Let’s concentrate on the positive when we leave the EU

I was pleased to read that each department is being asked to plan how it will assist with Brexit. The plans we need from them are not a series of pessimistic forecasts and lists of risks that are most unlikely to come true. What we need is a serious assessment of how we can use the new freedoms we gain by taking back control to make things in their areas better, without violating standards and rules that currently apply to our exports to the rest of the EU which we should wish to continue on the same basis.

The fishing industry is an obvious case in point where work is needed. A UK based fishing policy, where we decide how to conserve the fish and whether and on what scale to licence foreign vessels will work considerably better than  the Common Fishing Policy. Just look at the superior performance of the Norwegian,  Icelandic and eastern seaboard US/Canadian fisheries  than our UK industry under the control of the EU. There are outstanding obligations to current rest of the EU vessels and neighbours which need thinking through. At the very least we should announce no new quota and permits for non UK vessels whilst we sort out the present unsatisfactory shares and arrangements.

Another is energy. When the UK detaches from EU energy regulation, what new regime do we want? Will we take a new look at how we can secure affordable power in sufficient quantities to match the new government’s ambitions for industrial revival and to spread economic activity more widely around the country? Cheap power is one of the main drivers of any successful industrial policy.

In trade and industry it would be good to hear from business what they would like as priorities for new trade deals around the world, and how they would like to improve on the kind of trade deals the EU has been doing for us. They have often been lacking ambition on services, for example.

The country was united during the referendum campaign in not wanting to lose trade, business and market access over any possible Brexit. Many who voted Remain will be relieved as and when we can show that Brexit is no threat to jobs or trade, as we should be able to do.  It requires some drive and thought to grasp all of the opportunities taking back control can bring. Is Whitehall up for that important task?

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

109 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Indeed but is Whitehall up to anything sensible? They seem even to think HS2 is a good idea, they were nearly all for remain, for the ERM and for the EURO. They are hopeless at military procurement and nearly everything else. We have Gus O’Donnell’s intervention the other day expressing his desire to ignore the voters. A view widely held in Whitehall, MPs, academia and the BBC

    Meanwhile Mrs May is off to church and giving interviews to a local magazine about her shoes, her nose, snakes, associating herself with Queen Elizabeth I and her motto of “don’t let the bastards going you down”.

    Is it not now rather overdue that she set a sensible direction of travel, less government, out of the EU, a bonfire of red tape, control of our borders, cheap energy, no greencrap, lower simpler taxes, less government interference, cancel Hincley and HS2 and say what she actually means by Brexit?

    This instead of this drivel, workers on boards, gender pay gap reporting and information about her nose and shoes? Is she just another air head celebrity or is she going to actually be a decent PM? She has a superb opportunity but is she up to the job.

    • Hope
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      LL, it needs to be asked of these so called modernisers when they are going to be representative of the community they serve ie BREXIT. We hear about gender and race what about the selection processes of the Tory party that selects pro EU candidates which is against the wishes of people it serves? ODonnell’s article demonstrates graphically how political he is and was while serving in an organisation that is supposed to be neutral! We need right to recall for MPs who fail their constituents and weed out politically motivated civil servants.ncertainly not give them titles and a life income on the taxpayers they have failed.

      So Teresa, when will we hear the promised changes at Westminster we were promised by Cameron seven years ago? Changes to the BBC also fed by the taxpayer that it acts against. No nuetral reporting and it hires ex ministers! Any senior employee should not have political affiliations. The lax rules for employment of ministers after leaving office so they can use contact and knowledge for personal gain, when is May’s one fair nation going to be put into action?

    • hefner
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      Aren’t you ever tired? Getting angry as you do day after day might be bad for your health!

    • BobE
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      LL, Its “Nill Illigitimi Carborundum”

      • hefner
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

        O tempora, o mores, veritable odium parit.

        • hefner
          Posted August 30, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

          oops,: veritas

  2. Mick
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    I keep reading stories that Mrs May is waiting till after mid next year before inacting article 50 which could then be stopped by the other eu countries, is there any truth in this, because I along voted along with over 17 million other true British patriots to leave the eu , so it had better happen and soon or a lot of MP’s are going to be very disappointed at the next GE

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      I cannot say what Mrs May will do, but the other EU countries cannot stop us leaving whether by the Article 50 route (which is actually what we agreed to back in 2008 when we ratified the Lisbon Treaty) or by any other route.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      For clarification, here is the amending Treaty of Lisbon that the UK ratified in June 2008, and that came into force on December 1st 2009 after the Irish had been bullied into voting for it in their second referendum.

      http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12007L/TXT

      That included:

      “58) The following new Article 49 A shall be inserted:

      ‘Article 49 A

      1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

      2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 188 N(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

      3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

      4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

      A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 205(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

      5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.’.”

      When the amended treaties were tidied up that was renumbered as Article 50.

      Reply As this makes clear we are definitely out 2 years after the letter with or without an agreement, though I think the first para makes it clear we leave when our constitutional arrangements are in place.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        The first paragraph affirms that it is our unilateral national decision that we will leave, taken in accordance with our national own constitution without needing assent from any external body or bodies such as an EU institution or the governments of other member states.

        And as we have taken that decision to leave the EU through a national referendum properly authorised by Act of Parliament we should now inform the European Council of that intention so that negotiations can commence, as laid down in the second paragraph.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      @Mick

      Well said old son.

      They the remoaners had better wake up and smell the coffee. There are a lot of very very capable MPs on the back benches who can and will stand up to the mark:

      Our host, Dominic Rabb and David TC Davies just to name three who will with no fear of contradiction will set the fuses for explosive modern thinking policies.

      Least I should forget, they all wanted out of the mad house known as the EU.

  3. DaveM
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    I’m interested to see what will happen terms of the foreign aid budget and whether or not the Foreign Sec, Home Sec and Defence Sec can come up with a plan for home security, border security, and defence, and whether the new PM commits to more spending on defence. It’s about time these departments worked together to formulate a holistic set of policies to produce forces which can provide solid security and thus an environment in which trade, industry, health, etc can flourish without uncertainty over security and immigration.

  4. alan jutson
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:37 am | Permalink

    Agreed it needs a positive mindset, so the first question Mrs May should ask herself is:

    Are the present people working in those departments capable of original and progressive thought, given that for decades they have simply imposed more and more EU directives and constraints on everything they have done for decades, or do we need new people in charge.

    The mindset of Entrepreneurs and the Self Employed is very different indeed to that of existing rigid Government department managers.

    To take one example.

    If we are to expand and reorganise our own fishing industry, then we will need to make sure that our rules can be enforced and protected, so we will need fishery patrol vessels in operation to make sure our fish in our waters are not plundered by anyone else.
    Thus work and jobs for UK shipyards and our armed forces or ex servicemen and woman.

    Because our fishing industry has been hamstrung for years with massive imposed regulation on what they can catch, how they can catch it, and how many days a year they can fish/work, we should free them up with more sensible self regulation.
    We may then find we will attract more workers to that industry, again more work for ship/boat builders as fleets are modified and expanded.

    Fishing ports will need to be modified able to accommodate a greater number of ships/boats and fish landings in the UK for home consumption or later export, thus planning regulations for modernisation approval will possibly need to be relaxed to allow such development to take place.
    Thus more work for the construction industry, and workers within those new buildings.

    If we catch more fish then that will increase the need for transport to move the product around the Country.
    More work for drivers, warehousemen, and transport companies.
    They in turn will need better roads for efficient working.
    More work for the construction industry, if planning will allow it.

    We need positive people to take the brakes off, and forward thinkers to press the accelerator.

    Thus the mindset of many has to change from total control by the State, to Freedom with self imposed control and responsibility.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

      @Alan Jutson

      Are the present people working in those departments capable of original and progressive thought, given that for decades they have simply imposed more and more EU directives and constraints on everything they have done for decades, or do we need new people in charge.

      We need new people totally focused and believing there is a life outside the EU.
      No deals, no free immigration deals JUST OUT just as 17 million voted for.

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    I had hoped that Anna Soubry would give us a long period of silence, post the huge Brexit vote (that she inadvertently did so much to assist).

    Alas not, the BBC inflicts us with even more of her vacuous opinions. Yesterday calling as usual for “an informed debate”. What on earth would she know about an informed debate? Her idea of “a debate” as we often saw on Question Time (and similar) is just to endlessly interrupt and talk complete nonsense over the top of anyone with whom she disagreed.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      @ LL

      Right as usual.

      She is a really sad person. Cannot see the wood for the trees.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      A walking, and shouting, demonstration of the need for a recall system.

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    I see that the absurd John Mc Donnell has called for Richard Branson to lose his knighthood. This after Jeremy Corbyn’s very silly (and clearly backfiring) stunt on the virgin train floor.

    I would have thought that Branson’s honour was one of the circa 30% of honours that was actually richly deserved. I cannot imagine many people would ever want to see an honour for John Mc Donnell.

    • Anonymous
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

      Alas Mr Branson’s interference on the Brexit issue (to remain) is not backed up by his own money. He doesn’t pay taxes in this country and so nor does he to the EU that he wants us to stay in.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

      @ LL

      I cannot imagine many people would ever want to see an honour for John Mc Donnell.

      Some can, an early walk in the sun to the firing post!!

      The man is beyond belief

  7. agricola
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Well said, lets make it happen. I believe Mrs May has been spelling out what she expects of her cabinet, let the conference make it clear publicly where we are heading.

    • acorn
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      “What she expects of her cabinet.” The UK currently has the most right wing, (amateur), cabinet it has had for a couple of decades. Right wing Tories, by ideological definition, can’t design a piss up in a brewery. Their education is in ancient history and Latin scholars; none of them has the faintest idea how to build a modern socio-economic system in this digital age; in either metric or imperial dimensions.

      That is why they insist on laissez faire, neo-liberal, “market” solutions. Which is their camouflage for the fact that they haven’t got a f****ng clue what to do different.

      That is by far the biggest problem Brexit has. As the Chilcot enquiry highlighted, UK amateur ministers, lacked knowledge and experience in the run-up to the Iraq war, hence they were basically ignored. Other nations had “executives” chosen from learned persons.

      We need an “executive” outside of our current Punch & Judy parliament, led by a nationally elected person, chosen in a non-partisan primary election. The current antique Westminster / Whitehall model of government, is not fit for purpose and not of merchantable quality, for a new Brexitania.

      • scottspeig
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

        So run in effect by a bunch of “experts”? Are these to be the same experts as the ones that predicted nothing short of armageddon that has surprisingly* not appeared? (*=sarcasm)

        I’m happy to re-organise the powerless Lords to a revising chamber of learned men and women (such as ex BoE goveners, ex Presidents of RICS, IStructE, etc).

  8. Javelin
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Question on the fishing industry.

    We leave – the fisherman get their waters back?

    So what stops Spanish trawlers simply re-registering a company in the uk and carrying on?

    They have to employ British fishermen, they have to register their ships in uk waters, they have to pay uk taxes? Are they at the back of the queue for fishing quotas.

    Can you see my point? One thing follows from another.

    Is the point of BREXIT British jobs, British control, British taxes, British profits.

    I would say everything in this area.

    • Mark B
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

      The point of controlling our fishing ground is have jurisdiction over them and not the commission.

      We can demand that ALL fish caught in our waters is landed in UK ports.

      We can also reduce the amount of fish that can be caught, favouring smaller UK vessels.

      We can also sell licenses to other countries.

      And so on.

      • turboterrier
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        @ Mark B

        Well said

  9. Anonymous
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:49 am | Permalink

    “Many who voted Remain will be relieved as and when we can show that Brexit is no threat to jobs or trade,”

    There is another way of looking at it, which we who voted Leave well understand: that if you create a new job and three new arrivals can come to compete for it the indigene is worse off – even if he’s lucky enough to be the one that gets the job !

    Mass immigration is making people poorer – despite economic growth (in fact because of so-called growth.)

    This is proven by the state of the NHS, which is being wound down despite ever greater numbers of people.

    Were it true that mass immigration makes us richer the NHS would be swimming in money by now.

    We can leave the EU negatively without being ashamed of it. In fact we should continue to be negative if we have to because the real danger is the Leaver’s enthusiasm turning into ‘buyer’s remorse’ – the issue of uncontrolled immigration is still ongoing and is a serious threat to our culture and quality of life.

    There should be no need to assure the Remainers at all. They lost the referendum after extensive debate and argument and despite of a media heavily weighted in their favour.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      @ Anonymous

      the issue of uncontrolled immigration is still ongoing and is a serious threat to our culture and quality of life.

      What is going on today in France?

      Time for a Dirty Harry moment. “You want illegal entry? make my day. maybe then and only then will they decide to apply of asylum in France. As they are caught fly them back from whence they came. It will be cheaper in the long run

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

        A different zeitgeist, Turbo. One which I’m glad not to be part of.

        The problem at the heart of the Calais problem is that many in our ruling British elite want a borderless world in line with their own ideologies.

        EU membership and freedom of movement suits them and is a secondary problem to this situation.

        Our people are going to have to start feeling real economic pain before we come anything close to making hard decisions – by which time I think it will be too late.

        I’ve heard 200 of these chaps are passing our borders each day. The truth is no-one knows how many.

        This should add and endless supply of inequality to Chairman May’s (and Labour’s) raison d’etre – “Our prime purpose is to provide equality for all !”

        The work will never end, you see. Society gets too comfortable ? Redress that by importing more poor people and political problems to get busy (and very rich) solving.

        Eventually getting here is not going to be good enough for these chaps. (words left out ed)

        We’d be better off without any government at all rather than government like this. And the Calais mob will end up here whatever the political posturing this side of the Channel.

  10. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    That is the elephant in the room. The Civil Service seems wedded to the idea of Remain, against the will of the people. This influence seems to seep through to politicians in power, whether they can think for themselves, like Cameron and Blair, or they can’t, like Major.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      Sir Joe

      Time to let them see their P45s to make sure their stamps are up to date.

      Sadly it our rules, our game and our ball so put up or shut up and leave

  11. William Long
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    The Chequers meeting will be held against the background of Herr Gabriel’s forecast that the TTIP talks are doomed to failure with nothing yet having been agreed by the remaining 27 EU states in 14 years. This can only crystallise the minds as to how much easier it will be to reach trade agreements if we are dealing on our own account, but it will also demonstrate the likely difficulties of reaching a sensible settlement with the EU itself.
    Let us hope that the Cabinet are sensible enough to realise that the USA, China, India et al. collectively offer hugely more rewarding and essential trading partnerships than the EU and are now open to us without external interference.

  12. ChrisS
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    Past experience shows us that a whole different approach is needed to get Post Brexit UK PLC firing on all cylinders. The Civil Service is simply not fit for purpose in this respect.

    I would have detached the Foreign trade representation from the F&CO and given it to Liam Fox to develop with young, keen entrepreneurs to represent our trade. The old school diplomatic service can then be left to concentrate on what they do best : developing diplomatic relationships with governments.

    When Cameron was elected, I thought things would be done differently however nothing much changed. This could be put down to inertia caused by having to have LibDems on board but in reality it was the drag of dealing with the civil service machine.

    We are told that Yes Minister was very true to life and it appears that hordes of Sir Humphries still stalk the corridors of power restrainting enterprise and modernism.

    We had the perfect example of this earlier this week when Gus O’Donnell made it clear that he is still fighting the Remain campaign like some forlorn Japanese soldier on a Pacific Island who doesn’t know the war was lost.

    David Davies and Liam Fox may well turn out to be inspired choices to run our exit strategy and trade but only if they can work with people who really believe in the project. They appear to be in short supply in Whitehall. Fresh blood is therefore needed.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      @ChrisS

      The Civil Service is simply not fit for purpose in this respect.

      When has it ever been especially regarding Europe?

  13. fedupsoutherner
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Surely if Mrs May allows the Hinkley project to go through it will be too late for cheap energy? The renewables industry in Scotland is still steaming ahead putting up bills for everyone in the whole of the UK. There has to be some common sense judgements coming from the cabinet.

    • John F McDermott
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

      Not sure if Hinkley-C is the answer – it will be very expensive in the long-term, so pleased that TM has asked for a review.
      Let’s be radical here – we need a distributed energy policy that will move us away from centrally based and wasteful energy generation infrastructure
      If we have no issues with nuclear (and I do not) then why not consider using a technology that works. For a fraction of the cost of Hinkley-C we can start using the PWR3 designed for our submarines distributed across the land serving local energy need – this really does have merit
      In addition, I am also hoping TM
      1. Cancel HS2 and HS3
      – Some of the cash saved on HS2/3 should be channelled in to
      a. Electric vehicle industry standardisation and supporting UK infrastructure
      b. The impact of driverless cars on our roads – we need to plan for this now.
      2. Close the debate on choosing between Heathrow and Gatwick
      – BOTH are needed, so approve both and get on with it

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

      @FUS

      There has to be some common sense judgements coming from the cabinet.

      Hope you are not holding your breath!!

  14. fedupsoutherner
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    I hear this morning that Berlin wants to take a tough stance with the UK over Brexit. They fear that the EU will fail if we are allowed too many concessions on trade and don’ t take responsibility for the other EU demands. I presume they mean immigration or illegal immigration. I think it was Serbia where they are seeing over 300 immigrants arriving every day. That is over 2,000 a week! No, we must tell Berlin we don’t want all this. They invited half of the world in so now they have to manage it. How can any country accommodate all these extra people especially when they have different needs and a different culture to ours?

  15. Antisthenes
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:06 am | Permalink

    How good the planning will be will depend on how enthusiastic are the people employed in the Brexit process. Many will not be as bureaucrats will by instinct be in favour of the EU as it is bureaucratic by nature and design. A kindred institution. Mitigated only by the fact that the bureaucrats will recognise the jobs, privileges and rewards opportunities that the process will offer them. It will also hinge on those in charge of the departments a remainer minister and/or a remainer senior civil servant will be inclined to hamper rather than assist the transition. Coupled with the fact few like to wholeheartedly embrace change achieving the best outcome is going to be very difficult.

    Brexit is complicated and the consequences of it can be harmful but neither is necessary if the will is there to take the right approach and to seek the best solutions. How Theresa May controls the process is the key and that is going to be very demanding and will need considerable management skills. The greatest skill she will need is delegation. If she has and does put the the most enthusiastic and skilled people in charge of Brexit then all the benefits that Brexit undoubtedly offers for the UK can be realised. Not including Michael Gove and you in the process and Boris’s spat with Liam Fox is not a good start. Hopefully that is not an indication of what is to come and was just a learning curve hiccup.

  16. A different Simon
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Much of the problem with reduced sea stocks is due to over-fishing of bait fish .

    There are not used for human consumption but rather are turned into compound feed for farmed salmon and piglets (which cannot absorb soya protein) .

    Recently , fermentation technology has come up with sources of single cell protein (along the lines of Quorn) for animals which enable protein production to be de-coupled from land usage .

    Briton’s have a poor record of conservation when compared to Scandanavian’s but Latins are truly hopeless .

    Fish move around a lot during a year so a fish which is in British waters in June may have been in the Bay of Biscay in April .

    However , restricting access to British fishing grounds may provide our less sophisticated neighbours with the impetus to review their own attitude towards management of fish stocks .

  17. formula57
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    “Is Whitehall up for that important task?” of grasing the opportunities of Brexit: perhaps (the likes of any Gus O’Donnell types being side-lined by ministerial resolve). But whilst “up for ” it must be doubted if it is up to the task.

    The opportunites are legion. The nonsense spoken by the many “death of British science” clowns during the referendum did reveal for example some areas where the UK (freed from EU restrictions) could make changes to greatly boost scientific endeavour in this country. An example is fast-tracking work visas for scientists and, importantly, their spouses (other partners).

    Appointing a resourceful and energetic minister to identify and act on the many opportunities might be worthwhile, particularly as the focus of most ministers will instead be on the exit terms.

  18. Iain Gill
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    If you ask business they will just say they need to import lots of cheap workers. Hardly surprising they say that. So listening to business needs to be done with some realism.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

      Iain Gill

      There are only 2 industries that target “cheaper” labour Hospitality and agriculture ( i.e. picking and packing) Both of them are required by law to pay a living wage.

      The number of jobs requiring highly skilled workers continue to rise

      • Iain Gill
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

        not true at all

        the IT business is swamped with cheaper workers imported from abroad undercutting native workers

        • libertarian
          Posted August 30, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

          Iain Gill

          Total cobblers , your company and one or two similar aren’t indicative of the whole IT industry . Most IT jobs are now with smaller companies and they dont import intra company visa workers

  19. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Well, we’re on the horns of a dilemma, aren’t we? If we leave the EU Single Market that will be devastating for our economy, but on the other hand if we stay in the EU Single Market then we will have to accept unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from the rest of the EU. But luckily this is not quite as bad as it might seem, because mass immigration is itself hugely beneficial for our economy; and so the choice is really very easy, and only an idiot or a racist or a xenophobe would want us to leave the EU Single Market.

    Except of course that these two pro-EU, pro-immigration economic conceptions which have been deliberately promoted by successive governments for more than two decades – Tory, then Labour, then coalition and then Tory – are in fact misconceptions. As those governments, and civil servants, have been well aware, but without allowing the truth to prevent them from promoting untruths and cynically misleading the population.

    That is not to say that we get no economic benefit at all from the EU Single Market, but it is slight, at the level of 1% or 2% of GDP, and quite possibly that benefit is more than cancelled out by the costs. And nor is to say that there is anything bad about the great majority of the citizens of other EU countries who have taken up the invitation to come and live and work in our country, just that overall they have brought little economic benefit for the established population but have also brought costs which quite possibly already exceed any benefits, and will definitely do so as the years pass.

    Whatever that supposed great “eurosceptic” Hammond and his Treasury civil servants may say, regaining complete control of our immigration policy must be the first red line for the UK government in the negotiations with the governments of the other EU member states; and if they continue to insist that as a matter of fundamental principle their Single Market must involve all of the “four freedoms” laid down in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, and not just the three freedoms that we actually want, then so be it; in that case we must make our way in the world outside the Single Market and no doubt we will still prosper.

    • Alexis
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

      Great post.

  20. Bert Young
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    I don’t think that Whitehall should be designing and leading the way in the Brexit negotiations ; the personnel there have been tainted by years of exposure to the dictat from Brussels and will not be imbued with the independence of thought that is now required .

    The cost of energy is a vital factor in the performance of our economy and to the householder ; we have the skills and means to keep it under our own control . Hinkley has attracted many headlines but the combination of EDF and Chinese money is not the right alliance .

    The services in this country rely entirely on the personnel they employ ; the Universities that breed and supply this talent should be motivated in continuing to do so . Much of the services aim their skills at international markets – the demand is there and the rewards are high . There should not be constraints against the employment of non British specialists ; they can and do add considerable know-how to the skills provided and to the markets they serve .

    We should aim to base our future on a world free based trade agreement system . Imposing tariffs is not a protection in the world as it is today .

  21. oldtimer
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    You conclude: “Is Whitehall up for that important task?”

    That is the most important question of all. I have little doubt that many people and businesses, if left to their own devices and looking after their own interests, will find a way to make the most of Brexit. The greatest impediments are likely to be the inability, unwillingness or slowness of government and the civil service to make such initiatives possible. Germany’s post WW2 renaissance was the product of deregulation and letting people and businesses get on with rebuilding their economy. The EU control freak mentality prevails and the suggestions are that the civil service will be reluctant and unwilling to relax it especially as it is clear it wanted a different outcome. The PM will need to be extremely tough either to change the civil service mindset or to change the people in charge if she is to help make Brexit a success.

  22. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    https://euobserver.com/uk-referendum/134784

    ““Britain will have to leave the single market, then negotiate a trade deal with additional agreements on specific issues. Not accepting freedom of movement means losing access to the single market. Limited acceptance of the freedom of movement means limited access. It is up to the British to choose”, the official said.”

    Or, putting that another way:

    “Insisting on freedom of movement means losing access to the UK domestic market. Limited concessions on freedom of movement means limited access to the UK domestic market. It is up to other EU countries to choose.”

    We don’t want to take our trade deficit elsewhere, but if necessary we could; it’s not as if we are dependent on EU countries as irreplaceable suppliers of essential goods.

    • ian wragg
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      Denis, every country in the world has “access” to the single market. As with most things governments do, they try to confuse us with “access” and “part of”. we can have the first but don’t want the second.
      As you so rightly point out, they can maintain “access” to our (very large) market but will not be an integral part of it.
      If of course the EU put an embargo on UK goods and services, can you imagine the squeals from French and German industry.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

        If they persist in making an irrational linkage between immigration and trade then they cannot expect to keep the present easy and complete access to our market, because for us unlimited and uncontrolled immigration is an unacceptable condition. We must have total control over our immigration policy, so they must choose between either sacrificing their principle of free movement of persons or sacrificing access to our market.

        In some ways the terms they are mooting resemble the peace terms which might be imposed on a conquered people. Control over our laws, payment of annual tribute, unfettered access for their merchants to sell their goods into our country, and the right of their people to resettle themselves in our territory … but we are not a conquered people.

        • Anonymous
          Posted August 30, 2016 at 9:17 am | Permalink

          “To buy our good we need to be free to change who you are.”

  23. Stuart
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    The last line is key. Can Whitehall after 40 years obeying EU dictat and implementing to Gold Standard find the leadership to take Brexit forward?

    • William Long
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      But Whitehall is not there to provide leadership; its function is to do what the Government of the day tell it to!

  24. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    “The Mediterranean Diet” is something, seriously, Ministers should watch. Figuratively too.

    In modern conversation, one cannot draw attention to any coincidences, especially stonkingly hunormously large ones beggaring belief without someone smirking stupidly and saying as if it be a logical argument agin in itself: “Ah, [ giggle ( optional) ] you believe in Conspiracy Theories [ chuckle, folding of arms, downward pursing of lips and exaggerated nodding of head with sideways tilt (optional)] ”

    Yet through the years one has noticed EU red wine lakes, massive unproductive subsistence growing of olives, bland tasting French apples, poor-man’s bread ( pizza ) and grows-like-weeds on Italian hillsides tomatoes and herbs ( used in pizza sauces ) said to fight heart-disease, cancer,whooping cough and if accidentally dripped on ones chest: sunburn.

    There is sparse evidence indeed outside the EU and its farming “community” and their political lobbyists and outside similar in America that we are healthier continuing with 18th century non-British European eating habits. Throughout this Diet-Pop-Era, all the maladies which were supposed to be eradicated or lessened have actually increased.

    We have more bargaining chips with our EU nation-state brothers and sisters in regard to import-export than we realise.

  25. Mark B
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    This all assumes that tbe EU will place trade over trying to prevent ‘contagen’.

    As for energy. The UK in order to just show off infront of all the others, Gold plated EU regulation when it created the Climate Change Act. A deliberate case of political as well as economic self-harm.

    The EU, for all its many faults, is not at the heart of many of our problems. Problams that, are much closer to home.

  26. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    I’m getting a bit tired of the childish “Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit, but what does Brexit mean?” meme which is being mindlessly parroted by Remoaners.

    I doubt that there will be any similar uncertainty in Brussels if/when Donald Tusk gets the diplomatic letter from Theresa May saying that we intend to leave the EU.

    http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

    “Article 50

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention … ”

    I doubt they will be passing her letter from hand to hand with puzzled expressions and saying “But what does she mean, when she says that the UK intends to leave?”

    Let’s be clear about this, the real enemy is within, and always has been; if that had not been the case then foreign powers could never have succeeded in entangling us in their EU project against our united opposition. Those who claim that the referendum has divided the country are ignoring the fact that the country has been divided on this from the start, but the real division has always been between a very small fanatical minority who want the country to be legally subordinated in a pan-European federation and the much greater and more sensible majority who do not want anything of the sort.

    As far as I am concerned there is a perfectly respectable argument that we should wind up our country as an independent sovereign state and instead accept a legally subordinate status as part, or parts, of an independent sovereign European federation.

    What is not respectable, what is in fact utterly despicable, is the attempt by some of the eurofederalist minority to employ every deceit to impose their own extreme view of our national destiny on the great majority of their fellow citizens who do not share it.

    If we had modernised treason laws, and they were enforced, there are a small number of ringleaders who should be serving long prison sentences for what they have done.

    • BOF
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

      I preferred some of the medieval methods of dealing with treason!

      • Mitchel
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

        Tell Mrs May she will be having an appointment with the Iron Maiden(and I don’t mean the veteran hard rock band),if she doesn’t get a move on!

  27. Martin
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Judging from Gus O’Donnell’s comments at the weekend I would be surprised if Whitehall is up to the task of negotiating Brexit. I dont think that their heart will be in it and am seriously concerned that they may impeded and obstruct our negotiations.

  28. forthurst
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    “I was pleased to read that each department is being asked to plan how it will assist with Brexit.”

    Presumably, JR was left pleased to read that the Chancellor was insisting that we remain in the Single Market for the benefit of financial services which, in the main, are controlled by foreigners who bankrolled the Remain campaign.

    It is essential that Mrs May explains to Ministers that if they do not plan for leaving the Single Market thus enabling the 17.4 million who had had more than enough of uncontrolled mass migration, to get their country (or what is left of it) back, they will either have to fire obstructive civil servants even at the most senior level in their departments or be fired themselves. Civil servants who want to block our exit from the EU for personal reasons are bound to claim that it is ‘essential’ we remain in the Single Market for ‘economic’ reasons so their claims should be given short shrift. Of course it may be more difficult to negotiate access to the Single Market from without, but that is what these people are highly paid to do. If we are in the Single Market we are still controlled by the Brussels regime and likely to suffer the consequences of Merkel’s crazed policies; were Sarkozy to win the French Presidency, as devious as he is, it would not be beyond him to the award the Calais Jungle French citizenship and a one way ticket to Blighty.

    Reply Try reading what I write. I have always explained that the single market comes with freedom of movement and contributions which we reject

    • forthurst
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

      Reply to Reply: I don’t think I’ve contradicted that; it certainly was not my intention. I’ve always understood that being in the Single Market involved acceptance of the four freedoms.

      Leaders of the EU are demanding that we are not to be granted an a la carte arrangement implying that if we want equal access to the Single Market as we now enjoy, we must also accept free movement and contribution to EU funds. Clearly, there is to be some tough negotiations which will involve co-ordination such as that privileged access that our financial services enjoy are counter-balanced by the those for e.g. German cars and French food; in particular, where foreign food production is supported by CAP subsidies, such produce could reasonably deemed to be being dumped and blocked.

  29. gyges01
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    We could even consider bringing back the coal mining industry. There is a deep mine in Northumberland that fed the Alcan aluminium smelting plant which should never have been forced to close.

  30. gyges01
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Another thought, could we consider joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation?

  31. agricola
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    It is reported that many senior civil servants and our chancellor Sir Godber Evans are acting to frustrate Brexit out of an illusion of God given wisdom. The civil service should be told that they do as they are bid as servants or resign. If they hang about to frustrate the will of the people they should be sacked. Should Sir Godber continue to subvert Brexit, there are alternatives for the post from Leave, as we all well know.

  32. behindthefrogs
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    There is a huge possible problem that departments will develop and produce their own policies without reference to each other.

    For example if we take a look at petroleum gas.
    We have policies to ban fracking across large areas of the country being implemented by devolved governments and local authorities. At the same time we are making agreements to import large volumes of fracked gas from the USA. We need an energy policy that ensures that where have to depend on fossil fuels, they are home produced rather than imported. Any agreements reached as a result of BREXIT must be framed to ensure that our balance of payments is a foremost consideration.

    The recent debate about a sugar tax, which was mainly concerned with health problems failed to suggest directing any tax raised to the NHS. Once again there was no mention of the effect on our balance of payments, however small, 0f reduced sugar imports.

    In all the BREXIT proposals we must ensure a balanced solution is achieved across all departments.

  33. James Winfield
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Absolutely. We should ignore all the risks and pretend everything will be a bed of roses.

    • ian wragg
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Life is a risk, get one.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      James Winfield

      Heres some advice . Dont ever try and run your own business . Stick to public sector work

    • Original Richard
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

      James Winfield :

      “Absolutely. We should ignore all the risks and pretend everything will be a bed of roses.”

      What about the risks of staying in the EU as its Euro and migrant crises worsen and we have to accept uncontrolled immigration ?

    • Alexis
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      That’s precisely what we did when we joined the Common Market.

      We also forfeited the ability to respond, when things didn’t work out as hoped.

  34. Graham
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Will we leave – please give me more faith that it will be delivered.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      Well, now we have this chap saying that it will never happen:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3755404/Britain-NEVER-leave-EU-claims-professor-says-Boris-Fox-ignore-Leave-vote-avoid-massively-complex-withdrawal-call-second-referendum.html

      “‘PM will order a second referendum’: Expert claims Britain will NEVER leave the EU because Brexit process is ‘too complex’ for ministers to see through

      Professor Thom Brooks said: ‘I do not think Article 50 will be invoked’
      Told MailOnline ministers would ignore vote to avoid ‘massive’ task
      He dismissed ‘Brexit means Brexit’ as ‘gobbledygook is gobbledygook’
      Former civil service chief Gus O’Donnell recently said UK would not leave”

      Apparently this is the problem:

      “The head of Durham University Law School said Brexit-supporting ministers would decide unpicking nearly half a century of European law was too difficult and row back on their commitment to leaving.”

      “There is a 42 year evolving legal relationship that is not so easy to unpick. It is an absolutely massive task.”

      Hang about, I’m sure that we were told before that we didn’t get many laws from the EU, only a very small fraction of our total laws, and most of them were minor or technical, and this had been grossly exaggerated by eurosceptics but look what the impartial House of Commons Library has to say … now suddenly it will be “an absolutely massive task” to go through them and sort them out.

      Well, never mind, Parliament just passes an Act to say that all the EU laws which are in force on the day we leave the EU will remain in force indefinitely until each is actively repealed, and even if that will be “an absolutely massive task” it can be spread out over a number of years. It doesn’t all have to be done straight after we have left the EU, let alone before we even leave.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        Dear Denis–I agree with your last paragraph, albeit that perhaps there are some laws that it would be much better to change or get rid of immediately. It’s almost, though this is hard to believe, as if this Thom gentleman doesn’t know what the word law means. Now if he were talking about all the undertakings we have given to Brussels’ various institutions (Do they end immediately we leave–what about any beneficiaries we had engaged to help?) not to mention long term contracts that UK individuals might have signed with EU individuals, one could imagine that being tedious. Even then it sounds to me to be more a question of deciding what to do in principle rather than a labour of Hercules.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 30, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink

          We have to keep promises we have already made, not least because we will need governments all around the world to feel that they can trust our word on new agreements.

      • turboterrier
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        @ Denis Cooper

        JFDI.

        Faint hearts never one fair ladies.

        17 million voted to get on with it. Stop all the naffing about and leave before the EU collapses and we have to bail out more countries.

        The EU is the dead dying albeit very slowly but die they will surely do.

        People not up to the task should be totally honest admit their short comings and walk out and away and get on with their negative sad lives.

    • bigneil
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

      I think the PM will call a general election – with “promises” the Leave will be triggered after the vote – if she is re-elected. She gets voted in – then does exactly the same as Cameron did. All her promises are already being delayed. Being PM is no longer about running the country for the people of this country – the job has morphed into a personal ego trip, full of “entitlement” . The rest of us are ignored, but stripped of our cash, which is then wasted on projects like HS2 etc, given to the EU despots or foreign dictators, and stuffed in their own pockets. In plain English the PM sees us as all renamed Jack.

      Reply I expect Mrs May to implement Brexit and hold a GE in 2020

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply to Bigneil

        Regarding a General Election. Everyone keeps going on about another one very soon but I don’t think it necessary means that the Tories would win. We don’t know what May thinks or intends to do about Brexit – the chances are it won’t be enough to satisfy those of us who voted OUT. All those Remainiacs who want IN will vote for Labour on the promise they will get another referendum or the Brexit vote will be overturned. It may be best to wait but get her finger out regarding Brexit so we can see how well Britain does and then a GE could be called and Mrs May might just win.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 30, 2016 at 8:54 am | Permalink

          I hope she expects to get the United Kingdom erased from the list of High Contracting Parties to the EU treaties.

          So where the Preamble to the Treaty on European Union, here:

          http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012M%2FTXT

          now starts:

          “HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE PRESIDENT OF IRELAND, THE PRESIDENT OF THE HELLENIC REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF SPAIN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC, HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE GRAND DUKE OF LUXEMBOURG, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE NETHERLANDS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [1],”

          that list will end with the Portuguese President.

          Incidentally the “[1]” refers to the reverse process, the more recent insertion of Croatia into the list of parties to the treaty.

      • turboterrier
        Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

        @ Bigneil

        Reply to reply

        I expect Mrs May to implement Brexit and hold a GE in 2020

        Sadly a lot of the 17 million voters are not totally in line with your line of thinking John. Belief, hope and faith are not always good bed fellows.

        Just pray you are totally right.

  35. rose
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    What you say is common sense.

    How will we get Wee Nicola to co-ooperate for the sake of Scottish fishermen?

    It would be nice to think Whitehall was up to it. But cast your mind back to the eighties, when the National Curriculum was brought in. The Ted Wragglets in the DES preferred to sabotage its formation by making it into an over-complicated mess the teachers couldn’t cope with, because they disapproved of it on left wing grounds, rather than make a success of it for the country’s children. At least they didn’t boast about it as Gus O’Donnell is doing now in his targeting of Brexit.

  36. John F McDermott
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Another good article – thank you
    Surprised that your knowledge and experience has not been called upon.
    To David Davis (should he happen across this thread): “I thought you were better than this however, still not to late to make amends. The two of you need to have a conversation, sooner rather than later”

  37. Peter Sreoud
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    An excellent article Mr Redwood. My largest concern is with the EU energy policy that seems to force us into accepting large amounts of ‘green energy’ production.
    Yet we probably have vast reserves of shale gas available to run our power stations. Furthermore our massive coal reserves could be harnessed, if more effort was spent on solving carbon storage capture and storage. Though, in my view we are being penalised for doing far less environmental damage than China or India, so is such advanced technology essential? Anyway, we really must take our energy policy back and listen far less to the green blob.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

      So true Peter.

  38. ian
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    No point in what you say because because all the MPs are hand picked by the establishment with the party and are working for companies and establishment only, so what you will get is what they what.

  39. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    A number of Labour MPs said they would emigrate if we left the EU. Caravan Parks on the Calais coast are nice this time of year.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

      Christopher. Calais caravan parks will be empty soon – we could swap the illegal immigrants for Labour MP’s.

    • turboterrier
      Posted August 29, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

      @ Christopher Houston

      A number of Labour MPs said they would emigrate

      Can we be that lucky?

  40. Margaret
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    The issues you outline and have done so many times before are being given to ministers to think about and lay out their plans I would hope. However as you have been an insider for such a long time you will know what the proposals are a long time before us. One thing is certain, we don’t want to shrink after BREXIT ,we don’t want to look small , we need to show that again small new beginnings can have a wide and prosperous impact.

  41. Marcus Rose
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Going to wait and see. I like Mrs. May’s approach so far. She keeps out of the limelight and states Brexit is Brexit. The Autumn Statement should give us a good idea which way we are going. Just needs patience.

  42. ian
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    I would say that you never go into negotiation with second party when you are under their control unless you are a prisoner of that second party, negotiation of this kind should always be done on a neutral bases and means after leaving the control of the second party first, i call it a even playing field so negotiation to take place.

    so you get back what you started with first and then negotiation can start on the laws and the treaties

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      Nonsense. The UK government will not be under the control of the EU or the other member state governments during the Article 50 negotiations, and neither side will want the existing treaties to terminate without there being new agreements ready to instantly succeed them on the most basic matters, most importantly trade. Neither side will want the existing legal basis for trade to come to an end and leave a legal vacuum until new agreements come into force, it has to be seamless.

  43. ian
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    The only thing you might have to negotiate before you leave is money, like the 5 billion a year your government have promised for EU infrastructure roll out till 2027 which parliament sign up for just before the EU ref was announce to parliament but the Eu infrastructure plan was not announced to the people of the UK of another 5 billion going out of the country to the Eu a year and most people in the country do not know nothing about it.

  44. ian
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    of course if the people fine out that they have to pay the money of 5 billion a year, that will be over 17 billion a year or more going out of the country in overseas aid.

  45. ian
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    Then parliament will have a problem because the o.7 limit will be broken and other countries aid payment will have to be cut to bring the oversees aid budget back to it limit by law, if not it leave parliament open for the people of UK to take the government of the day to court or leave the parliament to amend the law again against the people wishes leave most people losing again against parliament and government.

  46. anon
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    See Patrick Minford schools the ****** in Parliament about the EU and trade.

    No exit deal is a positive for the UK.

    Anything potentially agreed afterwards may be politically desired to protect against unfair trade or dumping.

    Apparently we would overall be 8% better off under WTO rules if we left the “single market.

    We would take world prices rather than inflated EU prices.

  47. Newmania
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    A key issue will be the ability to passport the export of services into the EU, were that secured then a large part of my anxieties would be allayed .
    On this rests the City of London`s future as a financial centre a banking hub and an Insurance market like no other .( I am ignoring Mr Rs claim to have solved the problem , which is as kind as I can be )
    It seems highly unlikely, that the UK will be able to secure deals with the rest of the world either in time or at the level the EU could or that full access to the single market can be retained whilst avoiding Freedom of movement .
    I agree that the country voted for less immigration without any damage to the economy as this is not possible we are back where we were , control of Fishing and other odds and sods might be secured within the EEA which seems to me the only viable route out of this appalling mess.
    That would not deliver in immigration of course.
    As for the wonderful, democracy we might be supposed to have reclaimed .The choice is now between a Conservative Party indistinguishable from UKIP and a sixth form Marxist Protest society. I care little for either but see every prospect of a very left wing government as the failure of Brexit and politicised Brexit mob flounder for yet more easy solutions .

    I can`t think of anything actually good about all this at any level actually but if the threat to so many jobs did not materialise it would certainly be huge relief

    Reply You must be pleased that in the ten weeks since the vote consumer confidence is up, retail spending is up, new house sales are good and financial assets have risen in price. No evidence yet of the bad effects some said would follow directly and immediately from a Leave vote.

  48. Newmania
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Ity comes to something when it takes a telly Marxist to remind Conservative of the importance of trhe City of London ,not to say the realities of our position

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/29/europe-brexit-britain-theresa-may-single-market

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

      What about the realities of their position?

      They slap a 10% tariff on cars imported from the UK. That would be a disaster for our car manufacturers. Or would it? The point which is always glossed over is that we import far more cars from the rest of the EU than they import from us. Yes, the car industry is a successful exporter, well done, but the trade surplus for vehicles is actually with the rest of the world outside the EU, not with the rest of the EU where the value of our imports is three times that of our exports.

      http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/abs/annual-business-survey/car-production/sty-car.html

      So who will be hurt most by the imposition of a 10% tariff, BOTH WAYS? Who will find that their export market has contracted, so they must cut production and lay off workers, and who will find that they are supplying more of the UK domestic demand while still exporting to the rest of the world as now?

  49. norman
    Posted August 29, 2016 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Senior Civil Servants seldom rise to the top from substantive merit, but by ‘playing the game’ of the moment. This has been ‘All-Things-Brussels’ for decades now, and more recently, a cult-like morass of Diversity-related and other Staff Management issues. Indeed, the system selects against anyone of genuine vision, of the sort now needed to implement Brexit. If the Government is really sincere in executing the outcome of the vote, it must institute ‘Game Changer’ dynamics, to effect a new class of leadership to emerge from the ranks. Asking Departments to come up with their ideas is a good start. I hope Mrs May will receive every support from her ministers, MPs and, in due course, the electorate.

  50. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted August 30, 2016 at 2:40 am | Permalink

    I’m not sure that you will get a positive contribution from Amber Rudd, any more than we have had from the Governor of the Bank of England.

    The Brexiteers in the Conservative Party made a great mistake in not demanding the four top offices of state – PM, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. With EU renegotiation and trade hived off, the ability of that nest of vipers and traitors in the Foreign Office to undermine Brexit is diminished.

    Lots of people are now saying that the EU Referendum was only consultative (Oh, yes, and if the result had gone the other way, would that too have been consultative only?), and that parliament should control Brexit to the point of stopping it.

    Mr Redwood, you and the rest of Conservative MPs who voted Leave can do something that I can’t do. You can tell Mrs May that her continued leadership depends on not applying to join the EEA and on getting on with Brexit.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      The definitive action would be on the international plane, the service of the formal notice that we intend to leave the EU, but she cannot do that while there are legal proceedings aimed at preventing her from doing it without further parliamentary authorisation, which the plaintiffs hope would not be forthcoming.

  51. Sean
    Posted August 30, 2016 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    When we leave or even If
    I still do not trust May.

    Until I see the papers signed off
    Showing that we have full Independence
    And no soft Brexit, will I rejoice with 100%
    Positivity.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      ‘And no soft Brexit’

      – I’m predicting – 95% – there will be a soft Brexit. There simply is enough political will (numbers) in the Conservative Party for hard Brexit. There’ll be a battle no doubt. But the centre right (representing soft Brexit) will win, because at end of day, you can only win elections and form governments with centre right (or centre left) governments.

      It was precisely the Conservative party lurching to the right during the Blair years that made the party unelectable (and now Corbyn making the Labour party unelectable). At end of day, most voters nowadays aren’t that interested in right-wing or left-wing ideology. They’re interested in the most pragmatic approach to politics that ensures the maximum prosperity, peace and security.

      (and the electorate are right to be concerned about immigration as it impacts on all kinds of things in particular the demand for housing that is a really serious issue for the young in this country – which is why soft Brexit or, more highly unlikely but possible, reform of the EU as a whole on immigration – is featuring so large over Brexit)

      Reply there is nothing uniquely right wing about restoring democratic control!

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted August 30, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

        ‘uniquely right wing’ – btw, i didn’t mean it in derogative sense.

        Most people – Brexiteers and Remainers – care more about prosperity, peace, security and immigration than ‘democratic control’. ‘Democratic control’ is just too nebulous and distant a concept for most people to care about. Democracy – in whatever form that takes – must serve the people, not people, democracy.
        But anyway, doesn’t really matter what i think. But what the majority of Tory MPs think. And I’m betting (not 100% sure), they’re going for a soft Brexit.
        Regards.

        Reply The Leave slogan was take back control, and voters understood exactly what that meant.

  52. Ed Mahony
    Posted August 30, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    WHY THE UK WILL END UP WITH NORWAY/CANADA STYLE DEAL

    Sorry, just wanted to say, i think (not 100% sure though) that all talk of completely leaving the EU (or not leaving it at all) is wishful thinking.

    Why?

    Because only a minority in the Conservative government actually want to completely leave the EU. In order for the UK to leave, it’s going to need, at least, a strong majority in the Conservative party. It doesn’t.

    I think most Tories recognise that ‘Brexit means Brexit’ (including me). But that could include anything from Norway-style deal to completely leaving (dramatically different scenarios). But there isn’t the political will to completely leave, therefore Norway-style to Canada style deal seems the most likely.

    Why isn’t there the political will to leave? Too much of a risk to the economy when the country still has a massive debt to pay off. But also for geopolitical reasons (long-term prosperity, peace and security of this country in the context of Europe). And, lastly, because it’s just too complicated to leave especially at this time when this country faces so many issues not related to the EU.

    Saying that, I think the Conservative party, overall, feels the urge to act on immigration. And so, personally, i think we’ll get a deal on restriction of immigration. But there will still be a price to pay for this. Certainly, we’ll lose the right to influence the EU (like Norway) but other costs as well that we don’t, at the moment, have to pay/follow.

    This is the kind of thing I hope for. More importantly, it’s what I think most Tory MPs want (everything from Norway-style to deal to Canada-style deal).

    Therefore, not going to comment here anymore, as I think those who believe the
    UK will leave the EU completely are a minority in the Tory party. And you need to the political will for things like this – I mean this is massive. And I don’t believe most Conservative MPs will interpret the 52% in favour of Brexit as being anything other than being about immigration, mainly. So they’ll focus on immigration with as little change as possible to their current relationship with the EU.

    Instead of talking about the EU now, I’m going to take a bet with a friend that we’ll end up with Norway to Canada-style deal, focused on restriction of immigration from the EU.

    Auf wiedersehen.

    Reply We voted to leave on the ballot paper and were assured by the government leaflet to each household that that is what would happen if we voted for it! That is what we must now do.

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      ‘We voted to leave on the ballot paper and were assured by the government leaflet to each household that that is what would happen if we voted for it! That is what we must now do’

      – The ballot paper was incredible vague and simplistic over something particularly complicated and open to interpretation. IF the majority of Tories decide for a soft Brexit, and a minority of Tories aren’t happy with that, then there’s no reason why dissatisfied MPs couldn’t call a second referendum. Perhaps, that would be the only way to get some closure on it for some time, whilst we trying and pay off our national debt and all the other serious issues that need to be dealt with.

      Reply What was vague about “Leave”? The Remain side made it crystal clear we would be out if we left!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 30, 2016 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

      Norway is not in the EU and nor is Canada; if we did end up like either of them then we would not be in the EU either. I see no reason why we should end up like either of them, but if we did then it would be incorrect to say that we had not left the EU.

  • 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