“No attempts to stay in the EU by the backdoor”

Getting out of the EU is not a negotiation. It is a  decision. We do not need Germany’s permission. Mrs Merkel does not have a veto. It is about taking back control. We should get on with it. We should continue trading tariff free, as I expect the other EU states to cone round to wanting.

The Prime Minister moved the language on yesterday with her opening statement to the Chequers meeting. She made clear that there are positive opportunities from Brexit which she wishes the Departments to work on. She does not want to backslide into some watered down membership.  Meanwhile it appears the mood in the country is shifting more towards people wanting the government to get on with implementing the decision of the referendum.

The latest ICM poll shows support for the Lib Dems at just 9%, the one national party that is very clear it disagrees with the verdict of the referendum and wishes to prevent it happening. It shows Labour on 27%, where the position under Mr Corbyn is that the verdict of the referendum has to be respected but with a party that is still in Remain mode, and a challenger who wants a second referendum on the negotiation. The Conservatives who now have the policy of implementing the referendum are on 41% and UKIP who also want to implement the vote on 13%. In England the Conservative advantage over Labour is 45% to 28%.

This polling backs up specific polling on how people now think about the vote, and shows that a majority of the country do want to get on with it. Of course it is important that the government, in advancing Brexit, does so in ways which respect the worries of many Remain voters. The government does need to do all it can to protect trade, build economic confidence and ensure a smooth transition. As uncertainty is the alleged villain, moving more quickly to resolve the situation should help reduce the threat from delay and the unknown.

If people had had second thoughts about their leave vote on a big scale as some suggest, you would expect the polls to look  rather different to this pattern.

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

106 Comments

  1. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    A commitment to trigger article 50 before 2017 would reduce the risk of it being postponed too much, which will neither serve the continent nor Britain

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:15 am | Permalink

      What is the point of any further postponement at all? We are paying a vast sum every day, we need the bonfire of red tape, cheap energy and the rebalancing of the UK economy to start now.

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:11 am | Permalink

        £52 million daily and a thousand EU immigrants daily.
        Doctors appointment 3 weeks. A & EU being used as foreigners GP practice.
        You’ve talked the talk now walk the walk.

        • bigneil
          Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:41 am | Permalink

          3 weeks for an appointment? – I haven’t been able to see my doctor for well over a year now. I’ve honestly forgotten what she looks like. However I can always get an appointment with someone who has been put in a room, given a fancy title and in one instance, told me the comments made by 1) a doctor and 2) a consultant were wrong. Their sense of importance is going haywire. I’ve just gone 3 month without quite important tablets due to a screw up. A few deaths will just be classed as freeing up housing for the tide coming from Africa and Asia.

        • Mike Wilson
          Posted September 2, 2016 at 11:55 am | Permalink

          If I ring my doctor’s surgery at 8.00 a.m. I get an appointment the same day.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:38 am | Permalink

        @Lifelogic: don’t tell me, tell your government!

      • Hope
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink

        Good sentiment JR, you forget we had Cameron’s empty Bloomberg speech deceit and lies. We need action not empty words. May has an appalling record on key issues as HS and her previous views cannot be dismissed by bland comments since she has been PM. Hammond and other EU fanatics appear far more decisive about what they want.

        There is simply no reason to delay article 50. Cameron claimed it would happen straight away.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

          Cameron claimed all sorts of things but surely few believed him? We only finally got the referendum because he thought he could use the arms of government, the BBC, tax payers money and project threat & fear to fix the result.

          • rose
            Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

            And he only put it in the manifesto because he thought he’d be in coalition with the liberals and they would veto it.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

        The point is to avoid Mrs May being banged up for contempt of court.

        OK, so that would be extremely unlikely in practice; it would just be a judge publicly warning her not to put in the notice before the courts had decided whether she has the legal power to do so – in the same way that a judge publicly warned off Brown from putting in the instruments of ratification for the Lisbon Treaty while the court was still dealing with Stuart Wheeler’s case that there should be a referendum.

        However apart from the worthwhile objective of keeping Theresa May out of prison, and free from an unlimited fine on top of her gaol time, there must also be the more important objective of making sure that when the notice is sent in it is treated as being a valid notice and is not referred to the EU’s Court of Justice to determine whether the decision to leave the EU has been taken in accordance with its our constitutional requirements:

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

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

        Which is what some diehards in the Remain camp hope would happen, apparently oblivious to the likely public reaction if the EU’s federal court took it upon itself to pronounce on our national constitution.

        • Ronald Olden
          Posted September 2, 2016 at 8:47 am | Permalink

          It makes no difference what the European Court of Justice says. The UK is a sovereign state and can leave the EU without invoking Article 50 at all.

        • Hope
          Posted September 2, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

          Dennis, there would be no contempt if cameron acted on what he said. The passing of time has allowed the challenge to happen.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

      PvL – Indeed. It is time the Fit Man of Europe left the diseased EU.

      OK. In the game of cheats and divers we’ll grant that the EU has better footballers. I’ve always loathed the game for that and the kind of people I encountered who played it.

      If the EU wanted us to Remain then it should have stopped treating us as though we were a conquered people. “You can only buy and sell on the basis that we take your money and change your laws, population and culture.”

      • getahead
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

        I like your last pars. Anymouse.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted September 4, 2016 at 1:35 am | Permalink

      Peter, we don’t want to wait two years, that’s the point. We want control now. The EC can have cash contributions in lieu of notice on 1st January 2017 and 1st January 2018. That’s all. Just give us our freedom.

  2. Mark B
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    I think when it comes to opinion polls, it is perhaps best if we take the usual pinch of salt with it.

    The mood has defiantly changed, and especially for many, but not all, the Remaniacs. The sky has not fallen in as predicted and people are coming round to the fact that, as I have said so many times, post referendum nothing has changed.

    The big test for the government is how does it get us from where we are now, too where we want to be ? Because the no one ever thought we would actually vote to leave, no one bothered to make a plan. Well, we are starting pretty much from scratch and, as we go through all this we are going to realise exactly how difficult a process this is going to be and, how long this is going to take. And all the while we will still be paying into the EU budget and subject to their laws.

    I am quietly confident that, in time, people will come round to my way of thinking as that a quick exit via the EFTA / EEA route is perhaps best ‘for now.’

    • Ian Wragg
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      If we go your route via Richard Norths much publicised Flexcit then we will be in the EU forever.
      EFTA and the EEA mean we come under the rule of the ECJ and are in a worse position than now.
      Politicians would see this as game over telling people we had left the EU when we are actually semi detached.
      We need a clean break and forget being part of the single market.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

        Agreed, if we don’t have it out with the neighbours now we’ll only have to have it out with them later. Best to get it properly sorted now.

      • Mark B
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        We would NOT be under the ECJ. The EEA has parallel bodies. The important difference between EEA members and EU one’s is that they are not subject to the Commission.

        If the UK wanted to halt EU immigration, or in fact anything that comes under the jurisdiction of the EU, then we have to ask for ‘their’ permission. No such restrictions on Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.

        • ian wragg
          Posted September 1, 2016 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

          We would still be expected to pay a tribute and probably accept free movement. Its a clean break or else.
          RN’s life is devoted to Flexcit which is not what we voted for.

          • Ronald Olden
            Posted September 2, 2016 at 9:18 am | Permalink

            There’s no reason why the UK need pay anything to any organisation to arrive at a Single Market deal with it, any more than we would expect them to pay anything to us. That’s not ‘Free Trade’.

            There are no constraints on terms of any deal. The UK, the EU and EFTA, can conclude whatever deals we like with one another. Anything is possible.

            The Isle of Man is in EFTA and as far as I am aware it doesn’t pay anything specifically for the Free Trade Arrangement. The Isle of Man is also in the EU Single Market in Goods, but it is not a member of the EU and pays nothing to the EU Budget. The Isle of Man is also exempt from Freedom of Movement. Norway pays nothing for its membership of the Single Market but Norway is subject to Freedom of Movement. But that only arises from the nature of the agreement Norway concluded.

            There’s a misunderstanding here about what the payments which various non EU Nations make to various organisations are actually for. The UK’s existing huge contribution is towards the EU Budget. Nations which are not in the EU, but are in the Single Market, and participate in various other arrangements, pay nothing to actually participate in the Single Market itself.

            Various countries however pay relatively small amounts to be involved in a variety of other things that they choose to be involved in, but which have nothing directly to do with the EU or EFTA Trade Agreements. If they are value for money for us it’s likely that the UK will want to continue to participate in some of these things such as educational arrangements.

            We voted to leave the EU, not leave the World. The sums of money however are miniscule compared with what we pay to the EU and none of them impinge on our sovereignty the way the EU does. When we leave the EU the ECJ ceases to have any jurisdiction in the UK.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      Mark – To be fair we have not yet left the EU. Even I – as a committed Leaver – understand that there will be very unpleasant consequences. People are in denial if they are thinking otherwise.

      However. I believe a large proportion of people who voted Remain did so reluctantly. In fact I know so from anecdote.

      Reply There is no need for unpleasant consequences. I still think the rest of the EU will be very reluctant to damage their trade with us if we are firm of purpose.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply – The possibility of unpleasant consequences should not put us off.

    • getahead
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

      Mark, the ballot paper said leave or stay. The majority voted to leave. So lets leave.

      We do not need the “single market” with its attached strings so your EFTA/EEA leave-soft suggestion is not relevant. Free trade no problem.

    • minty
      Posted September 2, 2016 at 12:24 am | Permalink

      If we repealed the 1972 EEC Act, then we would stop paying and would be free of any EU laws, only then, would Article 50 be triggered, but the 72 act needs to be repealed first!

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    Indeed the Brexit vote would surely have been even more overwhelming had, all but one of the political parties, not backed remain. Also had Cameron not slanted the pitch so blatantly by using tax payers own money and all the arms of the state to deliver endless lies and propaganda. We had Osborne and Carney’s threats on mortgages and tax threat and the huge ever present pernicious bias of the (wrong on every issue) BBC and the luvvies.

    I am still not convinced Theresa is sound, she has done little to show that she is as yet. She did, after all, very recently lie to all the voters that the UK had “control the borders through Schengen”. Did she really think this? Or was she perhaps just happy to lie and attempt trick the public to vote remain in this way?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:41 am | Permalink

      Still, it’s helpful now that in the propaganda leaflet that the government sent to every household at public expense the electors were told on page 14:

      “The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”

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

      Only lazy and inattentive parliamentarians were unaware of that.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      A low tax economy out of the EU is the way to go as A Heath says today. What on earth are Theresa May and Hammond waiting for? The last think we need is more red tape and the lefty drivel May came out with outside downing street. Just start undoing the dreadful damage done by tax borrow and piss down the drain Osborne. His central wage controls and tax complexity is a disaster. The EU’s tax attack on Apple Ireland is a disaster for EU investment too. Rather like the UK’s absurd “Mugabee tax” the GAAR – you pay what the government decide after the event so best not to invest in the first place.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/31/by-cutting-taxes-britain-can-win-the-race-for-investment-and-job/

  4. alte fritz
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:57 am | Permalink

    The concept of leaving is simple enough even if the execution will have its challenges. The hypothetical visitor from another world would be hard put to see what the fuss is about. If Scotland had voted for Scoxit, would anyone have dared suggest a second referendum on the basis of a false prospectus or otherwise?

    It seems hard to believe that senior EU figures were unaware that planning for Brexit had been forbidden, so any shock horror at a slightly slower process than all would wish is humbug.

  5. Old Albion
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    Agreed. Stop talking start doing.

    • DaveM
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

      Hear hear.

    • Vanessa
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:04 am | Permalink

      It is all about talking so no, please do not stop talking.

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

        There’s not much to talk about. The EU had chance before the Brexit vote. We leave taking our £80 billion deficit with us.
        If they want to behave like petulant little children I’m sure we can trade elsewhere.
        We are in a position of great strength remember. We are not a defeated nation as many would like to believe.
        I feel this is a turning point for Western Democracy and a brighter future.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

      I have not even heard much sensible talking from Theresa May or indeed Hammond let alone any action. I think I heard she was visiting a car factory today, before that pole walking in Switzerland then telling other people to holiday in the UK with an expensive government campaign.

      Has she though about prioritising a little? First priorities get out of the EU, introduce selective immigration, a bonfire of red tape, lower taxes, get cheap energy, cancel HS2 and Hinckley C, build new runways & undo nearly everything that the economic illiterate Osborne did.

  6. alan jutson
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    Absolutely agree with your Posting today JR.

    We voted to Leave and we just want to Leave, and as quickly as possible, then and only then do we seek to do a trade deal of some sort with the EU.

    Then once the trade deal (and only a trade deal) is resolved or not, but finalised in whatever form it eventually takes, we can then, and only then, move on and perhaps agree on some areas of sensible Co-Operation.

    The EU are of the same mind, they do not want to negotiate anything before we actually leave. (so that is common ground)
    The problem is they want to include lots of other things within a trade deal at the moment, which we should simply resist.

    Negotiations should be trade and trade alone, or we walk away without any agreement at all and see how that works out for everyone..

    We just want our Government to get on with it.

  7. APL
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:30 am | Permalink

    JR: “We should get on with it. We should continue trading tariff free,”

    Two questions:

    What is your objection to remaining in the EEA as an interim step – which we are already in, while leaving the political arrangements of the European Union via Article 50?

    Your party has spent 43 years surreptitiously integrating our political and economic affairs with the European Union. What makes you think you can disrupt that in two years, without significant interruption of economic activity?

    P.S. I’m not arguing against leaving the EU, just curious why you are so obsessed with this (tariff) ‘free trade’ option, which there is no other model anywhere else in the world?

    Reply Because the EEA comes with contributions and freedom of movement!

    • Mark B
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply.

      The contributions are smaller and for projects that Norway wishes to participate in. Freedom of movement of EU Citizens is not as bad as one might first think, not compared with non-EU immigrants which are entering the country at a far higher rate, something that the UK government can do something about but does not.

      Once out of the EU, EU Citizens can be treated the same as non-EU citizens so long as they are treated the same. eg subject to a language test.

      • APL
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Mark B: “Freedom of movement of EU Citizens is not as bad as one might first think, ”

        Nor is it a mandatory obligation, Lichtenstein* for example has a permanent derogation to the freedom of settlement with in the EEA, without curtailing the freedom of movement.

        *Neither is the Liechtenstein agreement exclusive to them, it can be exercised by any member of the EEA at any time and could be invoked by the UK now, perfectly in accord with the terms of the EEA agreements.

      • getahead
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        Why pay any contributions? Why support the Brussels bureaucracy at all?
        Leave means leave.

    • APL
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

      JR: “Because the EEA comes with contributions and freedom of movement!”

      OK, but if you make the case that such an arrangement is an interim arrangement, until we have negotiated all the free trade agreements that will be necessary, a replacement for the ‘open skies’ system that is currently in place, re-occupy all the international bodies that your LabCon party gave up to the EU over the last twenty five years etc. If these alternative agreements take eighteen months then fine, we can be out of the EEA in eighteen months, if they take ten years to negotiate, we don’t immediately destroy the trade and cooperative arrangements at the end of the two year article 50 process.

  8. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    Fewer Lib Dems, other things being equal, are likely to be elected at the General Election . They may feel they can immediately gamble with questioning the decision of the electorate.
    MPs, especially the 171 fighting against Labour Party democracy, may think twice and thrice about opposing yet another democratic vote,- that of the Referendum. But nothing seems to quell their desires to be deselected. Maybe they can go back to their previous jobs if not already taken by younger persons more and better equipped for today’s realities and workload.

  9. Nig l
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    How long has the government been vacillating on another runway, HS 2, new power stations?

  10. sm
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    John, I understand that a major London law firm, Mishcon de Reye, have instigated court proceedings due in October to prevent the Government invoking Article 50 – do you have any views?

    Reply The government will argue it is a prerogative matter. I agree with them and expect them to win. Anyway, Parliament does not need the courts to tell us what we should and should not discuss and vote on. Parliament will decide that. If the Opposition want to raise the issue of an Article 50 letter there are plenty of ways to do so!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      There have been plenty of ways to do that over the past thirteen years. As I recall there was no Bill introduced for approval of the EU Constitution, because the French people got there beforehand and voted it down, but there were parliamentary debates about it and any MP or peer could have raised the question of who would have the legal power to send in the notification mentioned in its Article I-60. And that was just the start, there have been multiple opportunities for parliamentarians to assert a claim to control the service of the notice but they couldn’t be bothered.

      • Andy
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

        Actually when Parliament (as our Host will confirm) passed the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 they had an opportunity to restrict the Prerogative regarding Article 50, but chose not to do so. The Act is silent on Article 50, so the power to invoke it must rest entirely with the Crown. Parliament did encumber the Prerogative in regard to Article 48 subclauses 2-5 of the Treaty.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 2, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

          Correct, and then again with the European Union Act 2011 which placed loads of EU related decisions under parliamentary control. In fact it even mentioned one part of Article 50 itself, but that was the part about extending the two year period for negotiations not the part about sending in the notice.

  11. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    It must strike Conservative members that whatever their own partiality or not for the EU, that if Brexit is now handled quickly, productively and effectively, that the Conservative Party will likely win by a landslide at the next General Election. Even the comically pro-EU SNP will be neutered which, marries well to their general tone.

  12. brian
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    It’s all very well to say start doing. The Brexiteers had no plan formulated for leaving and are now realising that they need to do some work on this and that it will take some time to develop.

    Reply We wrote and published a plan!

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

      Brian – The instruction has been given to Leave.

      Why are you and others banging on about ‘no plan’ ? We just work through it. That’s the plan.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      The majority of the current Cabinet (and the PM/chancellor) were (are still?) remainers. Some were even daft enough to think that we had control of our borders through Schengen!

  13. Michael Keating
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Could you please have a word with Anna Soubry who is way off message and out of step

    Reply No, not a good idea.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      What planet is Soubry on? I had hoped that we would here no more from the woman. One minute she is abusing Fararge about “a finger up the bum and rather likes it” next she is calling for a serious debate! Needless to say the BBC gives her endless airtime.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

        And had Farage said a similar comment he would have been done for.

  14. Newmania
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    The country narrowly voted for Brexit believing the economic argument consisted of talking back £350m per week for the NHS , Turkey were about to join, and floods of Muslims were going to pour into the country assisted by the new stern jackbooted EU army . Many were old confused and with no further productive role in the country .The Brexit vote was skewed to the poorly educated. Above all they were persuaded that there was no economic cost to getting rid of EU migrants and most had no idea what the single market was
    I cannot pretend it is any less edifying than the vote that took us in but that was at least a decisive majority and , more important had the backing of Parliament. If this is the glory of democracy you can keep it
    The vote was on leaving the EU which might encompass a range of alternatives form joining the EEA to complete isolation , the so called “Hard ’”Brexit for which Mr Redwood claims there is a mandate on the basis that many immigration was the main protest ( much discontent, funnily enough, being to do with Bangladesh and Pakistan ).
    There may be a mandate for controlling borders but only if it is done at no economic cost as promised . As this is not possible we are essentially where we were before merely having , like a child , expressed a wish to have our cake and eat it .
    The real political force behind Brexit is not the referendum but its affect on the Conservatries Party which finding it faces no opposition is the hands of its members who are even more old confused absurd and unrepresentative
    So now we have a perfect storm .A political system which is now manifestly unfit for purpose serves up two versions of UKIP (purple ,and blue ) set against Revolutionary Marxist Protest group leaving most of the countries ordinary moderate opinion with no party to support and a the Nations future in the hands of extremists and obsessives
    Theresa May has shown us no talent other than one for self-preservation and as I gather the plan is to sacrifice the export of services entirely to the cause of building a wall between and Europe .
    This is madness , sheer insanity.

    It is a painful irony that the supposed business of handing back Parliamentary democracy has taken place just at a time when it has utterly failed the country as it will soon discover. Why should we be surprised , it isn`t the first time .

    Reply I am sorry you are so unhappy about our country, all its political parties, and its prospects. Most of us are optimistic and like the country we live in. Why don’t you set up a new party if you think there are millions of people not represented by the parties we currently enjoy?

    • DaveM
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      “Many were old confused and with no further productive role in the country.”

      My reply to that sentence wouldn’t even be published in Viz.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      Newmania

      We had two choices on the referendum paper Remain or Leave.

      A very, very simple choice.

      Many politicians attempted to argue their case with fantasy figures, threats and doom monger suggestions, but most people I know used their common sense, did a bit of simple homework, then a simple bit of arithmetic, and then made a choice.

      Do you think everyone who disagrees with you is of simple mind ?

      There was no choice offered other than Remain or Leave so I do not understand your problem.

      Brexit did not exist on the ballot paper, it was and still is a fantasy name dreamt up by politicians of both sides, to cover a multiple of possible options other than the two given.

      There was no alternative government in waiting, just a set of ideas suggested by MP’s as being possible.

      I would certainly agree that many of our politicians are not fit for purpose, but at least we can vote them out.

      I would also agree that some Political Parties seem to have lost the plot, but again you choose who you vote for, or even abstain, or spoil a paper in protest, but at least we will eventually be in control of our own destiny, and not in the hands of those in the EU.

      Please look forward and not back.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

      Words left out ed

      We get this, possibly the most offensive and dim witted comment I have seen published on this blog:

      “Many were old confused and with no further productive role in the country .The Brexit vote was skewed to the poorly educated.”

      I would be angered were it not for the fact that this exemplifies the rude, haughty and bottomlessly stupid arrogance of the Remain camp and does so beautifully, deliciously, exquisitely and plainly for all (including our host) to see.

      Newmania – the gift to Brexit that keeps on giving !

    • hefner
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

      Reply to JR: what’s the point of creating a new party as long as FPTP gives an undue advantage to the Cons and Labs, further “improved” via changes in electoral boundaries?

      Reply The contributer was so down on all the established parties that he should show us how to do it – or he could join the Lib Dems as they are keen for us to rejoin the EU after we have left. I think it will be interesting to see how much support there is for this approach. Remember the SNP took over in Scotland under FPTP at Westminster, showing a popular challenger can win.

      • turboterrier
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply

        Remember the SNP took over in Scotland under FPTP at Westminster, showing a popular challenger can win.

        In the words of the song “who’s sorry now”

    • Alexis
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

      “Many were old confused and with no further productive role in the country .The Brexit vote was skewed to the poorly educated. Above all they were persuaded that there was no economic cost to getting rid of EU migrants and most had no idea what the single market was

      I’m afraid you are mistaken.

      Perhaps you were thinking of yourself, here.

      Reply I have been called all sorts of things in my time, but normally poorly educated.

    • APL
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

      Newmania: “Many were old confused and with no further productive role in the country ..”

      Many ‘old’ never wanted the European economic community, never wanted the European Union, but they had to swollow it whole.

      For most of the ‘old’, this was the first opportunity to express their opinion on what the European economic community had become in forty three years.

      Secondly, ‘the old’ are not, no longer productive, many of them are living on their pensions, which represent the surplus of their productive years.

      Of course, it goes without saying that that does not include ‘old’ who had their public sector pensions paid for out of tax revenue, such as; civil servants, Members of Parliament, senior members of the local authority nomenclatura etc etc.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted September 2, 2016 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

      Get back to the Guardian.

  15. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Delay merely gives hope to those MPs such as Smith, Lammy, Soubry, Clarke, Fallon and much of broadcast media that the will of British people, as expressed in the referendum, can be ignored. Their propaganda is daily and has become tiresome. Please get on with taking the UK out of the EU as instructed by the British people. As Churchill would have said: ‘Action this day!’

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      I suggest that one “action this day” should be to ask the courts whether it would be possible to expedite the various vexatious cases aimed at keeping us in the EU.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, I meant Farron not Fallon.

  16. fedupsoutherner
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Agree that we need to get going on this now and not in the new year. I note this morning that the BBC (yawn) is still going on about how the referendum wasn’t fair and didn’t address all the issues. God, it went on for so long everyone was getting fed up with it. If anything it was unfairly balanced against the leave side. The government started their programme of propaganda weeks before the Leave side was even allowed to begin. I really feel that if the government hadn’t lied and deceived the public so much then the Leave vote would have been bigger. There were many people I spoke to who couldn’t decide because of all the ills that were going to befall us if we left. The governments campaign was a disgrace. If the vote had gone the other way then a second referendum and dissection of it all would never be happening or even discussed. Tell Mrs May to get her finger out and work everything out once Article 50 has been invoked and let’s get rid of the noose around our necks.

  17. zorro
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    Absolutely move forward, and monitor the Civil Service mandarins and remainers like a hawk. All I hear is ‘Oh, it’s so difficult and complicated to disentangle us from the EU legislation’ or ‘not everyone who voted leave really wants to leave’…… A rather bizarre suggestion as in my experience, people voted remain very grudgingly whilst holding their noses running away from Cameron’s lies and apocalyptic threats!

    zorro

  18. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    off Topic:
    The FTSE100 and FTSE250 ( the latter according to the media ” a better sign of the UK economy” are on a level of june 2015 and a whisper away from the highest point certainly prior to the year 2000.
    However, suddenly, the media is not talking about the FTSE. In fact, it has stopped talking about the economy altogether. Is something right?

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

      OK, I play the devil’s advocate: Haven’t you missed the fact that the £ has dropped in value, and that to be a fair comparison, you should either wait for the £ to get back to its pre-referendum $/£ parity, or for the FTSEs to be around 8-10% higher?
      It might not impact you, but might impact the UK retirees overseas.

      • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

        hefner:
        June 23rd was the Referendum . Of course that was followed by the month of July…then August. Two months. Not long.
        The retirees overseas? The Euro is not destined to do so very well. The Canadian Loonie is not booming. The US dollar is so high it is hurting American exports. I dare say things will even out and work out well.
        No sign of temporary workers from the EU demanding, as is their right, to be paid in Euros instead of GB Pounds. In fact, it is our right as UK citizens to be paid in Euro if we so wish.
        Probably won’t be a queue at the High Street Bank for Euros in the foreseeable future. Just a wild guess;-)

  19. Brexit Facts4EU.org
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Where you succeed in making your views widely known Dr Redwood, they frequently strike resonant chords with the UK’s population and its electorate – although not necessarily amongst the chatterati and Westminster Villagers.

    Where you’ve provoked criticism (and very regrettably ridicule from some minority Brexiteer quarters), this stems from attempts by some to over-intellectualise the process of our exit from the EU.

    Many Remainers are now forced to rely on Jesuitical interpretations of laws and constitutional precedents. Other Remainers suggest that the British people had no idea what they were voting for. (An interesting anti-democracy argument when put in the context of electoral exercises such as General Elections…)

    Or Remainers still pretend the Referendum was merely advisory, which is contrary to all evidence prior to the vote.

    On the Leave side, there are those such as the disciples of Richard North and the ‘Leave Alliance’ who seem to want to demonstrate intellectual superiority in their knowledge of sometimes arcane (albeit interesting) EU laws and structural niceties. Some Brexit ‘thinktankers’ also seem to be worrying themselves unduly about such things.

    The positivism and simplicity of your messages, JR, are a breath of fresh air blowing through all of this fog. The UK’s exit from the dysfunctional EU construct doesn’t have to be complex.

    Leaving is fundamentally about politics, not the intricacies of legal and constitutional wordings and interpretations. Naturally the United Kingdom will work within the law in a reasonable way to deliver the expressed will of the British people, but it must do so in a pragmatic way. This does not and should not mean getting tied up in irrelevancies.

    A very encouraging piece of news came in the No.10 Press Statement yesterday, when Mrs May said “We must continue to be very clear that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, that we’re going to make a success of it. That means there’s no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we’re actually going to deliver on this.”
    ( https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cabinet-meeting-at-chequers-31-august-2016-pm-statement )

    It’s clear from your headline that you picked up on this as a significant and encouraging statement, as did we. (We won’t be pedantic about the use of “to sort of stay” in an official Government statement.)

    Those who wish to over-complicate our exit from the EU – and who worry unduly about legal texts – should get out more, into Brussels and across the EU countries. On a regular basis the EU and its member states choose which of its rules they wish to follow and which they wish to ‘work around’. Major examples of this are far too numerous to mention here.

    Suffice it to say that the UK need only follow a ‘fair and reasonable’ approach to Brexit. Everything else is froth – a waste of intellect and otherwise productive effort.

    Best wishes, the Facts4EU.org Team
    http://facts4eu.org/news.shtml

    Reply Thanks, and well done on your efforts to get over the reality of the situation.

  20. Caterpillar
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    I think the PM is in danger of impersonating the Governor of the BoE – giving forward guidance and then ignoring it.

    What exactly are we waiting for?

  21. John S
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    The thing that concerns me is that we are going to beg to be part of the single market as the likes of Anna Soubry would have us do. This would involve the continuing free movement of people, paying into the EU’s coffers and following rules and regulations as we are now. If that were to be the case we might as well have stayed in. We do not want an “off the shelf” agreement similar to Norway. This is one area where I happen to disagree with journalist Christopher Booker. I think we should set out our own red lines and say to the EU “Over to you.”

    Reply Mrs May ruled out a Norway, as Vote Leave always did

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      John S

      Just face facts, Anna Soubry seems to have completely lost the plot over the last 6 months with more and more silly comments, doubtless she will eventually get back on a more even keel, time will tell, if not then she may find she pays the ultimate penalty for her views and comments and does not get elected again as an MP

      • Stephen Henry
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        Only the last 6 months? you must be joking she’s never been in “the plot”

  22. Richard Butler
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Bremoaners appear hysterical over leaving the SM but seem not to understand the benefits are at best marginal, easily replaceable and moreover once free to row our own trade canoe globally, the opportunities vastly outweighs any supposed loss. For example we will be able to import car electronics from Asia more cheaply as the EU tariffs will no longer apply and we might well even have a trade deal with Asian nations, some in the Commonwealth right in China’s strategic backyard, the leveredge opportunities are too numerous to list.

    The new Tiger in the west, nimble, responsive, tailor made and globally oriented will roar like never before. FDI will pour in, no smart investor would consider the EU more attractive and less risky given thier groaning economy, huge debt and banking risks , potential referendums to come and overly intrusive regulatory landscape.

    Ignore the Bremoaners that tell us this is a huge insurmountable task, history is littered with those that said we couldn’t do it

  23. Antisthenes
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    Theresa May is at least making the right noises about Brexit coupled with her rather subdued efforts in backing the remain I have a suspicion that she favoured leaving all along. Just felt it better for her career to back remain. I may be wrong but in any event she appears very committed now.

    She has a demanding time ahead in making the decision on when to trigger article 50 and how. First she must be sure David, Liam and Boris all have their ducks in a row. No mean feat as there are so many conflicting ideas and in some cases none as to what Brexit means and how it is to be accomplished. A Gordian knot that would test Solomon. Alexandra of course took a sword to it and cut straight through. Somewhat akin to your article 50 letter. That will take time.

    Then there is the problem of the forthcoming elections in Germany and France. Does she wait until they are concluded so that she knows who she will be dealing with because she may start with one set of national leaders only to find halfway through she has to deal with a new set .

    The timetable is not looking good it could drag on for a few years before article 50 is triggered. We need to be free now so that we can get on with developing the opportunities that Brexit offers and out of the clutches of EU’s never ending red tape. My instincts say trigger now and be damned and lets us sort it all out as we go along. Perhaps a bit like the charge of the light brigade but at least it will be better than having to entrench and fight a battle of attrition. The former will be good for moral and the leaver troops want it and besides it has the benefit of the element of surprise.

  24. boffin
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    Indeed, Mrs. May should “get on with it”, but the signals from her new cabinet are worrying.

    It was reported that Mrs. Leadsom intends to press on with the EU nonsense of ‘smart meter’ installation for energy consumers:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/18/smart_meters/

    (q.v. the comments of informed readers …. this project is one of the craziest ways Brussels has yet devised for wasting our money to no good purpose. It will increase, not reduce, our costs, is technically unsound and reportedly gravely mismanaged).

    This is not merely foot-dragging in respect of Brexit, but the continuation of a staggeringly ill-conceived EU agenda.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      Haven’t you heard Boffin??? The national grid tells us that there is no need to worry about power cuts because we have such a smart grid now they can control how much energy is being used by switching off dish washers, fridges and freezers when they feel like it. I did not and will not get a smart meter for this reason and won’t consider it until it is law. I know people who have generators in their gardens and say they will use them. Some of us thought we were living in a modern era but it would seem we were wrong. It would be too much to ask to revert to a common sense approach to our energy needs.

    • forthurst
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      I think you will find that the Register is up a gum tree; if you look at Hansard for the 14th July, Oral Answers to Questions re ‘Smart’ Meters, Andrea Leadsom is billed as the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Saving the Planet; this will now be a matter for Greg Smith who is no longer responsible for saving the planet so he should get on with repealing the Save the Planet Act 2008 and save British Industry instead.

    • hefner
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      Sorry to repeat: smart meters are not compulsory. A tiny bit of searching the internet will, I hope, convince you.
      A water meter usually allows savings (by up to 30% depending on the size of the household.
      From studies of people with electricity/gas smartmeters, the average saving is of the order of 3%. It is up to you to decide whether you want them or not.There is no obligation.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        Hefner. You say Sorry to repeat: smart meters are not compulsory.

        Nobody has said they are compulsory. If you look at the last 2 entries nobody has said this. I have said I would not consider one unless they became law. This is the same as saying they are not compulsory.

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

        Smart meters were an EU directive, but only if states decided they were viable economically. Many, such as Germany commissioned a report and decided they were not of benefit to consumers or their ‘smart grid’. The cost of a meter varies between less than £100 to £400+. We have chosen the expensive ones, which a not standard and will not work if the consumer changes supplier. The energy companies like them because they will enable variable tariffs to apply, as wholesale prices vary. They will be able to persuade customers to switch off during peaks and will also be able to disconnect at will, leaving freezers to warm and cookers to cool.

        Naturally, DECC thought they were a good idea and perhaps Mrs Leadsom is more numerate with banking than engineering.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35894922

  25. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    “Getting out of the EU is not a negotiation. It is a decision. We do not need Germany’s permission. Mrs Merkel does not have a veto.”

    I repeat that we are not a conquered people and we do not have to plead with any foreign power or external body for permission to leave the EU, and nor do we have to accept whatever terms the other governments may prefer to impose on us so that they can have their cake and eat it, which is the reality of the situation not the other way round.

    However while it is our decision, and we the people have taken that decision directly in a referendum authorised by an Act of Parliament, albeit an Act passed by parliamentarians in both Houses who were lazy and inattentive to some of the details, that doesn’t mean that we should just up and leave without any negotiations for new arrangements.

    We have to live with these other countries as our neighbours, and we have to trade and co-operate with them, and we have to maintain our reputation as a trustworthy partner for the other countries around the world; all of which says that having agreed that if we wanted to leave the EU we would follow the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU then that is what we should do, at least initially. We can still reserve the right to leave anyway if that procedure proves unworkable, but we should try it out.

  26. Bert Young
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    A very good post this morning ; it sums up the way I think . The LibDems are a lost Party so the way they consider the Brexit referendum is of no consequence .

    I took heart from the statement issued from the Chequers meeting that there would be no backdoor deal in our negotiations . I sincerely hope that Theresa made it clear to the Ministerial position seekers that the Brexit negotiation must not be muddied by their ambitions . There has to be only one clear co-ordinated and overall deal made – the sooner the better . Those who continue to position themselves have to be removed .

  27. Maureen Turner
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    “Getting out of the EU is not a negotiation. It is a decision.” Yes, and we made the decision to Leave and have been given an ultimatum. We have been advised by both Mr. Juncker and Mr. Schulz if we want access to the single market we must accept open borders.

    The PM has recently stated she will put forward a case for the UK having access to the market and at the same time control of our borders. This is the type of proposal the Eurocrats love as it involves endless discussion while the UK hands over £ 350 million each week. No, no, and no again. The previous PM played the nice guy and it didn’t work with Brussels.

  28. James Munroe
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    The UK has now had a few months to adjust to the Brexit ‘Surprise’.

    I’ve been understanding towards the Government’s position, of wishing to ensure a smooth transition to the new future we are embarking upon.

    However, we will need to see a clear plan emerging from Mrs May, over the next few months, reassuring us all that Brexit is underway and going in the right direction.

    In the meantime, if Mrs May wishes to consolidate her position in the polls, and protect our country, firm action on border control and security (particularly new investment) must be made now.
    There are growing concerns and anger over Britain’s leaky borders, now they are under ever growing pressure.

    Many people feel that Mrs May was not effective on the issue of border security while at the Home Office.
    She may claim she was blocked from achieving her goals, by others in Government.
    Now is the time to show us all what her Government can do (particularly the Home Office), given a free rein.

    The Brexit ‘surprise’ created a feel good factor in Britain, that I have not experienced in my lifetime.
    Time to get on with it Mrs May, and take the country along with you.

    What an opportunity…I hope she capitalises on it.

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    I’m glad to read media reports that Mrs May will make control of immigration a red line in negotiations and I just hope that she really means total control of our immigration policy, not partial control with the EU still having a say in what we can and cannot do, and that this red line proves more durable and definitive than some purported red lines have proved to be in the past, especially of course under Labour.

    There are those who say that shrewd negotiators play their cards close to their chest, keep their powder dry, and other such cliches, and she should not be revealing our negotiating position at this early stage. I will just say that the EU and the governments of some of the EU member states have not been following that strategy, they have been not just open but noisy in their demands that they must have their cake and eat it, and it is appropriate that the UK government is equally open in saying that this will not happen.

    Now we must expect the usual gross exaggerations about the importance of the EU Single Market to our economy, which largely go unchallenged even though the government has officially accepted the estimate of the EU Commission that it has added a mere 2% to the collective GDP of the EU member states, with another analysis saying that for the UK the benefit has been below that average and more like 1% of GDP.

  30. agricola
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    Okay, so you are happy with the direction Mrs. May is taking, and that government departments , inclusive of the civil service, are now in no doubt as to their duty. Lets hope that they have all taken the message on board and will act. Your second paragraph gives the impression that you were there. It would be reassuring to think you were.

    Like you, I do not see our exit from the EU as a negotiation. It should be more a statement of what is going to happen. On trade it is a simple question for EU member countries. Do you wish to continue with tariff free trade with the UK or do you prefer to revert to WTO rules. I say EU member countries because it is their trade that is involved, and their employment that it affects. Within the EU bureaucracy there is no financial involvement and their employment is not at stake so they can afford to throw tissy fits and make hostile noises off.

    I would be equally positive about the City of London. It will continue like it or not. If the EU wish to take advantage of what it can offer, then do not put up artificial barriers to it’s operation within the EU.

    Everything else should be governed by a reversion to the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and UK law. Where cooperation makes sense we will cooperate. The list is too long to detail.

    Let us invoke Article 50 and the repeal of the 1972 Communities Act. What may be good in the latter can be considered in parliamentary committee as has already been suggested, and then reintroduced into UK law. We should aim at the Decree Nisi as soon as possible. Those avid remainers such as the luvies at the BBC will try to turn a simple fish soup into bouillabaisse, but they are there to be mocked for their anti democratic stance.

    Reply No, I was not there! It was a meeting of Ministers.

    • turboterrier
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      @agricolar

      Reply to reply

      No, I was not there! It was a meeting of Ministers.

      Just goes to show how stupid this all is when we have you, Patterson, Lilley and others sitting on the back benches. Andrea did us no favours standing aside.
      Push has got to go to shove

  31. Anonymous
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    A paradigm shifting argument made by Dr Redwood in today’s posting.

    I would also add to the list the fact that our MPs voted by a multiple of 6:1 in favour of having the referendum.

    Newmania might wish to consider this when he claims it was stupid to give the public a say on the matter. If it was a stupid thing to do then 557 of our 650 MPs made the decision, not just David Cameron.

    They must be true to their word. Each of the 557 made a very public promise when they voted this way. That the result would be respected. If not were they playing games with us ?

    Moreover, they were guided to this decision by a disaffected yet patient and peaceful electorate by means of due democratic process over a long time using the ballot box. The people, not just the result, deserves more respect than Newmania is inclined to give.

    This was not knee jerk reactionism by uneducated people. They gave full and fair warning over many elections that they were deeply unhappy with the EU situation and freedom of movement – it is too high a price to pay for access to a single market.

    The EU treats us like a conquered people – not partners.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      We are not a conquered people, and we do not have to accept whatever harsh terms of surrender may be handed down by an occupying power.

      It amazes me how so many in our elite – the political class, the media, trade union leaders, academia – appear content to stay on their knees, and prefer to close their eyes to the totally unreasonable, one-sided, nature of our present deal with the other EU countries.

      It might be different if we were benefiting from a trade surplus with them and we were receiving subsidies rather than paying annual tribute and far more of our unemployed citizens were enabled to find work in their territories than the other way round; then some might argue with more reason that those massive economic benefits justified the loss of control over our laws.

      But that is not the case, and in reality it is not us but them who want to have their EU cake and eat it, and eat ours as well.

  32. acorn
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Has anyone got any idea what Mrs May is waiting for? How many lights is she waiting on turning green?

    What labels are underneath those lights? I can surmise some will say “next US President’s permission”. NATO permission. IMF permission. Spiv City permission. Bilderberg / WEF permission. WTO permission.

    With that lot alone, it is going to be a long time, if ever, to get a row of green lights to give “permission to fire” the Brexit Article 50 paper missile. Or, perhaps she is waiting for the three Brexiteer stooges, to blow all the fuses.

    I think we should be told.

    • bigneil
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:54 am | Permalink

      I think we should be told.

      Agreed – but politics is only about telling us what they want to tell us – prime example – DC and TB. Liars to the core – for their own good. It seems Theresa may be going the same way already.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      I’ve told you, she cannot send in the Article 50 notice while the courts are still considering objections that she has no legal power to send it in; that would be contempt of court. And this will drag on and on, a hearing in late October, then probably appeals to the Supreme Court; and as the government’s counsel told the court that there is no urgency, really next year would do, they are not taking any steps to hurry it along as perhaps they could. From July 19th:

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d37cf850-4da9-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc.html#axzz4J0Sroru7

      “… the prime minister, has made clear she does not intend to trigger Article 50 this year, the High Court was told in written arguments submitted by the government. This was the government’s “clearly expressed position”, confirmed in the hearing by Jason Coppel QC.”

      • acorn
        Posted September 2, 2016 at 7:18 am | Permalink

        Denis, the money is on the following from Thomas Fairclough. Particularly the separation of domestic law and international law. He argued:-

        ” … that (regrettably, from my point of view) it will be the Government, using the Royal Prerogative, who will decide if/when to trigger the Article 50 mechanism and take the United Kingdom out of the European Union. The ECA did not change this, default, position. It did not provide for the United Kingdom to become a signatory to the European Union, it merely replicated our international obligations in the domestic sphere. We negotiated and joined the European Union through the Royal Prerogative, and we will negotiate and leave the European Union through the same.

        That is not to say that Parliament has no role; indeed, I hope that Parliament makes its feelings well known to whoever the Prime Minister is at the relevant time, both in relation to when to trigger Article 50 and the content of the negotiations that follow thereafter. Nothing in this piece is to detract from that; all it seeks to do is locate each branch of the state in its proper setting.”

        The lady lawyer who put me onto the above commented ” … basically, the UK is in this mess because it has no codified Constitution and your referendum was a farce in international law terms.”

      • Andy
        Posted September 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

        I wont be surprised if teh Courts rule that only Parliament can trigger Article 50, but that is not what the Law says or for that matter the Constitution.

  33. margaret
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    Regard this scenario: We take all the EU laws and claim them as our own and in line with EU regulations. When this is completed , there is a delay , there is unrest publically , there is a change of government , and then not any need to repeal the ECA 1972! Article 50.. ..

  34. Newmania
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    The more I read of what is going on the worse it gets . It looks as if any semblance of Parliamentary democracy has been abandoned with all reasonable discussion of what Brexit might mean stopped dead
    As I gather it has been agreed that stopping Freedom of Movement is not negotiable and as such we must expect to be out the single market entirely facing god knows what appalling future .This is not what was voted for, as I have said , the slim victory for the isolationist cause was only on the basis there would be no economic cost( in fact a Brexy Bonus was promised)
    Does no-one understand what the City means in terms of revenue, what it will do to it being cut off form the market in services? The cost is going to be hideous and cost in anxiety and shattered families unthinkable .
    If there was any sort of functioning opposition we would not be being governed by a Party tat so closely resembles UKIP there seems little further point in the name Conservative , what everyone concerned knows is that with an undetectable prehistoric Bolshevik in opposition self interest is only served by sucking up to the maundering old blimps of the Conservative Party .
    Why stop at impoverishing us and sending all the foreigners home , lets go back to hanging rations Grammars and malnutrition

    The complete failure of our democratic institutions must be addressed

    Reply We will not be cut off from the market. Our democracy is fine. If you do not like it, then do something positive. Set up a party you do like.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      “maundering old blimps of the Conservative Party .”

      I thought the Heseltinians were all pro EU.

    • turboterrier
      Posted September 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

      Newmania

      Sorry old boy but you are coming across as a bore and seen to blissfully ignore the precarious state of the other countries within the bloc.

      In less than two years it could all be over as it will be the financial crisis and immigration that will bring it down, kissing goodbye to the “New Super State” dreams.

  35. peter davies
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    We constantly hear about all the positives vastly outweighing the negatives of leaving the EU which in the main I agree with.

    Whilst I understand there will be complexities in de tangling from the Single Market I still cannot for the life of me understand why so many of our political classes thought it would be a good idea to enter into this mess in the first place.

    In years to come when all the dust has settled there will no doubt be history lessons on this, I wonder if our future politicians will learn from all this.

    Also looking forwards are there going to be any constitutional safeguards put in place preventing any future PM signing sovereignty surrender treaties in future? This includes FTAs which appear nowadays to have far too many bells and whistles as evidenced by TTIP.

  36. Mark Watson
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    I see Frans Timmermans is urging us to get on with Brexit quickly,maybe there should be some backchannel communications with the EU to explore the repealing of the European act, if we say to them “we can do it this way if you want to do it quickly” and see the response.

  37. Androcles
    Posted September 1, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Mrs May’s Brexit means Brexit stance is not convincing. It reminds me of my attitude when I am invited to events I do not want to go to. I say that I would love to go while secretly hoping that something crops up in the meantime to stop it going ahead. Mrs May has the advantage of an open ended meantime.
    Technically parliament can ignore the Brexit vote but this would be to ignore the electorates desire for all the laws that govern them to be made by their own elected representatives – a profoundly undemocratic position.

    Reply I believe her when she tells the government to get on with it, and spells out there will ne second vote or ending up in the EU by the backdoor.

  • 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