s not that difficult.

    • libertarian
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

      Andrew Ralls

      The fact that you and the remainiacs can’t grasp that there was ONE simple objective leave. There was one simple plan invoke article 50 thats it there is nothing else. Its laughable how remainiacs keep calling leavers stupid, ignorant unable to grasp the nuance etc. When there is nothing to be grasped we dont need a plan. Leave and carry on being the trading nation we have been for 100’s of years. Is that too simple.? Then I guess that people that have been fed a diet of propaganda about so called single markets, so called free trade and so called freedom of movement really can’t grasp simple concepts.

    • nick gibbons
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Dear Mr Redwood

      i have been a commercial litigation solicitor for nearly 25 years and have 5 properties and a business (from absolutely nothing). i specialise in IP , technology and insurance and also do lots of international contracts. you are clearly a well qualified man. You must or should know that it is impossible to engage in international trade without dealing with international laws and that any trade with the eu in future even if we leave altogether will be subject to eu law – just like doing ia deal in india is subject to indian law. you must also know that in an era of globalisation national governments of every sort have less control over capital flows. any first year law student will tell you that most domestic law is made by the civil service. The leave campaign have not offered a single plausible coherent truthful argument for leaving the eu and i have listened very hard – none of the arguments put up would stand up for two minutes in any court – so far not a single worthwhile trade deal with another bloc or country has been put forward and all we have is a set of sound bites as you and your colleagues desperately seek to drive us all over a cliff forever- we cant go back to the nineteenth century or resurrect the commonwealth or indeed recreate a world of independent nation states- and as i think you probably know the uk made most of its money out of sugar slavery and stealing spanish gold – we now have to live and trade in the 21st century in the situation that we have with globalisation, the internet and massive trade blocks-what i do not understand is why you are all doing this – what for, what are you hoping to achieve with all this nonsense – please can one of you explain – really ?

      Reply We have endlessly explained what the public voted for – the same ability to control our laws, money and borders as all independent non EU countries enjoy, and normal trade with EU under WTO rules or better if they agree to remain tariff free.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

        Mr Gibbons – Doing a deal in India (whilst in the EU) means we have to clear it with EU approval, as well as compliance with Indian law.

        Well done on your five houses. Best sell them before the crash you predict.

        The EU has been less of a blessing for many, especially those unable to afford decent accommodation because of overcrowding. Not everything will be a bad thing.

        (The EU economy is going to tank with or without the help of Brexit.)

      • A different Simon
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:42 am | Permalink

        nick gibbons ,

        There was no single “leave” campaign just as there was no single “remain” campaign .

        It must be frustrating that your vote as a successful solicitor and land speculator counts no more than the vote of one of the Britons at the bottom end of the foodchain who has lost their job as a result of free movement of people and is now a renter on housing benefit .

        Please don’t begrudge the little people their victory .

        Their country is all that many of them have left and they plan to hold onto it .

        Reply There was an official Leave campaign with an official leaflet delivered free. That was a campaign to take back control, and to leave the EU.

    • Noel
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      As the previous administration didn’t even bother to contemplate leaving therefore doing absolutely nothing to put in place anything resembling a coherent plan we are now starting from scratch. Be that as it may, out means out we do not want or will accept any deviation

    • David Price
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:01 am | Permalink

      Perhaps the Remain campaign should have published a comprehensive and coherent manifesto and statement of what the Government would be required to do in the eventt of a Remain win. Such a statement would have been full of sweetness and light and encouraged everyone to vote to remain – so why didn’t they?

      The vote was to decide who we wanted to govern us – our parliament or a foreign power.

  21. Chris
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    We support you entirely. We have just written to our MP this morning along these lines, urging him to make our views very clear to the government. We do not feel the reported plans regarding the Single Market and 7 year emergency brake reflect the will of the people, as expressed by the majority verdict in the referendum. This is indeed a slightly “beefed up” Cameron renegotiation and is unacceptable. Leave means Leave.

  22. Paul Latham
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    What is vital is that we have the very best front-line negotiators for this Brexit task with the EU. Britain is in an advantageous position as the EU member states sell proprtionately more to this country in goods and services than we sell to them.
    By having a ‘Frree Trade’ policy, with no tariffs, on all the international trade this nation does, the EU will be obliged to give reasons why this zero tariff, ‘free trade’ cannot be accepted within the 27 EU member states.

    As a businessman Mr Redwood, you must know that having the right front-line team is neccessary, beneath Boris Johnson and David Davies. They should not be doing the ‘hard bargaining’ themselves, as senior govt. ministers

    I don’t think that ‘free movement’ can ever be acceptable, we must retain the right to decide who is eligible to work in this country, according to our national requirements, not those of the other EU member states. If this has to be a reciprocal agreement with the EU, then so be it.

  23. rose
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    Not surprising that the rest of the EU is missing the point when our own people keep feeding them lies, as they do us.

    It is really wearing having to keep explaining to people, foreigners and British alike, what the vote was for. And they never listen, they just know that we are racist little Englanders who want to pull up the drawbridge and not have anything to do with the rest of the world. Some people are talking of emigrating to Scotland!

  24. Lifelogic
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Indeed we must have UK democratic control over immigration. The UK might well chose to have significant (but quality controlled) migration as a sensible policy, but control must be with the elected Westminster government.

  25. rk
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    A referendum is different to a general election. We voted to Leave. So long as we leave- we will have upheld the meaning of the referendum.

    You can’t claim that the referendum result means lots of other things. People were told we would spend more money on the NHS, that they would have more school places, that we wouldn’t make a budgetary contribution to the EU, that we could reduce the deficit, lower immigration, higher immigration from outside the EU etc… People voted for many different and sometimes contradictory reasons.

    Also – taking back control surely meant giving it back to the UK parliament.

    If that same parliament votes to continue freedom of movement (it doesn’t seem likely that it will- but this is about a principle)- then surely that upholds the referendum result so long as we leave the EU?

    • David Price
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:21 am | Permalink

      A Vote Leave pamphlet came through my door entitled “5 positive reasons to Vote Leave and take back control”.

      It listed;
      – If we vote Leave we can spend money on our priorities – like the NHS, schools and housing.

      – If we vote Leave, UK laws will have ultimate authority and we will take back control.

      – If we vote Leave, we will be able to have a fairer, more humane (immigration) system based on skills we need. We will be able to control numbers without having to turn away talented people from outside the EU who want to contribute.

      – If we vote Leave, we can have a friendlier relationship with the EU based on trade,a s well as regain our seat on global bodies like the WTO.

      Yes, the vote was to take back control, to have our parliament decide, but there were a number of promises and offers tied up with that proposition. Freedom of Movement conflicts directly with the promise of controlling our borders, controlling who comes in.

  26. alan jutson
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    We voted to LEAVE the EU, not half leave.

    Simply do not understand why the UK Political class do not get it, the EU does, that is why they are very happy for us to delay, it means they can chip away bit by bit and undermine our resolve to fully leave.

    Merkel is no fool, the more she can delay, the greater the chance they have of us accepting a lesser deal.

    Mrs May needs to wake up and shape up.

    • Tom William
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      When she appointed Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary was Mrs May unaware of his recent written views on leaving the EU and the fact that he had, before he declared for Brexit, also drafted an article for Remain just in case? Was she influenced by his robust “knickers to Brussels” campaigning attitudes or did she see him as just playing a part? Who is ultimately in charge of Brexiting – David Davis, Boris or her? There is plenty of inconsistency to be seen.

      We need reassurance.

  27. miami.mode
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    I’m truly glad you are on our side.

  28. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    “We accepted the verdict of the UK voters.”

    Well, JR, you may recall this Opposition Day debate on June 15th:


    About six and half hours of debate, of which about six were taken up with MPs telling each other how important it was to stay in the EU; half a dozen MPs explicitly said that the decision was now down to the people and they would accept it, and not a single MP said that if the vote was to leave then they should decide whether or not the Article 50 notice should go in, with or without the additional consent of the Lords.

    Here’s the Tory MP for Tonbridge and Malling, at Column 1812:

    “I recognise that today, no matter what we say, it is no longer Parliament that is sovereign- it is the people, as it rightly should be. Whatever is decided in the ballot next week, that decision will be final – 50% plus one vote will carry the day. To argue otherwise would be to threaten the fabric of our political settlement and undermine the legitimacy of this House. I urge all Members to remember that in the days after the referendum and not to question the integrity or intelligence of the British people in having expressed their opinion.”

    But as far as I know apart from one notable exception it is not parliamentarians who are taking the government to court to try to get judges to order that Parliament must control the decision on whether the Article 50 TEU notice should be served, even though over many past years parliamentarians in both Houses have had multiple opportunities to assert that claim but have never done so, rather it is people outside Parliament who want that decision to be moved from the government to Parliament on a pretext of defending the sovereignty of Parliament but really in the hope that Parliament will then keep us in the EU. That’s apart from a Lord who is a lead counsel in one case.

  29. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Damn right we didn’t take them to court but the mess they left the country in showed they were incompetent.

    I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about how people want to water down the negotiations regarding SM and FOM. Sick of hearing the BBC go on and on about our dwindling economy and the dire state of things since Brexit. Brexit hasn’t even started yet. As far as I can see people are going about their everyday lives still living the same as they did before the vote. This is all a big load of male cow poo poo. I just want something to start and for Article 50 to be invoked or laws or whatever it takes to get us out of this mess to begin. Paddy Ashdown was going on this morning on the doom and gloom Marr show about how they would rejoin the EU if they could. For God’s sake, we haven’t even started to negotiate leaving yet let alone rejoining!! Are these people for real? I think maybe it is all too much hard work for some.

    There is not a lot of trust or faith in the establishment as it is now but if they go back on what the people voted for then woe betide them all. Democracy has to be delivered.

  30. Mark
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:47 am | Permalink

    We have to work with the agreements we have. That means we will not be able to leave the EU until two years after triggering Article 50 (the other 27 will insist on hanging on to our contributions as long as possible). However, it is equally plain that even by that date there will not be a finalised agreement under Article 50, and that therefore we (and more particularly the EU) need interim measures while the final agreement continues to be worked on after we have left the EU under the guillotine, in accordance with Article 50.

    I think we have already secured several wedges in the door – despite the public “no negotiation in advance” stance, EU countries are in fact negotiating. May won several shifts of position from both Merkel and Hollande. To be able to limit immigration for a seven year period as an interim measure gives us a long time to out-wait the EU 27 on finalised measures. Despite the bluster, the EU 27 are showing that their cards aren’t nearly as strong as the press likes to pretend.

    Meanwhile the French are demonstrating that freedom of movement inside the EU can be interpreted as having just one immigration agent at the port – reminding me of the time they insisted on all foreign video recorders being customs cleared at a small office in Poitiers. Perhaps we should show similar imagination.

    Reply We can leave simply by repeal of the 1972 Act

    • turboterrier
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      Reply We can leave simply by repeal of the 1972 Act

      Why therefore cannot we just do it? The longer we take the more the chance of being sold half a deal, sadly to cannot trust the remoaners to support us to the bitter end.

    • Mark
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

      Yes, when there is a Parliamentary majority to pass the repeal, and when it is clear that we will not be treated as in breach of treaty obligations.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

      JR, were you still in the chamber on June 15th when the fairly mainstream Tory MP Robert Neill said of that proposal:

      “It would be a scandal to ask this House to do that, and I say now that I, for one, would never vote for it.”

      Column 1810 here:


  31. matthu
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Temporary exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement
    Temporary, ongoing access to the single market
    Temporary, ongoing and substantial contribution to EU Budget
    Temporary, ongoing subjugation to the EU courts

    Sounds very balanced to me. What is there possibly not to like? (Perhaps we could also negotiate a temporary, ongoing seat at the negotiating table …? Replace one of the stars on the EU flag with a little Union Jack?)

    Apparently even Boris is excited:

    “I’ve absolutely no doubt that balance can be struck and over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing that with the Government and with a European friends and partners, ” Boris is reported as saying.

    “Everybody wishes to make fast progress in the Economic interest of both Britain and of the European Union. I think there is very much a deal there to be done, and the faster we can get it done the better.”

    No, Boris! Brexit means Brexit.

  32. Michael Keating
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    I agree. The vote was to leave the EU. A compromise BREXIT would be unacceptable and would not have a democratic mandate. Leave means leave. The idea that EU elites would continue in control is laughable.

    • Noel
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

      Totally unacceptable. 17.5 million reasons out means out

      • JohnF
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

        Totally unacceptable. 17.5 million reasons out means out

        Sorry – you’re wrong. People voted OUT for different reasons. If there was an acceptable deal on FoM then I know for a fact that a number of people would switch their vote.

        If my concerns were addressed to my satisfaction then I would support a second referendum as I have no confidence that the UK would thrive outside the EU.

        Reply The government made clear that voting leave meant exit from the EU. That’s what we voted for.

        • JohnF
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

          Reply The government made clear that voting leave meant exit from the EU. That’s what we voted for.

          Frankly, John, I don’t care. If an offer is forthcoming which addresses my concerns then I’m happy to vote again – AND vote to Remain. I know others who would do the same. I don’t share your confidence that we will thrive outside the EU.

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

            Dear John–Plenty of us — the majority — don’t share your lack of confidence and with each passing day become increasingly sure we did the right thing. I know others feel the same.

  33. Antisthenes
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

    If I understand this correctly the EU is looking to start the renegotiation of UK membership mark II not Brexit. I assumed that would be the first move after the vote if leave won. Do as has been done before rearrange the wording of the treaty or agreement and get the saps to vote again. Not a bad ploy if that is what is happening because many would be persuaded to change their vote if it looked like a deal was made to control free movement. Of course it would not be it would just be made to look like it.

    Then of course there are always the wreckers. The one that after all has been more or less been finalised comes up with a petty objection or what that person thinks a clever idea. Sending everyone into a spin and chasing after more bits of paper. As they say “there is many a slip betwixt the cup and the mouth” and the Brexit journey is a particularly perilous one and the cup may well not make it.

  34. Hope
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Boris Johnson is talking about curbing immigration in exchange for trade. No,no,no. We did not vote for curbing or accepting a half hearted EU light deal.

    JR, your govt is trying it on, to condition us to accept something completely different from what we voted for. All this “populist racism” chat in the media is, once more, trying to silence people’s outrage over mass immigration. I am not a racist and I do not want mass immigration, I want our government o determine who is and who is not allowed in this country not Junker and definitely NOT Merkel!

    Is Dover spectacle about conditioning us about freedom of movement? If so, take another route or do not go to France as it is so unsafe!

  35. forthurst
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    JR gets it as do 17+ million others; Boris clearly does not as reported in the DT:

    “Boris Johnson, the new Foreign Secretary, suggested this weekend that Britain could retain access to the single market while simultaneously securing curbs to freedom of movement.

    “I’ve absolutely no doubt that that balance can be struck and over the next few weeks we’ll be discussing that in the Government and with our European friends and partners.”

    Get this Boris: we voted to leave the EU full stop. That means we do not negotiate over the right of Mad Merkel and other assorted delusion idiots to control our borders or apply Danegeld for the privilege of being flooded with German cars and heavily subsidised French agricultural produce. In fact, Boris needs to back off and let David Davis who is a serious politician to do the talking.

    • Nick
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Is it free movement or free access to UK state resources?

      For example, would you be anti charging each child 12K a year, each adult 32K a year in taxes?

      I wouldn’t. That’s break even. That’s the cost of the UK state.

      If you knew that migrants were all paying their fair share, do you think there would be arguments over free movement? Nope.

      So here’s an idea. Offer the EU WTO rules, no free movement. They have to pay the UK.

      Hmm, they will cave. So offer them no EU control over UK taxation. Free access for the city, and free access for the UK to the EU market, and free access for the EU to the UK market.

      Don’t tell them about the taxation plan.

      The sting in the tail, implement within 24 hours of the deal.

      That just leaves what to do about existing migrants. I would suggested tapering it.

      No welfare for starters.

      • forthurst
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        “Is it free movement or free access to UK state resources?”

        Both. Sovereign nations decide who can enter their countries and for what purpose; members of the EU do not. If we have free movement, then we are not controlling our borders or access to our resources and, more importantly, we are still being controlled by the Brussels regime.

        “If you knew that migrants were all paying their fair share, do you think there would be arguments over free movement? Nope.”

        Yup. That the government was collecting more tax from them would be cold comfort to those suffering the adverse consequences of immigration. Nor is it the point; we cannot continue to tolerate mass immigration without losing everything that represents us as a nation, a people and a culture.

  36. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    I note they were talking about a brake not a break.
    No doubt Brussels would be in control of the break which would make it worthless.
    I do believe they are beginning to understand that we are leaving.
    As you say,free movement and sovereignty are non negotiable and we won’t be paying any tribute into the coffers.

  37. Edward Rawson
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    This is real drivel. To compare the referendum to the 2005 is fatuous. Firstly the bust didn’t happen until after the election and secondly the electorate had their chance to vote again in 2010, unlike the referendum which all leavers insists that out means out.

    The problem with the out side is that they will never get a clear vision of what out is. Freedom of access, but migration controls, Norway, Swiss, Turkey or WTO model. Can’t wait until people realise out means an end to Booze Cruises.

    reply Bote leave was very clear. No Norway, no sWittzerland, exit the single market, no freedom of movement, offer tariff free trade but be prepared to accept WTO if they want barriers.

    • Edward Rawson
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      Worrying that you can’t even spell vote. I supposed you think we will be ok because we import more than we export and so the world owes us a living?

      • Tad Davison
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

        Hands up who has never made a typo when posting. I certainly have. I made one in an earlier post because I had my old woman in my ear and lost my concentration.

        And far from the world owing us a living, being free from the EU can open up tremendous possibilities for us elsewhere to show how industrious and inventive we British can be and thereby reduce that trade deficit overall. I can’t see a lot wrong with that, so what’s your point really?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

          In my case it’s more likely to be a cat coming to help, and there is no edit function on this blog …

          • Tad Davison
            Posted July 25, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

            I’m presently nursing a 16 year-old cat who was savaged by a dog last week, so I know where you’re coming from. She’s only just beginning to walk again, and that adds to the many distractions I have. I’m sure I’m not the only one who tries to do many things at once with the inevitable but forgivable consequences.


      • turboterrier
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

        Edward Rawson

        Give us a break and get a life, all of us have not quite got the English and the typing right. But with even a tad of common sense you can get the drift.

      • Dennis
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        OK is spelt OK not ok.

    • Andy
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      ‘What Out is’ ? I would have thought that was quite simple: the alternative of being a member of the European Union is NOT being a member of the European Union as most of the world isn’t. We should offer tariff free trade, but if the Continental Europeans are stupid then we should be prepared to trade on WTO basis. 10% tariffs on Merc, BMWs, Audis etc and 18% tariff on French wine and cheese etc will be of huge benefit to the German and French economies.

    • libertarian
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Edward Rawson

      Where have you been living ? On what planet ? An end to booze cruises ?? Laughing out loud here .

      The problem with remainiacs is they dont know anything about trade and business. Out is out i.e. just like any of the other 167 countries not in the EU , but then none of them have a plan for not being in the EU either . EVERYONE the entire world has freedom of access to the European marketplace , blimey the ignorance is unbelievable.

      • Edward Rawson
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:48 pm | Permalink


        First off I have certain distain for people who hide behind pen names.

        No matter I will hold my nose and reply.

        The point I was trying to make was that leaving the single market will mean the reintroduction of personal allowances on duty free.

        It is quaint that some people believe in a unrestricted free trade wonderland. I hate to be one the one to let you know that the unrestricted trade is between Cloud Cockoo Land, Narnia and La La Land.

        Sighing at your innocence, ah bless.

      • stred
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        When in Stockholm airport, I tried to buy a cheap bottle of Scotch in duty free. An Arab was buying 5 of the same. I was told that I could not have duty free as Sweden and the UK were within the EU. The Arab wasn’t and was allowed his. If we are allowd to leave, duty free on ferries will be duty free. Hope the spelling is alright for fussy Remainiac Brexiciders.

        • stred
          Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:02 am | Permalink

          oops- allowed. (on tiny laptop)

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      The government repeatedly said that out would mean out.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:21 pm | Permalink

        It’s all about deliberate prevarication and obfuscation Denis. The longer severance is delayed, the more the remainiacs will think they still have a chance to turn it around even post the Brexit vote.

        This nettle needs to be grasped right now. My old gaffer used to say of broken lorries at the haulage firm both he and I worked, ‘They won’t fix themselves. Nothing happens until somebody takes a spanner to it.” I can’t see why we need to delay this any longer.


        • sjb
          Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

          The referendum result certainly threw a spanner in the works, Tad.

          Fixit means fixit 😉

    • Noel
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      That’s the problem with ………….. remainers like you. It’s all about the Booze cruises to the leavers according to you is it? Nothing to do with self rule self determination then? Pathetic.

    • hefner
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      The referendum question was “Leave or Remain”. The message the most obvious was “Taking back control”. But as for the rest, looking back at what was said by the different Leave groups and the different main messages, and how they changed over the day of the referendum, it seems clear to me that if there was a Plan, there were numerous and various versions of it.
      Now look at who are the pre-referendum and present (and potential future) main actors, the disappearance of some, the overall reaction of the Conservative Party, and I am not surprised that the emphasis has moved. Before and after the referendum, the “self-selected few” have changed, and the voters will in the end have very little influence.
      And that is, considering the UK side. If the other side is considered (the EU 27 with their own individual interests), things are even messier.

      As for those on this website talking/writing loud, …I will spare myself some angry reactions and not deliver my overall thoughts on them.

  38. Richard J
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Theresa May has always been a puppet of the EU – just like Cameron.

    Having overseen the flooding of Britain with muslims – the number one priority for her Globalist masters to destroy national identity in all major EU countries – despite having promised to do the exact opposite, May’s job now is to undo Brexit.

    This is why she appointed her fellow Globalist puppet and fake eurosceptic Boris to be Foreign Sec: he is popular, and thus best able to get Britons (she hopes) to get used to a totally fake ‘Brexit’ – whereby the immigrant flooding of Britain will continue full-thrust, and we will still be just as much under the thumb of the EU crooks as we ever were.

    • graham1946
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      You were lucky to get away with that one. Every time I have tried to use the word ‘Muslim’ the post gets lost, no matter how carefully worded, as it is not PC to express those sort of thoughts.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        Dear Graham–And the use of the word immigrant yet–I am shocked

    • Mitchel
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      Last week the Economist,that neo-liberal,globalist bible,was positively beaming at the coronation of Mrs May,fully anticipating a “minimalist Brexit”.

  39. Nig L
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    and I believe also continuing with part or all of our contribution, all apparently in return for access to the single market. I knew this would happen with a pro EC Foreign Office and, of course Boris’ ego schmoozed at all those Euro meetings.

    We are going to be sold down the river and the EC wins again.

    It is looking very like the EC driving, and getting away with, it’s own agenda. When will we politely remind them of our negotiating strength, namely our market is worth more to them, than them to us. You guys need to get all over Fox, Davis, Johnson, immediately and remind them what the Leave campaign voted for.

    • sjb
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

      What negotiating strength? 12.6% of the UK’s GDP is linked to exports to EU27; only 3.1% of EU27’s GDP is linked to exports to the UK.

      • Dennis
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

        Isn’t 12.5% of the UK’s GDP much smaller than the 3.1% of EU27’s GDP exports to the UK in cash terms.

        • hefner
          Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

          In cash terms, you are obviously right, in pain terms to the overall 27 certainly not. I would think that what has actually to be considered is the impact on the GDP of each of the individual 27 EU countries. The impact then is much more differentiated: practically no impact in economic terms in the eastern EU countries (apart from that of a restriction of emigration from those countries), quite sizeable for Germany, NL, Spain, France, Italy, …
          That’s why, I’m afraid, discussions between the UK and the EU will be difficult, because I guess there will be first lots of discussion between the EU 27.

      • Mark
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

        The real negotiating strength comes from the degree to which particular exports are essential. We can make do without BMW cars, but Airbus can’t make do without the wings that are made in UK factories. Percentages are a distraction.

  40. Peter Lavington
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Can I ask anybody to explain why the following is wrong (or correct!). Let’s say I make widgets and sell to EU countries. On referendum day my widgets sold for 1.30 euro. Due to the fall in the £ I can now sell at 1.20. My widgets are as good as German ones and as a consequence I sell more. The EU decides to hit me with a 5% tariff for no longer being in the single market. So, my widgets now cost 1.20+6 tariff which still makes them 4 cents cheaper than German ones. At the same time German widgets could be taxed by 5% in UK with the revenue possibility used to boost the UK economy with lower business tax. Seems a no brainer to me. No doubt it is more complicated but in essence I can’t see anything wrong in my analysis.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      it probably depends what your widgets are made of?
      Do you have to import raw materials?
      If you do then your manufactured cost will go up.
      But by only a percentage so you could still be quids in 🙂

    • Tad Davison
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:39 pm | Permalink


      That’s pretty much what I had to explain to my son who is currently the UK sales manager for his company, and is soon to become the European and Australasian Sales Manager, only his widgets can cost £25o,000 each. The savings and the increase in exports are therefore, well worth having.


  41. Ian Doorbar
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    The vote was to leave – nothing else! What the terms end up being is down to the negotiators. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

      Sorry Ian Doorbar but leave means leaving everything we had with the EU and starting again. This is what I and many others voted for. We don’t want partial membership – we want OUT with no strings. It was made perfectly clear as JR says that we would take complete control of our country.

    Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Of course you are right JR on the principle. The Referendum question was debated in full in Parliament. It was the government’s decision to furnish the voter with just two options: Leave or Remain.

    Mr Cameron indicated prior to the vote, with the agreement of all on all sides: “Leave means Leave OUT means OUT”. He voluntarily indicated that “the next day after a Leave vote” he would start “Article 50 ” and also we would leave the free trade zone.

    Naturally enough, Democracy does not always have a comfortable interface with economic realities. Economics/trade are a continuum favouring general evolution but allowing and insistent upon bit by bit alteration.

    It is a pity the general thrust of economics and finance in the world is riddled with analyses of “Growth”. So one gets registered…Growth… GDP… increases as a result of objectively daft criteria; namely, how many migrants one can attract in any given period even if they are making potted meat sandwiches which are not always the most attractive foodstuff or a standard bearer of economic progress in the real world.

    But there will be pain in extricating ourselves from the many tentacled EU. Those pointing to the difficulties and wishing any number of future referendums to overturn the original Leave decision should admit and take responsibility in placing our country in a web of trade relationships that make over-hard our escape to freedom.

  43. Monty Rex
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    The first order of business, in light of this development, is to congratulate JR for his courage and clarity. Almost all other commentators claimed that Britain would be desperate supplicants at the rEU table in the event of a Brexit vote. That this proposal is even on the table shows the JR was right about the relative negotiating strengths of the parties.

    That said, I see no clear and obvious democratic imperative to reject such a deal. Had David Cameron come home with a seven year moratorium in his pocket, it is entirely possible that Remain would have won such a close race. It’s unknowable.

  44. Old albion
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    For some weeks I have been saying on here and elsewhere, Westminster is seeking a fudge. Politicians (with a few exceptions) do not want to leave the EU and they are going to make sure we don’t.

  45. agricola
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I think we need to separate any views expressed by the EU from the views of the leaders of their sovereign component states. It is the latter who will be picking up the tab from any ill concieved decisions, and it is their populations who could suffer from getting it wrong.

    We do not need to be part of the EU free trade area with all it’s negative add ons such as free movement. We need to be able to conduct tariff free trade with the EU and it is in their interests to have tariff free trade with us. The balance of trade is with the EU so they have much to lose by encumbering it with trade barriers.

    Nowhere in the World, to my knowledge, do you have to subjugate your legal system to your trading partners or to open your borders to whoever arrives at your door, for the privalege of exchanging goods tariff free. The penalty of trading from within the EU is that you lose your sovereignty as a nation state. Should our present government feel that they can get away with anything less than the electorate have voted for then they can expect trouble with a capital “T”. Any attempt to water down the expressed intention of the nation will see an end to the Conservative party and it’s replacement by a party that respects the outcome of the referendum.

  46. Trevor Scott
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    I am somewhat surprised that so many people think the “Remain Camp” would not try to challenge the referendum result through the back door; or indeed any window or chink of light down the chimney. Westminster, other legislatures and the EU have many clever people with alternate agendas. Expect many more tactics and changes of strategy. Stay British, keep calm, keep your eyes on the objective, carry on the struggle, wherever and whenever.

  47. oldtimer
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I voted to leave the EU, along with the majority.

    I have not seen or read Boris Johnson`s article but from reports it sounds as though it ha taken him just about a week to go native and push the FO`s Remainiac line.

  48. Ken Moore
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    I’m afraid Mrs Soubry and most of the government have still not got the message – the view is the public that voted Leave are largely ignorant and racist and need to be educated by their betters. This will take the form of (yet another) ‘debate’ to show the mugs that voted leave the many benefits of immigration and being part of a diminishing and expensive customs union..
    Stop patronising us and get on with leaving this sinking ship….

  49. ian
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    When the campaign was on all i read on this site was that D.D was the man to do the job, now that D.D, is in charge of doing the job and you have listen to what he has to say now, you feel you have been con again by politician you fault was on your side, a man that you trusted to do the right thing, now you do not know what to think, his tune has changed altogether now in charge and now going to spend million on BS experts to try to do the job.

    You cannot afford a vote in parliament about brexit because it will blow up in your face with nearly all politician for staying in, even D.D looks like he wants to stay in now, the same in the lords.

    Thats democracy for you, bought and paid for, like i tell you, voting for parties hoping that they will change and make your life better is a waste of time, all they can do is borrow more money to give you more treats with your own money, in other words bribing you with your own money and garbing news headlines for themselves and the party in a tempt to win the next election, it not much different what the new labour party leader want to do.

    Reply I did not write anything about who should conduct our negotiations. They will be directed by a Cabinet Committee chaired by Mrs May.

  50. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    What we want is an established and universally recognised, permanent, unconditional and unilateral, right to decide which foreign nationals shall be permitted to enter our country and on what terms.

    On that clear basis we could then make temporary or time limited but renewable reciprocal arrangements with certain countries with respect to their citizens, to remove some or most or even all restrictions as seemed appropriate, and with provision for either side to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement with reasonable notice and without removing the basic rights already enjoyed by settled migrants.

    What we don’t want is to have unrestricted free movement as the permanent default position, with just the possibility of temporary restrictions provided other countries agree to or acquiesce in them being imposed or being maintained, and with the decisions of our government and Parliament being open to challenge in some international forum.

    The economic benefits of the EU Single Market are insignificant; its creation did not provide “a huge boost to the economy”, as one Remain MP erroneously claimed just before the referendum, in fact looking back it is hard to detect any material effect on the overall UK economy.

    The only compelling reason for staying in it is that we are already in it and therefore have many practical arrangements set up on its basis, so staying in it would help to achieve a speedy and smooth transition, possibly to an interim state.

    But if the price demanded for staying in it is going to be too high, as looks likely to be the case, then we would be better off biting on the bullet and leaving it.

  51. Duyfken
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    A contemptible proposal which should be treated as such. So the EU wishes to have us continue to fund their wasteful ways with an expedient they rejected out of hand prior to the referendum, and this whilst France presently seeks to punish us with its border controls. Low life.

  52. ian
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    Like i say, i will wait till next april to see what happens but not holding out a lot of hope at this point, i hear and read people, people, people but at the end of the day i think it will the usual companies, companies, companies and bankers, bankers, bankers with passporting for bankers at the top of the list which will decide brexit outcome, they willing to give taxes breaks for people and companies with your money but are not willing to loses bankers tax income of 3 to 4 percent.

  53. Joe Ellis
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Well written and let’s hope the Prime Minister really and sincerely means ‘Brexit Means Brexit’.

  54. MPC
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    I recall when out canvassing for Voteleave a few days before the referendum agreeing with our local campaign leader (a Conservative councillor) that if we win the referendum ‘it’s only the start’ i.e. there’s still a long way to go before an actual Brexit and so it’s proved with this PM.

    I have to agree with the occasional contributor here who points out that the weakness of the Leave campaign – as a whole – was that it never agreed a common position as to what Leave looked like. And so it seems that leave means remain. Perhaps we should soon expect another significant contribution to the next Euro bailout (Italy?), another ‘prosperity surcharge’ and welcoming EU migrants in large numbers again (perhaps from Turkey as well) in 7 years time.

    Reply The campaign was very clear – leave means take back control of our money, our laws and our borders! That was said time and again. No negotiation.

  55. Mark Watson
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    To me such reports suggest weakness on the EU side and we should dig our heels in, they are clearly worried

  56. Simon Evans
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    We all know that leaving the single market will be a disaster. “We” will have taken back control of a deeply divided country which will end up half the size it once was, when NI and Scotland leave it, as they most likely will. All of this for what, exactly? A reduction in our business opportunities, a drop in the value of our currency, denial of our children’s ability to live and work anywhere they want to in the EU, and a lower standard of living. The closer we remain to the EU the better off we are, and it is silly to try and pretend differently.

    Reply What nonsense! Have you not read any of the analyses I have done in recent months showing how much damage EU membership has done to our economy and is doing to many Euro members on the continent today?

    • zorro
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

      Just nonsense – no cogent argument – We do not believe leaving the single markey will be a disaster.


    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:32 am | Permalink

      “We all know that leaving the single market will be a disaster.”

      I for one do not “know” that, in fact I know that it is ignorant rubbish.

  57. Peter
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    “We voted to leave, to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. Those phrases were repeated throughout the Leave campaign, heard and understood by many, and approved by the majority of voters.”

    This is actually not true. The vote was to leave the European Union. Any attempt too draw a further conclusion than that is an affront to the democratic vote. There were many leavers who argued for a Norway option and others who argued for other options. It would have helped the electorate, perhaps, if you had drawn up a more concrete plan of what leaving actually entails. Attempting to judge more about the vote than that 52% want to leave the EU is frankly anti-democratic. I have seen recent opinion polls that say that more people prefer access to the single market than restrictions on free movement. Perhaps you should call for another referendum with more clearly defined outcomes if you are unhappy with how this referendum is being interpreted. You do not have the right to second guess the democratic will.

    Reply I am reminding you what the strong campaign refrain was throughout which many people signed up to. We ruled out the Norway option categorically at the beginning.

    • Peter
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

      “I am reminding you what the strong campaign refrain was throughout which many people signed up to. We ruled out the Norway option categorically at the beginning.”

      Not true. As I recall, Michael Gove ruled it out at one point about a third of the way through the campaign, but others in the leave campaign said different things at different times. I saw a Newsnight Referendum Special (designed to promote informed voting) with an advocate specifically for the Norway option – she was sitting next to leave campaigners who did not rule this option out. It is simply not true to say that this was somehow ruled out. I know at least one person who voted leave because they felt the Norway option was a good compromise between getting democracy/sovereignty back and keeping the single market. There is simply no mandate for anything other than leaving the European Union. Please do not over-step the actual mandate as that would be an affront to democracy.

      The official Vote leave site and its arranged spokespeople – the official campaign – ruled out the Norwegian and Swiss options.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply. I personally don’t recall anyone saying we would have a Norway option. That would never do.

  58. Margaret
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

    Our competitors know the trade we want and they want it too.
    I remember asking my ex best mate for a character reference , she said she couldn’t but would apply for the job herself: furthermore got it. So many swines out there; big time.

  59. Its raining
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    Like the Brexit movie was important in informing the general public, it’s vital again to get the plain facts out in a simple way.
    That’s why this blog is good.
    If there are any underlying globalist plans that we the public aren’t properly aware of now’s the time to lay them out and put them under a magnifying glass.
    The small “elite” can be challenged if nothing else.

  60. ian
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    Reply, I did not mean you, i meant the people who write on this site.

  61. Mick
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Mrs May had better not try and shaft the voter that voted to leave the dreaded eu, because come the next GE anybody that is put up to be pro European they will be toast , lab/lib/con/green will be wiped out,

    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Off Topic: Where are the Remainers who trumpeted the virtues of UK/EU Security Cooperation?” Safer in than out wallahs
    They cannot even man a border post at Dover/Calais. Have they gone on holiday?
    They have virtually closed the borders of France when the guy in the Nice terrorist attack was a resident and all those attackers ( loners, mentally ill, can’t get a girlfriend losers don’t mention terrorists ) of Germany are resident in Germany. , etc ed

    • stred
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 7:14 am | Permalink

      Re. Where are the Remainers who trumpeted the virtues of UK/EU Security..
      One of them is in No 10 Downing St and another next door. In order to pass the EU Arrest Warrant she cut short any debate in the HoC. Close monitoring of movements will be necessary by her subjects and a possible use of the original sort of guillotine outside the HoC.

  63. Newmania
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    I think many will find your claim that the leave campaign formed some sort of manifesto hard to take seriously, of what did it consist ?
    £350m a week goes to the EU. – Lie
    We can build a new hospital every week with the money and will give £350m per week to the NHS- lie
    Turkey ‘is joining.’ ( and as such we can expect millions of brown Muslims to flood the country)-Lie
    There will be’ an EU Army. – Lie
    We can be out of the EU but still in the single market without extra cost if we fancy it.-Lie

    48 % of us did not vote for any of the shameful collection of fantasies or fictions and Mr Hanna Johnson were admitting to the only partial mandate just as Mr Farrage admitted they made most of it up. You may have reined in form the Norway option was Bojo was still on it post referendum and it was only in the last two weeks it was explicitly rejected so as to allow a full blow attack on immigrants . It was well and truly there previously and I have previously provided the quotes which you refused to publish
    Still perhaps you are right and the poverty without Poles vision of the true believers will be endorsed by the people . I will be delighted to find out in the spirit of ,as you say democracy .A first referendum on the real life options might be a good idea . You would lose it massively as you well know and you would also lose any Parliamentary vote as you also know . You are the one scared of democracy !
    If Ms May keeps in mind that she cannot really by hurt by the awkward squad all may yet be well and we yet keep our houses jobs and services , which would be nice.

    It would , of course have eben much much better to stay in the EU but one cannot ignore a referendum ( or invent on of your own choosing )

    Reply The lies were on the Remain side and were rejected by the majority. We voted to leave and the government told us if we did that they would take us out, so that is what they must now do.

    • Dennis
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Newmania – “£350m a week goes to the EU. – Lie”

      Can you give me a link as to which intelligent person/poster etc. said that? The bus poster did not for a start.
      I have trawled the net , BBC, newspapers. magazines to find out – no luck yet.

  64. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t matter what you want John. Mrs May can negotiate anything she wants on free movement then ram it through the commons with Labour support. She might not even need to run a second referendum.

  65. Dee
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    John Redwood is obliged to behave with respect for democracy.

    The referendum mandate was to Leave the EU. The electorate was not asked its REASONS.. Therefore no-one can say we voted ‘to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders’. It is very possible that these ‘phrases’ persauded 52% to vote Leave. But we don’t know that in any democratic sense. Unless we actually ask the electorate, we cannot claim to have any mandate beyond Leave.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

      Dee – Yet had the referendum been for Remain it would have been a mandate for the whole EU shebang and Remain politicians and media types would have rejoiced in it.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

      Dee, leave means leave and that means not having to abide by the rules of a club you no longer belong to but being able to make your own laws and rules. We are not interested in REASONS. We are just interested in LEAVING. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

    Posted July 24, 2016 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    There was no obligation on the part of Vote Leave campaigners to have a “plan” for the aftermath of the vote. The vote was simply to Leave or Remain.The coalesced forces of Leave were a disparate group, NOT IN POWER. It was incumbent upon those in power to have a contingency for both potential answers to the referendum question.The Government should have held the Civil Service to account to provide contingency planning for both potential outcomes.They failed to do this, hence Mr Cammeron’s demise.
    As for having a re-run of the Referendum for a variety of reasons- alleged misinformation, lies, insufficient facts etc, surely it is incumbent on each citizen to root out the information on which to make a judgement themselves. There are so many sources- newspapers, social media, radio, TV,blogs,internet, libraries,and many more , sufficient to satisfy anyone.

  67. Edward Rawson
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

    One last point on the sovereignty take back control issue.

    The European Commission is elected by the democratically elected representatives of the member states.

    If you can’t accept this principle you may as well vote to leave your local council because you did not elect the Chief Executive and department directors.

    It is very easy up be against something and blame all you troubles on it, it takes a bit more to come up with a workable alternative that satisfies most. I can’t see 17 million leavers liking whatever we end up with.

    • Chris S
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      The desire for a return to true sovereignty is nothing to do with the European Commission, its much more fundamental than that :

      It is :

      1. NOT having to grovel to Angela Merkel and 26 other leaders for permission to decide who comes to live and work in our country.

      2. NOT to be forced to share our fishing grounds with fishing fleets from other EU countries nor to be forced to accept EU limits on what our fishermen can catch.

      3. NOT to be prevented from offering to support our steel industry

      3. NOT to have to pay £9.8bn a year Net to be a member of a club which is of very little benefit to us.

      4. NOT to have to pay over another £4.5bn which is returned to the UK but only on condition that the EU decides what it can be spent on.

      5. NOT to have EU law and the ECJ overule the laws we would like to enact for our country.

      6. To be allowed to make our own trade deals with countries we choose.

      7. To be able to set our own regulations for trade and industry.

      And Much More besides.

      • Edward Rawson
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        But you could only list 7 and most of them started with not in capitals

        If we do leave who are you going to blame things you don’t like on?

        The fishing arguementi is red herring, the U.K. has the second largest catch in the EU and it’s tonnage is rising.

        All these facts are checkable, but am sure you are only on nodding terms with reality.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:28 am | Permalink

      Another bad loser.

      • Edward Rawson
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

        Another unoriginal mind. Why not go for the classics and tell me to get over it?

        There is surprisingly nervous tone in here for a victorious side,

    • Mark
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

      The Commission is appointed right from its most junior civil servants to the Commissioners in charge of its departments (who are nominated by governments). I think it’s why democracy frightens them.

      • Edward Rawson
        Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

        Sorry do we elect our civil servants?

        I must have missed that one.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      Edward, I know quite a few that would be happy with the results. If only.

  68. Peter van Leeuwen
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Well Mr Redwood, you’re true friends are in actually in the European Parliament.
    Guy Verhofstadt: “Parliament will block a deal that creates a new favourable status for the UK.” 🙂

    • Mark Watson
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

      Well it wouldn’t be a more favourable deal. We would be out of the EU,and EU membership according to Verhofstadt is wonderful and what everyone should aspire to, so in his world wouldn’t we be worse off?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:27 am | Permalink

        Correct, and especially if we foolishly deny ourselves the massive boon of free movement of persons while other countries enjoy all the benefits of unlimited and uncontrolled mass immigration.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

      We do not want favourable status.
      A common market, or perhaps a free trade area would be nice.
      Financially beneficial for all concerned.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

      “Parliament will block a deal that creates a new favourable status for the UK.” ?

      I am sure businesses in the EU, especially those in Italy, France, Spain, Greece and Portugal will be very happy (not) if trade with the UK is curtailed by the European parliament. Their economies are already in steep decline and this kind of action will not help. Stupidity itself!!

    • anon
      Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      Which is why we should just move to WTO terms? Then it is over to the EU and i suspect no tariffs will happen in the short term or long term.

      No negotiations are needed. We can just buy and sell as we agree or not. Easy.

    • ian wragg
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      Welcome back Peter, I thought your department in Brussels had been disbanded no you made such an a..e of the Brexit vote.
      Perhaps you are gearing up for Project Fear2 ready for the second referendum which I doubt will happen.

  69. James Matthews
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely right. All this foot dragging (on the part of our own government as well as the EU looks like a deliberate attempt to undermine the referendum result.

    In not very long there will be enough 18 year old children of EU migrants who will have a vote (sixteen year olds if “progressive” liberals have their way) to swing an election or a referendum and no government will be brave enough to offend them. If we do not re-establish our independence and our borders in the next eighteen months we never will.

    • hefner
      Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:10 am | Permalink

      That would happen only if these 18 year old children of EU migrants had got the UK citizenship, which I doubt most would get. I think right now there is at least a condition of five year residency.

  70. JohnF
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    The comments on this blog do not reflect the views of those who voted OUT.

    Yes – we voted to leave – but people did so for many different reasons which weren’t covered on the ballot paper. I’m not particularly bothered about the academic issue of “taking back control”. If that’s all it was about – then I’d have probably vote to remain or else abstained.

    I think that if there is a real change of heart by the EU on freedom of movement then a second referendum would be won comfortably by the REMAIN side. I don’t believe the UK is in that great a position on the trade issue. I feel we’re certainly in for a slowdown and people are not going to think it’s worth risking the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of some of the obscure issues which excite the devout Leavers.

    I’m with Boris. Leave the door open for further talks.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:20 am | Permalink

      If you recall, very early on in the campaign, in fact as early as October 2015 even before any official campaign has started, Johnson hinted that if we voted to leave the EU then there could be more negotiations and a second referendum on an improved package, and Cameron roundly rejected that idea.


      “David Cameron has taken on Brexit campaigners with a warning that a vote to leave the EU would be final and irreversible, not the prelude to a second renegotiation and referendum.”

      Is there nothing at all stated by the government which can be trusted? Are we destined to always have a government which lies and goes back on its word and can never be trusted? Is that the sort of government you want?

      • JohnF
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

        Is there nothing at all stated by the government which can be trusted? Are we destined to always have a government which lies and goes back on its word and can never be trusted? Is that the sort of government you want?

        If this is addressed at me – then my response is: I couldn’t give a flying one. Politicians make statements all the time which are shown to be iffy later- it’s just part of the ongoing negotiation. Cameron could hardly say we’ll have another vote if we can push the EU by voting put on this one. Did I believe that OUT meant OUT – not necessarily and as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t matter. If the concerns of most of the Leave voters are addressed then who cares?

        It’s all verbal jousting anyway. A trade union leader calls a strike and demands a £50 a week rise and says the workers will not go back for a penny less. The workers re offered £25 a week and the strike is called off. Did the union leader lie?

        If you’re convinced that all those who voted OUT did so because they want the country to “take back control” then you shouldn’t have a problem with a second referendum. I don’t think they did – in fact I know most of them didn’t.

    • Original Richard
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      John F :
      “I feel we’re certainly in for a slowdown and people are not going to think it’s worth risking the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of some of the obscure issues which excite the devout Leavers. ”

      Control of our borders and hence population is definitely not an “obscure issue”.

      Have you not been reading any of the news from Europe recently ?

  71. ian
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

    To, Nick Gibbons, I do not see what you talking about, its not really the government job to make trade deals, it up to companies with maybe some help from the british embassy in the area, if i want to sell a product into say uruguay, i go to the office in uruguay that deals with that, i tell them the product is bs standard and comply with all british laws and if they would like to see the product or test it, how much tariff they will put on the product if any and if they will have a limit to amount that can be sold there.
    Then go around the business in uruguay to try to sell the product or have already been in contact with them before i go and i want to import from uruguay to hear i go to or ring the office hear to see what they say, maybe beef, how much can i bring in if any and will it be tariff free, or if sell to eu the same but also you have keep up with eu laws if want to export to the eu as we all know and what the tariff is.
    You only need litigation if you have broken a law of that country or something go wrong with your product or you feel that your unfairly treated but i think i am being unfairly treated i would to the british embassy first and the government.

  72. APL
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    JR: ” a slightly beefed up version of Mr Cameron’s attempted renegotiation with the EU.

    This, the same renegotiation you were telling us, was such a great deal?

  73. Andrew John Perry
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    May and co’ need to have it spelled out to them in no uncertain terms by the Brexiteers in the Tory Party what the consequences of accepting such a deal would be…

  74. James
    Posted July 24, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    You seem to have missed the point, a very small majority of the people who voted want to leave the EU, it is no where near as resounding as you make out, you are using it to justify your own extreme views.

    There has to be compromise otherwise there will be chaos

    You do not represent the majority in any way.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

      Just a bad loser. If you’d been on the other side you’d have got more used to losing in the past and this wouldn’t have come as such a profound shock.

  75. Leslie Singleton
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 12:10 am | Permalink

    Have only just heard about this seven year nonsense and now that I have I am horrified. I haven’t fully studied or understood it but it looks awfully like a long-grass exercise to me with the ball simply coming back at the end of the seven years–An unequivocal pox on the EU market, I say–It has caused enormous problems all round for far too long–We should tell them it is 100% out end of story and let them do their worst to get it over with.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

      Postscript–One can imagine that Brussels lovers would indeed like a seven year deal for they don’t care about reality in the present and would be delighted with a seven year horizon when in their dreams ever closer union will come back in to play.

      • Robert Edwards
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

        As regards the Brexit thing I voted out but it would seem the people in the bubble ie: London and south east areas are trying to manipulate us into a remain consensus. We as a nation voted out which go which means leave when you leave you go through the door not hang around the door frame waiting to be invited back in. Most of our MP’s, I wouldn’t believe them if they told me water was wet.

  76. ian
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:42 am | Permalink

    After looking at all information i would say stitch up is coming from the top troy leave campaigners B J, DD, and LF , i would say it was all plan that way with the new PM as leader, her job now is to bribe you with your own borrowed money, hoping that you forget all about it by the next election and vote for my cat because it has blue rosette pined on it, as the eurosceptic in the con party have gone from 148 when the campaign was on to only 26 now the campaign is over and as for eurosceptic being to able to give con party any trouble voting though what want will not happen because the 176 labour and snp MPs will vote with them as long as they can stay in europe.

    Of cos this might be jumping the gun but with totalitarian marxist parliament the odds look good to match a totalitarian marxist eu and usa.

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

    “we did not try to overturn the election result, take them to court, or demand a re run! We accepted the verdict of the UK voters.”

    No but you would expect if you were to get back into goverment to undo any legislation you disagreed with. Even if taken at face value the EU referendum result ceases to have any validity the moment a group opposed to leaving, or opposed to restrictions on free movement etc were to win a national democratic vote.

    If parliment can’t be bound by a previous government then this referendum has only as much legitamacy as the government of the day decides to give it.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:58 am | Permalink

      I think it’s a good principle that what has been decided by the people as a whole in a referendum should not be undone except through another referendum.

  78. Sean
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 5:14 am | Permalink

    May we need a no vote of confidence and have another leader.
    I said once May was chosen that she would be weak, start stalling tactics, Credit doesn’t mean Leaving full in her mind. She has her agenda and isn’t her own person, wait and see that I’m right.

  79. APL
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    JR: “We do not want a 7 year transition for freedom of movement!”

    Neither do we need a seven year transition. Once free of the European Union political ties and supposing we successfully negotiate favorable terms for interim membership of the EEA, we invoke Article 112 of the EEA Agreement allowing us to construct our own immigration policy that better suits the United Kingdom.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      And the Polish government would give its nod to us staying in the EEA on those terms and with that intention of preventing its citizens moving to the UK.

      • APL
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

        Denis Cooper: “And the Polish government would give its nod to us staying in the EEA on those terms …”

        I don’t really know, nor much care what the Polish government would do. That would be a matter for our hard nosed negotiating team to secure.

        Personally, I’ve not come across too many polish migrant workers who weren’t perfectly fine people. We do however, need to control who comes into our country so as we don’t suddenly experience an upsurge of exploding migrants, or unusually prone to being radicalized with weapons supplied by ISIS, type migrants those sort don’t tend to originate in Poland anyway.

  80. Derek Kemp
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Hello Mr Redwood
    Before the referendum I read an article stating that if we invoke article 50, there is another article hidden within the Lisbon Treaty, stating that we must have another referendum after two years to make sure that we still wish to leave. Very disconcerting. Are you aware of this?

    Please read the following link: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/692065/article50.nevertobeused-europe-brexit-italy-prime-minister

    Reply Leaving means renouncing the Treaty!

    • JohnF
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

      Before the referendum I read an article stating that if we invoke article 50, there is another article hidden within the Lisbon Treaty, stating that we must have another referendum after two years to make sure that we still wish to leave. Very disconcerting. Are you aware of this?

      Why? Are you worried that people might discover that leaving the EU has not addressed any of the problems that prompted them to vote to leave.

      I voted to leave but I’m becoming increasingly concerned by the intransigence shown by some of those who were at the forefront of the Leave campaign. If the concerns of those who voted to leave are addressed then there is no reason why they shouldn’t be given a second chance to vote on the issue. If their concerns haven’t been addressed then they’ll presumably still vote OUT.

      You clearly have no confidence (like me) that there will be measurable economic benefits from Brexit so you are determined to close off any way back.

      • Mark
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

        There is no referendum mechanism, but it would be possible to ask the EU 27 if they’d agree to us staying on anything from a day to eternity, which they’d have to agree unanimously, any time up to the two year deadline. After that we’re out and can only reapply the same as any other country outside the EU, on the terms of Article 49, which include signing up to use the euro.

      • APL
        Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        JohnF: “You clearly have no confidence (like me) that there will be measurable economic benefits from Brexit ..”

        Since we haven’t yet ‘BREXITED’, as the negotiations haven’t yet started, still less notification under article 50 Lisbon treaty been tendered.

        What economic benefits do you imagine you will experience?

        We are still in the European Union. (Some of ed)The German banks are still (very weak ed), some of the Landesbanken are (weak ed), the Italian banks are still (weak ed).

        Your economic benefits might simply be constrained to not being in the blast zone (if and when a leading Euro bank ed) explodes.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      That is not true. You can read Article 50 here:


      and there is nothing there, or anywhere else in the treaties, saying that we would have to have another referendum.

  81. Tony Murray
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    I think you’re missing the point. The other countries in the EU would have had to listen to the result of the referendum if the UK had had a consultative referendum on freedom of movement. But you decided to have one to leave the club and voted to do so.

    The other EU countries consequently need to pay no attention to what the UK wants, merely to what their own populations want. You are being very arrogant to assume that you can dictate the rules and views of a club that you have left.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Fine, in that case we can take our trade deficit elsewhere.

  82. Pete Wass
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    A seven year transition from free movement should not be rejected out of hand, we should just ask what we get in return and expect it to be significant. For example, a comprehensive free trade deal covering both goods and services, with no strings attached which maintained passporting and acknowledged that EU nationals arriving in that time frame had no expectation of leave to remain thereafter might be acceptable. A couple of vouchers for a discount booze warehouse in Calais would obviously not.

  83. treacle
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    I am becoming really upset by this. I voted Leave, and I want out of the EU. It isn’t for me primarily a question of immigration. If our government wants to increase immigration, that’s fine by me–so long as it is our own government that decides. If you don’t like any party’s policy on immigration, you can vote for a different party. That’s what should happen in a free country.

    I just want my country back. I yearn to have it back. I agree 100% with Mr Redwood’s line on this issue. But all we hear from the government is that we must wait, in order to extract some kind of concessions from the EU at some unspecified date in the distant future. This is a betrayal.

    Since the 1980s I have voted Conservative every time but once. But I will switch to UKIP if Mrs May gives us anything less than fully out.

  84. Chris S
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    They are not talking about a “seven year transition from free movement” they are talking about a temporary seven year brake on the numbers coming in. Like everything in the EU, the decision on when to trigger it would not rest with us, it would rest with the Commission.

    That is not what we voted for. We voted for OUT and a permanent end to FOM and for the British Government to decide on exactly who we allow to come in.

    Nothing less will be satisfactory.

  85. Chris S
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    More bullshit from Sturgeon this morning.

    Will the woman just not realise that Scotland is going to leave the EU with the rest of us?

    Whatever she says, there are no options that would allow Scots to remain without first leaving, winning another Independence referendum and then applying to rejoin the EU.

    As it currently stands, any application will be vetoes by Spain, leaving Scotland out in the cold.

    Let her hold another referendum. The future away from the UK would be so uncertain that the people will be a lot less likely to vote for independence than last time.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 25, 2016 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

      chris S. Sturgeon is hoping for support from 16 year olds who have recently been brainwashed in schools and now believe everything the SNP tells them about bad old England. The propaganda has been put out in all schools by the party. Talk about banging your own drum.

  86. Richard Morgan
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,

    Who speaks for the 48%? Why do you so easily dismiss the views of over 16 million of your fellow adult citizens? ‘Leave’ won a small majority of voters – fair enough. A carefully-balanced (not ‘all or nothing’) approach to our relations with the EU is a logical and fair conclusion to that narrow majority.

    Yours respectfully,

    Richard Morgan

    Reply I agree and do respect those who voted for Remain. I have said I wish to deal with all their legitimate worries and help ensure we leave the EU but do not leave Europe, where we will do much trade and have many collaborations and ventures together.

  87. bluedog
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    If Mrs May is negotiating towards a fudge on Brexit as is being suggested, Dr JR, she is being extremely unwise.

    Having purged the Cabinet of Cameroons, in particular the former Chancellor George Osborne, Mrs May has created a potential opposition faction within the parliamentary Conservative Party, irrespective of the merits of her judgement in this regard which one can only applaud. Mrs May’s authority and legitimacy as PM is therefore absolutely dependent on her ability to ensure that Brexit means Brexit.

    Brexit Lite, or Brexit Fudge, to use another term, simply validates the return of Cameron, with Osborne as his consiglieri in marshalling support.

    One wonders, has Mrs May thought of this dynamic? If not, Theresa may need to have the risks explained to her by way of assisting her in complying with the instructions of the electorate. Mrs May needs to understand that she retains the goodwill of the people, but a far more dangerous opponent will be waiting for her to trip.

  88. Mark Thackray
    Posted July 25, 2016 at 11:46 pm | Permalink

    My disapointment of the governments slow reaction to moving us out of the EU is growing. There appears to be no clear policy and this makes for mischeif by the media an some remainers who have not accepted the loss of the vote.
    The only thing that matters going forward is the ecconomy and how we rebuild it providing the better paid wages we once had. The wages crash started in 1997 when Labour came to power, it excellerated with the introduction of the minimum wage. You mentioned the 2005 election, Labour also said the chemical industry was performing well by the end of that year it had collapsed, many of the sites are still empty in West Yorkshire.
    The main flank of government policy must be that where possible government spends our money on British made products.

  89. Stobbaerts
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Could you also please ask PM May to require as quickly as possible all British companies to clearly mark their products as “Made in Britain” and not use any kind of labeling along the lines of “Made in EU”? This would highly be appreciated by consumers located on the other side of the Channel.

  90. John S
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr Davis

    I read in the press this weekend that you consider Brexit ten times more complicated than the Schleswig-Holstein question. Why? I do feel that a lot of unnecessary number of tax payer – funded negotiators are determined to drag the Brexit negotiations out as long as possible and are looking for something similar to the Norway option.

    Why can’t we just state our red lines, viz. on the free movement of people, the making of our own laws, not to contribute to the EU budget in future and return control of our own fishing territorial waters (Compensation payable to foreign boat owners of course)? We can then say to the EU, “Over to you.” If they want to cut their own noses off to spite their faces and not give us access to the single market, so be it. We will revert to WTO rules. If we beg to get access to the single market they will have us over the proverbial barrel.

    To quote Margaret Thatcher, “Now is not the time to go wobbly.”

  91. casbah
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, just over half those who voted simply voted to leave the EU. They did not vote on the shape of Brexit. Taking back ‘control’ may be their motive. The U.K. a government has done that and, as our elected representatives, is now controlling the shape of the deal. I am afraid that just because you do not like that deal, you and the Leave campaigners have no mandate to oppose it. You wanted the UK to control, and it is. That is all. You cannot make any assumptions about the motives of Leave voters other than yourself. And I am afraid that 16m remain voters will also have to be mollified. The deal will be a compromise and because we are not living in a dictatorship, everyone will have to accept that.

  92. Neil
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Mmm Gosh that was an interesting read of 224 comments.What really struck hone is that those who voted to remain seem to believe almost catagorically that 17 MILLION voters were mislead.I simply find that thought process staggering in its ineptitude and stupidity and points to the misguided assumption that EVERYONE voted without understanding the simple question in the voting booths.LEAVE OR REMAIN IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.The actual reasons why 17 million people voted to LEAVE will NEVER be known and ANY assumptions can only be guesswork.However we have a DEMOCRACY in this country and the RESULT was to LEAVE THE EU.Those that do not believe in a democratic one person one vote system should leave the UK and live in a Dictatorship.We fought two world wars we sacrificed millions of men women and children so that we could have a DEMOCRACY in BRITAIN.We are also an island nation with finite resources and land areas unlike the massive continent of Europe.Uncontrolled MIGRATION would result quickly in our towns cities and rural areas becomming overcrowded but the MAIN result is already showing its ugly face.Terrorists need opportunity before they can carry out terror attacks.We are seeing that now tragically throughout the EU.Their are NO border agencies or barriers to the free movement of people in europe.This has allowed terrorists to infiltrate and cause total chaos in major cities in Europe.I do not wish the same to occur in Britain.Borders should be reecreated the army should be brought onto the streets there should be checks on ALL its citizens.The EU is at WAR with terror and its people are the ones suffering for their leaders misguided belief in a UTOPIAN society which as we all know simply does not exist in the real world.Nor sadly will it ever exist.The EU is doomed to an extended prolonged period of unrest and I am glad we are NOT suffering the same.

  93. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Never mind EU countries. It’s Mrs May you have to worry about. Why do you suppose that she made visits to the EC, Germany, France, the SNP and Sinn Fein her top priorities? Why has she (a) decided not to apply Article 50 until the New Year and (b) not ruled out joining the European Economic Area? The most likely explanation is that she does want to join the EEA, something that both Vote.Leave and Leave.EU rejected.

    We need senior Conservative Eurosceptic MPs to visit Mrs May immediately after the recesss and make it clear to her that she is on probation, using language that she will understand.

    Indeed all MPs who voted Remain are on probation. The Remain campaign was an absolute disgrace from start to finish. It wasn’t the FUD, spin, mendacity and crony hiring of Project Fear that was the worst aspect. It was the existential threat to the UK posed by the Euro, the Lisbon Treaty including its military provisions, and the 5 President’s Report, was ignored. The blueprint for a Federal European State was already there. On the Leave side, John Redwood regularly mentioned the EU’s wild ride to political union, Chris Grayling devoted a major speech to it and Michael Gove doubted the usefulness of the documents that David Cameron got deposited at the UN (not an EU institution). Nobody from Remain even mentioned the issue. They were all either fools or knaves.

    There must be a cleaning of the Augean stables at the next General Election. The situation where more than 50% of the electorate want to Leave and 75% of MPs want to Remain is intolerable. UKIP must be the agent of change. It will probably be their final task.

  94. Erik Borg
    Posted July 26, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood, I’m one of many immigrants to the UK waiting to hear when we will be expelled. I remember vividly Nigel’s story of being on public transport and not hearing English till he reached the leafy suburbs. I read the reports of increased hate crimes. That seems to me what the Leave vote wanted: Britain the way it was. My question now is, ‘When?’

    Reply Vote Leave made clear all people legally here already can stay. This was reaffirmed by Parliament in a motion passed after the vote, which the government did not oppose.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted July 27, 2016 at 1:32 am | Permalink

      I’d better add a caveat to Mr Redwood’s reply. If you arrived on or after 24th June 2016, your right to stay cannot be guarenteed. We can’t accept people taking the mickey. The House of Commons can always vote to overturn a previous motion.

  • 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