The timing of exit from the EU

The following statement appeared today from the Conservative party. It is good news for business who want to reduce the uncertainties, and for all who want to see progress with our exit from the EU:

“• On 23 June the British people voted to leave the EU and the Government will deliver on their verdict. We are not going to give a running commentary on every twist and turn of our exit negotiations. But when there are things to say – like today – we will keep the public up to date.

• First on timing: there will be no unnecessary delays in invoking Article Fifty. We will invoke Article Fifty no later than the end of March next year. Second, on process: the Government will shortly introduce a Great Repeal Bill to remove the European Communities Act from the statute book on the day we leave, meaning that the authority of EU law in Britain will end.

• The Prime Minister will set out further detail in her speech to conference this afternoon. ”

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

68 Comments

  1. Antisthenes
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    There is good and then there is Brexit news. Does not get much better than that. A welcome announcement. We and you appear to have what we want, the repeal of the act which will be introduced on the day we leave the EU. Does that mean the day we trigger article 50 or at the end of the negotiating process. I do hope it is the former as the latter is too much of an unknown which would ensure much uncertainty, volatility and still being subservient to Brussels. Accepting all EU law is the right thing to do up to a point as that which is later jettisoned may not be what should be jettisoned as it will be down to individual ministers. So relying on individual competence and commitment. The main thing though is that the starting gun has been fired and for that alone is occasion for celebration.

  2. Peter Gardner
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    This is really quite weak and highly risky. Mrs May is tying the timetable for Brexit under Article 50 to negotiations on a new comprehensive agreement on a future relationship including trade. No country has succeeded in concluding a trade deal with the EU in less than seven years. Whys does she think she can do it in two? Or, if she knows she cannot, why unnecessarily extend negotiations strictly on terms of withdrawal which could otherwise be concluded in a few months? She is exposing UK to all EU legislation coming into force over the next two years. There are already EU directives in force, eg., The Ports Directive, which UK could avoid by a quick exit so they would lapse.
    Strategically it would be far better for UK to exit quickly in less than 6 months from now – before the French elections, become a fully fledged independent self-governing national again, learn about and exploit new opportunities in the world, gain perspective and only then consider a formal relationship with an EU which by then will have changed substantially.
    By attempting to transition while still a member of the EU and bound by its rules into a new formal association, Mrs May risks tying Britain to a desperately malformed political entity for a very long time. it is highly unlikely to be in Britain’s long term interests. Exit first, gain perspective and then consider what to do about the new revised EU.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      “Why does she think she can do it in two?”

      Because almost all of it has already been agreed and is presently in operation and can just continue in operation provided that there is the political will to do that. For the most part we are not seeking any changes in the trading arrangements.

  3. alan jutson
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    Good news, and it is the type of programme our host has suggested would be sensible to implement and take place on this site many times over the past months.

    Some positive news on the leave programme is most welcome..

  4. Gerry Dorrian
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 11:39 am | Permalink

    Good news. I hope Mrs May is able to keep up the momentum, because if she loses her thread anything could happen, including seeing Corbyn as PM after the next election.

  5. Janice Birch
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Thank goodness for pragmatic common sense. Let us hope poorer eurozone countries, which have gained most from citizens working in GB ( welfare etc) will not try to veto agreement on free movement. Art 50 should mean an immediate brake on immigration from EU countries as an acceptance to existing EU nationals staying in GB & vice versa.
    Comparing wealthy GB ex pats in EU to economic EU migrants in GB is unfair.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      Sorry. But how can they veto us on anything at all ?

      They-do-not-get-to-tell-us-what-to-do anymore.

      • Jerry
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 6:29 am | Permalink

        @Anonymous; “They-do-not-get-to-tell-us-what-to-do anymore.”

        Oh yes they do! Well at least until we have (Br)exited, and that includes what sort of agreement (if any) is reached under a A50 exit.

        Because all EU27 member countries have to agree, each holds in effect a veto on our A50 exit terms.

        On the other hand, we-do-not-get-to-tell-us-what-to-do anymore…

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    Good new indeed. At least she has finally made the position a little clearer. Perhaps she deserves 2/10 now. Still no news on HS2, cheap energy, new runways, cutting the greencrap and rolling back Osborne’s absurd tax system and his central wage controls. Still wittering on about gender pays reporting, the size and sugar content of puddings, and workers/customers on company boards.

    In the interview today Theresa went on about how we could control non EU immigration, but not from the EU. So at at least, post the referendum, she seem to have learned something. Before the referendum she was lying to us we “had control of our borders through Schengen”.

    Alas with T May as home secretary for 6 years she abjectly failed (or perhaps did not try) to do this. Hopefully she can explain to Amber Rudd where she went so wrong.

    At least we no longer have the climate alarmist Amber Rudd as Undersecretary of State for Climate Change, let us hope she is rather better as home secretary (not a very high threshold alas). But then who would appoint an Edinburgh University historian to do such a technical job, when they have sensible and scientifically numerate people like Peter Lilley available? Oh Cameron would.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

      Just semantics. We have not abolished border checks, we have just agreed not to refuse admission to people coming from the rest of the EU.

  7. Ian Wragg
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    We voted to leave the EU. Not some half hearted associate membership. Control of our borders, Laws and finances. Keep her nose to the wheel John. Any fudge and the Tory Party will be annihilated in 2020.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, the BBC keep describing May as a “reluctant remainer”, well she was she a remainer (reluctant or otherwise). But why did she lie to the electorate that we had control of our borders through Schengen?

      • zorro
        Posted October 2, 2016 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        She conflated arguments with her answer. She stated that because we had border controls with Europe, we could identify ‘undesirables’ and remove them/deny them entry on ‘security grounds’ whilst carefully not mentioning on immigration grounds. Thus, she argued, there was control but not the control over EU immigration numbers. As it is, we are not and never have been members of Schengen hence why we have border controls with the EU.

        zorro

  8. Edward2
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Excellent news and I am so pleased they have taken your sensible suggestions for leaving the EU as presented in your recent report.
    I’m increasingly impressed by our PM and how clearly she answers questions put to her.
    But the best part is having David Davies in Cabinet.

  9. Bob
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    “the Government will shortly introduce a Great Repeal Bill to remove the European Communities Act from the statute book on the day we leave”

    Does that mean if the EU does not offer terms of exit acceptable to the UK that we may never leave?

    That doesn’t sound like taking back control.

    Reply No it does not mean that!

  10. Bert Young
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Beware the Ides of March !. I appreciate that we want to suss things out on various counts with various sources before pressing the trigger but I don’t see why we need to delay sending the letter . Am I missing something ?.

  11. Oggy
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    I look forward to the overturning of the 1972 Act as I have all my life.
    When the Great Repeal Bill goes through Parliament we will then find out how many truly democratic MP’s we have. I wonder which way the SNP’s will vote ? – chuckle.

    • rose
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      I like the name – the Great Repeal Bill – and am mightily relieved and pleased we are to get it after all. This is what we mostly need: the rest can follow in due course. And it is what you have been prescribing so perhaps they are listening.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

      Oggy. There is nothing democratic about the SNP and we in Scotland know how the SNP will vote.

  12. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    This time frame implies that the UK doesn’t have to put up candidate MEPs for the 2019 elections (May 2019), which avoids confusion. Starting Brexit (latest 31 March 2019) with all EU regulations still in place but subject to removal/change makes a gradual disentanglement from the EU quite feasible. All in all, good news, even though a more speedy Brexit might be judged better.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

      Peter

      It takes a max of two years to leave, we could be out within a few months of triggering 50, so lets hope things go smoothly and Junker and his mates dont mess it up for you again

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

      Glad you agree.

      It was a complete nonsense that Brexit could be derailed by an argument that went thus (after interventions during the referendum by the British PM, the American President, global institutions and …the BBC):

      “We – the top constitutional lawyers – submit that Brexit is deemed violable because of a transfer displayed on the side of a red bus.”

      As honourable, full paying and fair minded members of the EU we should be granted leave at a pace as favourable to ourselves as anyone else given the circumstances.

      PvL. The master of EU snide-ism.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

        @Anonymous: As your most favoured divorce lawyer, let me just state that “who breaks, pays the bill”. No costs whatsoever for the Netherlands or any other of the 27 EU-members. Being this mighty Greatest Britain, it would just be small change for you, but we’ll make you pay what is required. 🙂
        After all, it was your idea to marry, so take your responsibility.

  13. Anonymous
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Nervous but certain that we cannot go on in the EU as we are.

  14. Chris
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Why is so much airtime/press space given to Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan? I would hardly call them senior Tories, and I certainly have no respect for them – they seem to lack expertise, common sense, and crucially a basic understanding of what democracy is.

    I fear they were originally promoted by Cameron in a bid to fulfil some gender targets, rather than any knowledge or ability. Fulfilling targets such as these indicates the nonsense of the whole process. Jobs should be filled by people who have the qualities for the particular job, and not qualify simply because of gender.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

      Why is so much airtime/press space given to Anna (finger up the bottom and rather likes it) Soubry and Nicky (daft as a brush) Morgan?

      Well it is the BBC what did you expect?

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted October 2, 2016 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        They are both a disgrace to the Conservative party. If they want to stay in Europe so much why don’t they leave and join Corbyn and co? Anna Soubry is just a trouble maker. What don’t they understand about democracy and the will of the people? Even her own constituents voted to come out but she is willing to walk all over them and ignore what they want. How bull headed can you get? Best news ever that Mrs May is being positive at last. I feel we might, just might leave the EU at last.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

      Agreed
      Someone should tell them both to stop their negative outbursts.
      They must be annoying their local constituencies with their vote losing comments.

    • Bob
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 7:45 am | Permalink

      @Chris

      “Jobs should be filled by people who have the qualities for the particular job, and not qualify simply because of gender.”

      That is a very sound idea. I can’t believe none of our highly educated Parliamentarians has never considered it before. Or are they just following orders from Common Purpose?

    • Mitchel
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      @Chris.Or Cameron’s curious desire to recruit people from “a Labour background”.

  15. Michael Wood
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    I would be interested in John’s view of Christopher Booker’s article in the Telegraph
    today.
    It makes me wonder if he has a vested interest in us remaining in the EU.

    What a thoroughly dismal and negative view of us leaving the single market.

    Reply I do not agree with it.I have told you what I think on this site.

    • Original Richard
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Both Mr. Christopher Booker and Dr. North (eureferendum.com) write as if they want the UK to remain in the EU.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

        It is sometimes difficult to avoid that conclusion.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply.

      Please do a special post on it.

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

        Why not invite him here to guest post ?

    • Chris
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

      I too am greatly disturbed by the Booker article as well as the article on the eureferendumblog website. They seem to be in denial of what Theresa May has said today, and are more reminiscent of something the sore Remainers would produce.

      If Theresa May is not sincere, as they seem to suggest, then I fear all hell will break loose. I personally have no reason to doubt her.

      • Alexis
        Posted October 2, 2016 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        I have read the blog over time and appreciate the painstaking work that goes into its content.

        My sense is that they are very aware of the complex details of current legislation, and how difficult it will be to unravel. Fair enough: that is what is in place. It would be wrong to reduce the argument to tariff vs non tariff trading, for example. My understanding is that there are serious concerns about the rules for moving goods across countries, which will affect trade beyond the EU. There are serious concerns about the City and how far MiFID II et al can replace current EU mediated structures.
        And so on.

        However, against this is the backdrop of the changing international situation (to put it mildly). This is where our politicians and diplomats have unique and private access.

        My feeling is that many informal soundings have been taken from business and political leaders across the world. And that this is helping to lead the Brexit argument which is now taking shape.

    • Ian Wragg
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      I think you misunderstand Booker and North. There ever second is devoted to promoting RN,s Flexcit. Anyone disagreeing is summarily banned from commenting on Norths blog.
      All dissent is treated with a dose of venom and all are idiots.
      If we don’t follow Norths EEA route we are all doomed.
      The sky will fall in and all first borns will die.
      That’s why only a handful of people are allowed to worship on his altar.

  16. Mark B
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Good evening.

    Great news 🙂

    Even better, as I have always stated, the UK Government will issue a Art.50 first and then repeal the ECA. All EU law is to be made UK law and that which is not needed will either be amended or repealed.

    Too soon to ask I know, but when will the new designs for a UK passport and driving licence be issued. ? I want one that does NOT say I am a Citizen of the EU.

    • ChrisS
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

      I need to renew my passport by April and I don’t want it to say citizen of the EU either.

      I suggested here before that, if it still legally necessary to have the EU on a passport until the day we actually leave, the passport office should issue all new passports with an inner UK cover in Navy blue, of course, and a detachable outer EU cover which we can ceremonially rip off when the time comes.

      Anyone know the legal requirement for a UK passport ?

  17. Roy Grainger
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Seems like a good announcement and is along the general lines John has been proposing. I welcome her clarification that she won’t be providing regular updates on the negotiations, that is how a professional negotiator works even though those like Anna Sourby think that means May has no plan at all. It is significant that Sourby’s only experience of the private sector is as a journalist hence her misapprehension that she somehow has a right to obtain information on progress.

    Reply I thought she was a lawyer

    • Beecee
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      According to her Wiki details she gained a law degree but went into journalism within 2 years of leaving University.

      She is a committed Remainer and very much in denial of the fact that her own constituency voted heavily to Leave!

      • David L
        Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

        So is it important that a constituency and it’s MP should be as one over this issue? What say you, JR?

  18. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    You’ve got to give it to Mrs May. She’s provided welcome definition on Brexit.

    Mrs Sturgeon and her SNP got dark amusement courtesy of Boris. He said: ” UK Overseas Aid to certain African countries notably Ethiopia ” had increased life-expectation from 48 years old to 65-70. Mrs Sturgeon must be wryly wishing there were a sea between Scotland and England and thus qualify for “Overseas” Aid enabling Glasgow to someday get up to Ethiopian longevity standards. Aye, I’ve stolen Mrs Sturgeon’s fire and we’ve stolen Glasgow’s money by the look of it and just doled it out overseas to make us look good.
    Charity begins at home. Glasgow is home.

    • Original Richard
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      ” UK Overseas Aid to certain African countries notably Ethiopia ” had increased life-expectation from 48 years old to 65-70.”

      This “success” is leading to overpopulation and is one of the causes of migration to Europe.

      • CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 5:01 am | Permalink

        Original Richard

        It could also be said UK and European “success” is leading to its own overpopulation.But I see where you’re coming from.

      • rose
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

        It is a real dilemma. The aid was intended to persuade people to stay put. But the more they prosper, the more they want to become even better off as Europeans – with all the material benefits you have.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 3, 2016 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

        I’m afraid that is the case.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

      Ms Sturgeon has sent a further million to overseas aid herself without asking the tax payers in Scotland if they agree with this or not. This money could have been spent in Glasgow.

    • hefner
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 7:06 am | Permalink

      Over which time scale? Are you sure of your 70 years? I read 64.7 (men & women together). Are you sure it is UK overseas aid? Or is it ” international aid”?
      Christopher, sometimes it is worth reading primary sources and not the biased rewriting by your favourite paper.

  19. acorn
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Are we being sold a “Pig in a Poke” by our amateur ministers? Me thinks they will get ignored in Brexit negotiations, just like they got ignored during the Iraq invasion negotiations. We have got to start getting Secretaries of State, who know there arse from their elbow.

    Former European Court of Justice judge Sir David Edward took aim at prominent Eurosceptics, including international trade minister Liam Fox in a blistering attack on the Government. He accused the veteran Tory, and fellow Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and David Davis, of fundamentally misunderstanding the legal nature of the EU’s single market.

    Have a heart Sir David, they are amateurs. Ministers, here today, gone tomorrow in a reshuffle. What do you expect from such!

    Slamming their bravado over Brexit, the top legal figure argued Britain would not be “in the driving seat” during negotiations with the EU and would instead have to settle for being the junior partner. And he said, they had “misled” the British public with claims during the referendum campaign, that the UK could become a great free trading nation outside of the 28-member bloc.

    The Scottish lawyer and academic was particularly incensed by a speech given yesterday by Dr Fox, in which the trade minister pledged Britain would continue to enjoy unfettered access to the single market after Brexit. He blasted: “Nobody who understands trade law could have possibly have said what he said.”

    The legal eagle then moved on to slap down other leading Brexiteers, adding: “People talk about the single market as if it’s some sort of enhanced free trade agreement. “They don’t understand the notion of the single market as a complete economic package. “When the UK notifies its intent to leave the bloc, the country won’t be in the ‘driving seat’ or be able to ‘insist on anything’ when negotiating a possible deal with the EU.”

    Reply We offer them the choice – carry on with tariff free or go to WTo. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      “And he said, they had “misled” the British public with claims during the referendum campaign, that the UK could become a great free trading nation outside of the 28-member bloc.”

      This misses a vital point. The Prime Minister at the time and the President of the USA (among many many others) made their reservations clear to the British public about leaving the EU.

      The top legal figure has no case.

      The people based their decision on a wide range of opinions presented during the referendum campaign.

      That we are still debating Brexit is now becoming scandalous and an affront to democracy, as our present PM rightly says.

    • libertarian
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

      acorn

      Clearly your brilliant judge doesn’t understand trade at all. He is entirely wrong as are most of the IYI’s as Taleb calls them. Of course we will have access to the single market. Just like the rest of the world do. Or do you think that all of a sudden Europeans will stop buying Coldplay albums or watching Bond films? What your judge doesn’t understand ( because he’s never run a business and never traded internationally) Is that the single market isn’t of any value at all, its just a device to draw countries into a framework. It has nothing to do with buying and selling. In fact the so called single market only covers goods and not services which account for 75% of economic activity. If I want to trade without any limitations in the EU all I need to do is open an office there !!! You have heard of Apple haven’t you? Or is your judge seriously trying to tell us that no country that isn’t part of the EU can sell their products there. Laughable

      • acorn
        Posted October 4, 2016 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        The rest of the world does not have access to the “single market”, it is an internal EU institution. It is not a simple “third country” trade agreement.

        “If I want to trade without any limitations in the EU all I need to do is open an office there !!!” I know of two outfits that did exactly as you say, unfortunately, they ran into the EU “Country of Origin” rules; they couldn’t provenance their product supply chains.

        Naturally, as someone who has “traded internationally”, you will know all about that problem???

    • Sam Stoner
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 7:26 am | Permalink

      “We offer them the choice – carry on with tariff free or go to WTo. What is so difficult to grasp about that?”

      You cannot offer tariff free to the Eu and not to all other WTO members. that is the law. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 4, 2016 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

        Not without a preferential trade deal.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      Reply We offer them the choice – carry on with tariff free or go to WTo. What is so difficult to grasp about that?

      The dificulty lies in the fact that any tariffs would have to be applied to ALL other WTO trading partners if my understanding of the system is correct ?. This could be a major problem?..

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 3, 2016 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      “The Scottish lawyer and academic” who claimed that the UK had a “moral obligation” to stay in the EU and has not yet reconciled himself to having lost the vote.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/26/sir-david-edward-britain-has-moral-obligation-to-remain-in-eu/

  20. Mick
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Nice to hear some positive news, but I think you must have a word with one of your fellow members Anna sourpus soubry and tell her she lost and to get over it and hopefully all other MPs with the same mine set are kicked out of office at the next GE

  21. anon
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

    Positive spin, words, no action.

    So March 2017 at best, means an March 2019 exit, which could be further extended, which given the above is likely, as long as we make ever larger contributions.

    Meanwhile we will have the dubious benefit of the 4 freedumbs.

    A few more and some more words…then lo and behold we will be made to vote again, this time demographics will have changed due to nature and nurture may narrow the vote.

    This is how the establishment manage our so called democracy.

    The article 50 letter should have been sent. The repeal act should already have been tabled and in the House of Lords to speed the process and clear obstacles out of the way.

    Action this day?

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 2, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      That wasn’t me saying that btw.

  22. David Price
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Very good news, good work!

  23. Dung
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Watch the thimble!

    May has said nothing positive at all and on the Andrew Marr show she tipped her hand.
    May ducked all the relevant questions that we want answering even though Marr pressed her quite hard.
    I have not really liked Marr, thinking him too much of a lefty but this morning he was good. He asked May about those people (like me) who say that there is no need for any negotiation before we leave, we leave , we say goodbye and then we tidy up loose ends, May chose to ignore this and waffled. Someone above pointed out that we are still IN the EU until the EU agrees our exit strategy (under May’s plan) and that means a lot more EU laws will be made UK laws when the Great Repeal Act comes into force, including laws we do not even know about yet. A genuinely prudent leader would not accept that and a prudent voter would not assume that ‘this’ Conservative party would willingly repeal all the EU laws any time before the next ice age.

  24. ChrisS
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Youn hear a lot from Soubry for two reasons :

    1. She has no idea when it’s appropriate to keep her mouth shut.

    2. The BBC is struggling to find any other Conservatives prepared to rubbish the economy
    and Brexit so they put her on the airwaves far too often. Her colleagues are clearly
    intelligent enough to know when to keep quiet !!

    Let’s hope her constituency is one for the chop under the boundary changes and she doesn’t get offered another.

  25. Prigger
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    There was an understanding over the years between the parties that Party Conferences would be granted free rein to conduct their affairs without unseemly statements and contrary outbursts from other parties.
    This was violated, big style, when a Conservative Party Conference was besieged by rather nasty allegedly left-wing elements who spat at all and sundry entering the Conference.

    I see there was a peaceful demonstration outside the Tory Conference today by persons protesting the democratic decision in the Referendum.

    The only Party; the only leader of a Party; the only senior politician of a Party who thought it seemly, appropriate, and moral to speak against the first day proceedings of the Tory Party Conference was the leader of the Libdems.
    That Party, that LibDem Party is like the result of Chewing-Tobacco that coalminers used down the mine where proper smoking was forbidden due to an absolute legal ban on anything which would cause a fatal explosion via mine gases taking light. The “bacca” satisfied the nicotine addiction but after a few minutes created volumes of sputum which had to be summarily spat out into the prehistoric mine-dust and leaf fossils littering the floor. The alternative was to swallow the bacca juices. This invited a seven hour twenty minute shift long heartburn without remedy. Agony!
    The LibDem Party is like swallowed bacca juice

  26. Ken Moore
    Posted October 2, 2016 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

    I’m concerned that there are no plans in place for when we leave and automatically take on MFN (most favoured nation) trading terms with all the related tariffs. What about the complex provisions governing the access of goods and services to EU member states which will apply to UK exporters?.

    Mr Redwoods says he wishes to maintain the ‘status quo’ with the EU as far as our trading relations are concerned. Unfortunately the ‘status quo’ entails free movement and paying into the Eu’s coffers. The EU is under no obligation to accept a no change offer from the UK – indeed they have even set out their position several times on an ‘a la carte EU’. They have shown they are quite prepared and reckless enough to wreck the economy of Spain..Greece….in pursuit of the EU dream/nightmare..

    If the EU did impose tariffs on our goods and vise versa, we would under WTO rules have to impose the same tariffs all our other trading partners which could potentially be damaging.

    I have an awful feeling the situation is far more difficult and complicated than we are being led to believe…but I still want to leave even if there is a short term economic cost..

  27. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 3, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    “The best course could be to pass a Commons motion in support of a letter and to send it as soon as possible, whatever the state of the legal proceedings.”

    A very bad idea, I suggest.

    The claimants insist that there must be a full Act passed by both Houses and with Royal Assent, not just a Commons motion, and would no doubt ask the court for an emergency injunction to prevent the government sending in the Article 50 notice on the basis of just a single vote taken among just MPs.

    Moreover just the action of asking MPs to vote on it would undermine the government’s case that it can use prerogative powers to serve the notice without any further process in Parliament, and would more or less hand the judgement to the claimants.

  28. a-tracy
    Posted October 4, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    I read Verhofstadt rejected PM May’s call for “preparatory work”. Yet P.Toynbee says “rightly” that Verhofstadt “walloped” Fallon for not allowing “preparatory work” on an EU army? Donald Tusk said “once Art 50’s triggered, EU 27 will engage to safeguard its interest” well what mechanism can we activate to ensure our safeguarded position, we should whilst a full member be included in all meetings if we aren’t allowed to set up and organise meetings of our own full stop. Surely we have EU human rights laws in our favour over being bullied out of meetings, excluded from research projects whilst we are still paying our full membership.

    The EU talk repeatedly of the “four fundamental freedoms” – free movement of people, as well as goods, capital and services yet how does this fit with France’s Macron Law that was effected on 1st July 2016? I understand the Germans are also considering something similar.

  • 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