Let’s get on with it

It was good news this week that the Brexit Secretary told us the UK will want a migration policy that is open to talent, skills and entrepreneurship once we have taken back control. He also reaffirmed the Prime Minister’s view that we do need to have our own policy under UK powers, not a policy we negotiate with the rest of the EU.

It was also good news that progress is being made with preparing the Repeal Bill. That will be the way we leave the EU.

More and more businesses I speak to tell me that what they want is more certainty about the direction we are undertaking. That means accelerating progress and getting the Article 50 letter in as soon as possible. It also means reducing the number of issues we need to discuss with our former partners in the EU.

There is a temptation amongst many officials, senior business people in large companies, and amongst the politicians on the losing side, to want to complicate matters more and more. They may be well intentioned in telling us of all the complex relationships we have with people and institutions on the continent and reminding us rightly that many of these need to carry on. They are not, however, helping reduce the uncertainty or supporting a strong UK negotiating position by constantly harping on about possible problems.

Some of them deliberately go further and urge the government to give ground on freedom of movement, or budget contributions. If you want to negotiate well you do not offer any concessions unless and until it is clear that doing so will buy you something you really need. I cannot think of something I so much need from the rest of the EU to want to pay for it, or to give up control of our borders.

Why do people presume to advise on how to negotiate before we have any idea what the position of the EU 27 is, and before we have worked out how few things we do actually need to discuss at all with them.

Some of the fears are silly. Some now say we could end up not being allowed to fly commercial airliners from London to Paris or Frankfurt! That would mean they could not fly their planes to London either. How likely is that?

It’s time for the government to tell us more of the opportunities from exit, and for businesses and officials of goodwill to understand Team UK has to put up a united front to negotiate in a friendly and firm way.

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

191 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    We do indeed need the government to champion the advantages of a full and quick Brexit. We won the battle but it is an ongoing war. May approach is hugely unimpressive.

    The BBC is full of Clegg types. Clegg has even suggested that food will be more expensive, outside the EU. Thus showing his compete failure to understand how the EU tariffs, system and markets work.

    If only we had a PM who was sensible, decisive and wanted a quick brexit, new runways, cheap energy, a bonfire or red tape, cancellation of HS2, Hinkley C, simpler lower taxes and the likes. May so far seems to be another dire and dithering Libdem with a broken Compass.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      One thing missed in the fanfare for the Great Repeal Bill is that nobody has said in public the UK will exclude any EU directives that are not in its interests and not yet enacted in UK law from the omnibus enactment when the Withdrawal Agreement comes into force. Is it so obvious it does not need saying? My impression is that Mrs May is allowing so much uncertainty to develop and misinformation to circulate that trust that obvious things will be done is rapidly vanishing.

      • Jerry
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

        @Peter D Gardner; Seems clear to me, any EU law in force at the time of Brexit will be taken into UK law via the Great Repeal Bill, and as we are obviously still in the EU until Brexit hour (and playing a full roll, according to Mrs May), it also means any new laws that might have to be adopted between now and actual Brexit. I suspect that many who want Brexit are misunderstanding the obvious because it is they who wish to sow much uncertainty…

        • Hope
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

          No need for an delay. Cameron promised to submit article 50 straight away. Negotiation can take place at a time to suit us thereafter within two years. There is no need to have every barmy EU directive in U.K. Law. With one fell swoop quangos could be got rid of ie Environment Agency. Resources redeployed for Border Agency

        • Edward2
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

          After 40 years of having to absorb into UK law everything the EU tell us to, a couple more years is of minor issue.
          The ones we do not want can be repealed at a later date by our elected House of Commons should we want to.

        • Peter D Gardner
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

          Jerry, I think the sensible thing is for UK to agree with the EU which policies, directives and regulations will not apply to UK on a case by case basis. There is a bunch in existence now awaiting parliamentary scrutiny or ministerial decision. It would not take long to review them. Those in the pipeline and not yet finalised by the EU can be considered in turn. If the UK wants exception then it agrees not to participate in debates and votes on that matter.

          For example, it would be sensible to exclude UK on invoking Article 50 from the EU Ports Directive, EU Coastguard Directive, banking union, EU jurisprudence, EU armed forces, migration initiatives, and border protection (except as an adjacent state).

          The EU should immediately exempt UK from EU Public Procurement rules for new projects in UK. It is absurd to require projects starting after Article 50 is invoked and continuing after withdrawal to comply with EU rules.
          It should also immediately exempt UK from EU rules to advertise employment opportunities across the EU.

          • Jerry
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:42 am | Permalink

            @Peter D Gardner; “Those [EU laws etc.] in the pipeline and not yet finalised by the EU can be considered in turn. If the UK wants exception then it agrees not to participate in debates and votes on that matter.”

            I agree and that would have been the sensible approach but it appears to have been ruled out by Mrs May’s recent comments! It seems reasonable that the UK should be allowed to disregard such future EU laws and directives, just as it is reasonable that the EU27 should be allowed to forge ahead with their own post Brexit arguments in the next two years before actual Brexit.

  2. The Active Citizen
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:42 am | Permalink

    “There is a temptation amongst many officials, senior business people in large companies, and amongst the politicians on the losing side, to want to complicate matters more and more. They may be well intentioned in telling us of all the complex relationships we have…”

    Unfortunately this also applies to a small element supporting Leave. It’s fine to know about details (and it’s even helpful) but our ultimate Brexit deal will fundamentally be about politics and money, not the minutiae and certainly not a deal which leaves us tied into the Single Market, Customs Union, EEA, EFTA and goodness knows what else.

    I thoroughly agree with your positive attitude towards a simple approach which means we can “get on with it”, as you say. I also agree with those who wish you were part of Government and could develop the positive messages which are sorely needed.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

      Spot on. Paralysis by analysis. Indeed the withdrawal agreement need not itself contain all the details. The EU will tend to push for maximum detail. It is not necessary. It need not say for example any more on fisheries and marine resources than, “The CFP and all shared access to resources in British waters shall cease to apply on the date the withdrawal agreement comes into effect.” The EU will want details of the new boundaries, agreed quotas for each member state and so on. None is necessary.
      The problem is that Mrs May is aiming to replace membership of the EU with some other kind of entanglement so she goes along with it and is delaying purley Brexit matters until this new agreement can be agreed.
      Instead the UK should start a separate series of talks on matters such as fisheries in parallel with Brexit talks but not necessarily bound by the Article 5o timescales. During this time it can develop its own domestic marine resources policies, establish its boundaries under the UNCLOS and start bi-lateral talks with adjoining states, France, Germany, Denmark et al – not the EU – plus Norway, Iceland and so on.
      Likewise visa arrangements, once UK has a domestic policy – are matters for individual states, not the EU.

    • Mark B
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      Yes, if only real life was so simple. But the fact of the matter is, we are not dealing with any old country, we are dealing with people who are committed to creating a new one. A country called, Europe ! BREXIT is seen by them as a threat to that ambition and they are keen to prevent others from following the same path. They will then make it as hard as possible and will concede little or nothing. After all, they are not the ones who will have to contend with a difficult, fickle and unhappy electorate. They do not care if countries under their thumb suffer (witness Greece) and are brought to a state of perpetual despair. The Greek people voted for a political party that promised and end to austerity. It did not happen because the EU said no. The Greek people held a referendum to demand an end to austerity to which they overwhelmingly voted to end it. The EU said no and imposed even greater hardship. So if the EU can quite callously treat another member country and its people in such a bad way, why not teach the UK and its people a lesson it and others will not forget ?

      A lot depends on the US Presidential elections. Both candidates are bloody awful but, one candidate truly loves both his own and this country and will not standby and let us be mistreated. The other candidate is a Globalist stooge who will say one thing to the UK for the benefit of a concerned US electorate, and then support the EU over us on the quiet.

      Leaving the EU by the quickest and safest route which nicely sidesteps all the above is what I favour. All this nonsense about trade is just that, nonsense. Trade will of course continue, what will be different is the way in which things are done and it is that that we must also concentrate on.

      • getahead
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        Trade will continue. Trade will find a way. Well said Mark.

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

        Not sure you can equate UK with Greece. Those wishing to create a new state called Europe might be prepared to bully a small, poor and indebted state which is renowned for a laissez-faire approach to government and the rule of law and is regarded as work-shy would not treat in the same way a major financial contributor and one renowned for its science, entrepreneurialism, defence of freedom and democracy, and upholds the rule of law.

        Nevertheless, I agree there is a strong bureaucratic tendency in bot the EU and UK’s own government.

        The most wonderfully economic and elegant expression of sweeping change I have come across is Law 46 of the Allied Control Council introduced on 25 February 1947:

        “The Prussian State, which from early days has been a bearer of militarism and reaction in Germany, has de facto ceased to exist. Guided by the interests of preservation of peace and security of peoples, and with the desire to assure further reconstruction of the political life of Germany on a democratic basis, the Control Council enacts as follows:
        “I. The Prussian State together with its central government and all its agencies is abolished.”

        That is the kind of elegant economy we need right now.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

          It makes all the difference if you have your own national currency under your own national control, even if it is a currency which is depreciating rather more than you might wish …

          The Greek government only ran out of money to pay its bills because they had abolished their own money issued by the Greek central bank and adopted money issued by the European Central Bank.

    • LordBlagger
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      but our ultimate Brexit deal

      ===============

      You’re still hung up on the idea that there has to be a deal. No deal is needed.

      That’s what the public voted for. There were no details of deals on the ballot paper. It was purely, leave or stay.

      If you want a deal, I suggest it gets put to the electorate. Do you accept or reject they deal with the EU? I’d put that in place now, before any negotiation.

      That way the EU has to think long and hard, as does the elite in the country.

      • Jerry
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

        @LordBlagger; The ballot paper simply asked if the electorate wanted the UK to leave the EU, nothing more, not how or even when, nor did any of the Brexit groups manifestos mention such detail probably because few if any Brexit group had such a roadmap. Stop claiming a mandate were there is none beyond the wish to leave.

        • Edward2
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 8:05 am | Permalink

          The people gave their elected Government a mandate to leave the EU.
          It’s up to our Government to organise that.

          • Jerry
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

            @Edward2; Indeed and it is also now the job of parliament to over see and monitor what is being done in our names, if parliament can not for what ever reason then there needs a (second) referendum.

            The problem is that some Brexiteers do not want either, trying to spin the idea that they know what the 17 odd million (who voted for Brexit) want simply because it is what they themselves want – that is not the democracy Vote Leave and others called for, it is getting very close to the sort of autocracy that many wish to escape from via Brexit!.

            Leaving the EU but converting to members of the EFTA for example is still “Brexit” and might well be what an unknown number, perhaps majority, thought they were voting for just as much as leaving the EU on nothing (not even WTO rules) is Brexit and might well be what an unknown number, perhaps majority, thought they were voting for.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

            Its more simple than that Jerry
            The Goverment have said the eventual deal, should the EU grant us one, will be put before Parliament for debate.

            If we repeal Article 50 that requires a law to be passed and that too will be debated in Parliament.
            ,

          • Edward2
            Posted October 24, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

            I meant to say..If we repeal the 72 Act…

          • Jerry
            Posted October 24, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

            @Edward2; No it is not that simple, what you are suggesting is a “Hobsons choice” for parliament once A50 has been triggered!

          • Edward2
            Posted October 24, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

            You would need numerous votes after every single negotiation meeting and several more referenda.
            I don’t think this is a practical solution
            Sometimes it is work the elected Government has to do.

            Unless the real agenda is to stop us leaving….

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

            @Edward2; No you don’t need votes at every stage.

            Parliament could have a debate (in government time and if needs be In camera, in part or in whole) before A50 is triggered, it could even be a part of the Great Repeal Bill, were options and amendments to what the UK needs to achieve during A50 are voted on and agreed. Mrs May then triggers A50 and goes off to the EU knowing the wishes of Parliament. This would actually straighten our negotiations with the EU27 as the governments positions will clearly be a national cross party wish.

      • getahead
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        Nail on the head Your Lordship.

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

        I think John Redwood and a number of his colleagues have done that in a letter to the PM. I would very like to know its content.

  3. Mick
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:08 am | Permalink

    I agree let’s get on with it, invoke article 50 now and not in 5 months time, that way we probably won’t have the bias BBC having muppets like clegg on tv spouting there vile untruths, you get the likes of the idiot clegg claiming that Brexit don’t have a plan, but then you don’t know what the dreaded eu had planned if we had voted to stay, one thing I think would have happened is they would call for conscription into the eu army, and more migration into GB

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

      I do not watch then State funded by force of law, propaganda machine, so forgive me. But, Nick Clegg is right, they, the government, did not plan for the possibility of BREXIT. Why ? Because they were so supremely arrogant that we would just do as we were told and not have to deliver on their promise. That is why.

      Now that, Nick Clegg is no longer in government, what can he do ? What can any of the Remaniacs do ? The PM has given the nation and the EU, amongst others, a promise that Art.50 will be issued towards the end of March. She of course can go back on her word, but I doubt it. So once Art.50 is sent to the EU the clock (two years) starts counting down. I think the government have been reasonable and sensible on this, the most important of issues facing parliament and the nation.

      Patients my friends, we are leaving the EU. I just hope we don’t take too long about it.;)

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      But we can’t invoke A50 now while the court case is ongoing and the resulting appeal will not be heard by the Supreme Court until December. I assume if they lose (far from certain in my view) I suppose Clegg and co will appeal to the ECHR on the grounds their human rights have been violated – it could run longer than the forthcoming Heathrow expansion legal cases.

    • Atlas
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

      Agreed Mick,

      The sooner we leave the better as we are still having extra Regulations and Directives piled upon us even now.

  4. Richard1
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:57 am | Permalink

    I think you will find nearly every business and professional working in the financial services sector in London (and probably elsewhere in the U.K.) would be prepared to see concessions over payments and free movement in order to retain financial passporting. I agree the govt should not make concessions ahead of a negotiation, equally those on the Brexit side should recognise the probable need for sensible face saving compromise once tempers and emotions have cooled and proper negotiations have started. I expect the end result in a few years time will not be much different from what Mr Cameron could and should have achieved, had he played a longer game and handled his renegotiation better.

    • forthurst
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      “I think you will find nearly every business and professional working in the financial services sector in London (and probably elsewhere in the U.K.) would be prepared to see concessions over payments and free movement in order to retain financial passporting.”

      We English decided to leave the EU despite the generous donations forthcoming to persuade us otherwise from alien banksters, many of whom should have been incarcerated for thieving. The banksters can stuff passporting; they need it far less than we need independence from the menagerie in Brussels.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

        Not an intelligent response

        • forthurst
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

          Richard, you implied that a special interest should have a veto over any deal, to which I couldn’t agree less; it would give Brussels a lever which they would exploit to the full. To win a negotiation, you have to seen to be tough with both sides because any weakness will be ruthlessly exploited. There are a lot of foreign businesses including EU ones operating from London; if we are steadfast in our position of insisting on absolute autonomy, their governments will be forced to put pressure on Brussels to come into line, if necessary.

          • Gareth
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

            Those businesses will relocate to Europe if they have to; Paris is already making a play for them, expect Frankfurt to do so also. This isn’t just about tariffs, it’s about having the legal right to ply your trade in the EU which they won’t get if they don’t have passports. This is one area where we have far more to lose than the EU, which is deeply suspicious of financial services anyway, and something on which it is easy for them to put their foot down and block. Exhortations to be bold and confident are naive and mask an absence of ideas. This is a big problem and needs thought and care, not testosterone.

          • forthurst
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

            Gareth: “Those businesses will relocate to Europe if they have to”

            …but do they want to? Major deployments to either Frankfurt or Paris would be a logistical nightmare for all sorts of reasons: not only the firms themselves would require appropriate office space, but all those companies that supply services would need to be replaced or move themselves, changing from English law written in English to continental law which is entirely different. There are huge networks of English speaking people and businesses in London serving the financial industry which have been built up over decades which simply could not be replicated without considerable delay: English is the language of international finance, not French or German.

            One can only assume that those that talk blithely about the City decamping to the EU are not well acquainted with the City or its reservations about a transaction tax and any other impost that the Brussels regime might impose to shore up the finances of their failing superstate.

            On the other hand, a minor deployment to the EU would have a minor impact on the City, and is by far the likeliest outcome.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      “… nearly every business and professional working in the financial services sector in London (and probably elsewhere in the U.K.) would be prepared to see concessions over payments and free movement in order to retain financial passporting.”

      Almost all of those working in the financial services sector would be no more affected by the loss of financial passporting than the rest of us, because they are not involved in anything to do with the EU. That is why the Oliver Wyman report concluded that in the worst case only about 3% of their jobs would be at risk.

      • acorn
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

        Keep in mind Denis that large quantities of international contracts, financial and non financial, are established using English Law. The contractees and the English Law Court, do not have to be in England, to adjudicate English Law for such contracts.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

          That’s true, in fact it’s rather amusing that some aspects of the EU’s EFSF SPV for eurozone bailouts are governed by English law:

          http://www.efsf.europa.eu/attachments/20111019_efsf_framework_agreement_en.pdf

          “This Agreement and any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in connection with it shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English law.”

          It’s not clear to me what role the courts in England courts would play in the resolution of disputes in that instance, but the High Court in London has certainly been involved in other cases:

          https://www.ft.com/content/53782c34-64d9-11e4-bb43-00144feabdc0

          “UK High Court court wades into Argentina’s debt crisis”

          “In its first public comments on the case, the High Court in London indicated on Thursday that the payments fell under its domain because the euro-denominated Argentine bonds were issued under English law.”

          However while interesting I’m not sure how this is relevant.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

        It is clear that every major institution in London is evaluating plans in the event financial passporting is discontinued, and expect major relocations to result.perhaps they will be wrong, but that’s the current thinking

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

          So it is being said by some of those who having failed to keep us in the EU now want to at least keep us in the EU Single Market.

          However the fact is that only a small fraction of all the financial services in the UK have anything to do with trade with the EU.

          It is part of the dishonesty of the Remainers that their forecasts of doom always stop short of the other side of the argument, and it is part of the failure of the Leavers that they do not expose the Remain claims as vastly, routinely, deliberately, exaggerated.

          For example last night on the Sky press review when this was being discussed the presenter helpfully volunteered her recollection that financial services made up 8% or 10% of our GDP, and neither of her guests thought to ask a) what part of that was connected to trade with the EU and b) what part of that part could be at risk if we left the EU Single Market.

          If the present “passporting” comes to an end without any effective alternative then the lady behind the counter at your bank or building society will be no more affected by that than her customers, and the man advising on investments will be no more affected than his clients, and the lawyer setting up a trust will be no more affected than the person who wishes to avoid tax, and so on.

          If you listen to Remainers then you may believe that about a tenth of all the tax received by the government comes from clever people in the City trading across borders, and that all of that will be at risk if we leave the EU Single Market, so how then will the government be able to pay for schools ‘n’ hospitals?

          But in reality those activities are only a small part of the overall “financial services” sector, and the potential loss of tax would not be about 10% of all government revenues but only about 0.6%.

        • libertarain
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

          Richard 1

          Any one with even a passing knowledge of the city will tell you that no major relocation out of London will happen. Yes some bank pro EU CEO’s continue to threaten but there are a large number of technology reasons why it just won’t happen

          Right now ING is moving traders from Europe into London and most of the trading houses are recruiting heavily in London. Passporting is another of those poorly understood EU myths. Its vanishingly easy to get around. Anyway the new MiFID 2 regulations due in 2018 to some extent make passporting redundant anyway

          • Richard1
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

            You may be right & there are questions as to where anyone would want to go – not presumably to countries with any of: higher taxes, restrictive employments laws, a danger of crashing out of the euro, heightened risks of Islamist terrorism. But the plain fact is many City managements are reckoning at the moment on a major shift of resources if passporting isn’t continued (as I hope and expect it will be in the event).

  5. Peter D Gardner
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    I am in danger of repeating myself. That is in part because not much has happened apart from people in government being very busy standing still and repeating themselves. I am very glad to see John Redwood saying he is finding people making Brexit more difficult and complex that it need be and the agenda needs to be kept narrowly focussed.

    However, the once much vaunted need for certainty has been lost. Delaying invoking Article 50 until March next year and then taking two years to negotiate Brexit is unnecessarily prolonging the uncertainty while paralysis by analysis smothers objectives and vision in government.

    Mrs May is not a visionary sort of leader but she is the one we have. Can she at least get her Brexit team to produce and enunciate a leadership style of vision and sense of purpose?

    While all this is going on and Mrs May continues to delay Brexit in order to slide directly into some new entanglement with the EU – which can only be some kind of association or partnership at a political and economic level – Britain remains exposed to events. Events in the EU tend not to be benign. The eurozone is fertile ground for unexpected demands for significant sums of money. Directives continue to spew forth. The EU Army – and didn’t the leaders arraigned in their grey uniforms for the corporate photograph remind one of the Chinese leadership in Chairman Mao’s time — is still being nurtured. Turkish free movement?

    One good thing: Mrs May has told the EU Britain will continue to play an active role until it leaves. As Article 50 makes clear, the treaties continue to apply until the withdrawal agreement comes into effect. UK should be fully prepared to resist any unwelcome directives, rules or policies that are not in our interests. Any more of the EU saying ‘Oh no, you may not’ and she should go further and say UK will not hesitate to take the EU to the ECJ for breaching the treaties.

    Britain needs to make it absolutely clear it will not stand any nonsense.

    Final thought (for today). Just think of all the countries that have stood for freedom and democracy in Europe over the last two hundred years. Are any of those member states of the EU in a position to lecture the UK about freedom, democracy or sovereignty? Which have the right to mock the will of the people without whose sacrifices in two world wars, there would be neither democracy nor freedom in continental Europe today.

  6. formula57
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:01 am | Permalink

    No, it is not “…time for the government to tell us more of the opportunities from exit..” rather it is past time for much we hear at present is about problems and harm arising from Brexit. Also, as we all know, we are spending c.£850 million a month to still belong to the ailing EU whilst the government adopts its dangerously leisurely approach.

    Brexiteers failed to warn us that a Remain decision would see us shackled to an organization apparently incapable of concluding trade deals for it is reported now that: –

    “The battle to rescue Ceta has raised questions about Europe’s capacity to conclude any new trade deals. As the EU summit began on Thursday, European Council president Donald Tusk said Ceta “could be our last free-trade agreement” if the deal founders”

    Surely International Trade Secretary Fox will offer Canada a bilateral deal on the same terms for signature now, implementation immediately upon effecting Brexit?

    • acorn
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      You should be pleased that the CETA agreement has failed, I am. This type of corporate trade agreement only benefits large transnational corporations. It allows such corporations to standardise a product across multiple nations, to reduce its cost of manufacture and hence, increase profits.

      Should a particular nation decide it wants to change the specification, as a sovereign nation has a right to do; the transnational corporation can take that sovereign nation to a private court and demand compensation. (Investor-state dispute settlement tribunal.) CETA; TTIP and TTP all contain variations of this USA derived corporate tyranny.

      If you want to live in a corporate state, rather than a sovereign democratic state, then go for one of the above.

      PS etc ed

    • turboterrier
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

      @formula57

      Surely International Trade Secretary Fox will offer Canada a bilateral deal on the same terms for signature now, implementation immediately upon effecting Brexit?

      One would hope so. Hopefully he has already made the first call

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

      I very much doubt whether a trade deal agreed by the EU (except Wallonia) would suit UK. The EU is corporatist. Ceta includes an investor-state dispute settlement scheme. These schemes were originally intended to impose some sort of predictable and acceptable rule of law on relatively lawless states, mainly in South America and Asia. They are not only inappropriate and unnecessary to a bilateral agreement with UK but injurious to UK.

  7. am
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Spot on, John. If we negotiate in a detailed way then when we change item 2 we have to go back and revisit items 8,11,87, etc., ad infinitum and then failure like Canada results anyway. So keep it simple.

  8. Mark B
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    As you say, we do not know the position of the other 27 member countries. But we do know the position of the EU and the Commission. They want us out and in such a way as to discourage others from wanting to leave. That means they will not compromise. They don’t even want to have the negotiations held in English, although I suspect this was more a ploy.

    It is a wise thing to understand the mindset of the people you are negotiating with. There mindset will be preoccupied with containing what they see as contagion and preserving the EU. Anything that threatens that and they will walk away.

  9. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    Few voters on both sides know why Article 50 has not been triggered. On which criteria was Mrs May’s “by the end of March” statement based? What is it that needs to happen first? Will it happen before or after the March budget?
    Well the Remainers are having a field day. “Uncertainty” is correct. It is May-Made.

  10. Tad Davison
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    Mick,

    I take your point, but I would perhaps exclude Andrew Neil who is one of the better interviewers in the ranks of the BBC. Clegg was on The Daily Politics Show a few days ago, but unfortunately, Andrew Neil wasn’t, otherwise I trust the former Lib Dem leader wouldn’t have been given such an easy ride. Whilst listening to him, I kept uttering words and phrases usually reserved for the likes of Gordon Brown.

    I really cannot understand why BBC journalists let people like Clegg get away with spouting what is clearly absolute nonsense. That is, unless there is a behind-the-scenes concerted effort to deny the British people their democratic right even at this late stage. It is almost as though the BBC will not miss a single opportunity to put the seeds of doubt into the minds of the viewing public. The impeccably balanced BBC? Surely not.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • turboterrier
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

      @ Tad Davison

      Spot on Tad. Its well past its sell by date.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Agree John

    The Old saying of “Keep it Simple Stupid” has never been more relevant than now.

    We need to get on with article 50 and then offer the EU two simple alternatives:

    Free trade access for both sides, or World Trade rules for both sides.

    Absolutely no payment for access for trade.

    Absolutely no payment for our complete control of immigration into the UK.

    Absolutely no payment for any future Bailouts.

    Absolutely no payments into any Pension Schemes.

    Absolutely no payment for leaving, indeed they owe us money for our share of assets to which we have contributed.

    Co-operation of all other things can be agreed once these subjects are settled.

    Delay just causes confusion and increases the risk of complication.

  12. The Prangwizard
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    The delay in sending the A50 letter creates a vacuum which is being filled more and more by opponents. They have the time to raise scare stories and rumour and reinforce them. They have time to peddle the suggestion that the government doesn’t have a plan.

    If government and Mrs May continues with their silence and lack of action the propaganda of the anti-democratic and anti-Brexit forces willl have an increasing effect and demoralisation will set in. Brexit could be lost and events could overtake it.

    We need action, we do not need a ditherer as PM.

    • Chris
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

      I feel she is indeed a ditherer, and every day that this goes on encourages the growth of the political vacuum. the Remainers cannot believe their luck and get more insistent and bolder by the day. Why on earth should we have to endure with Ms Soubry and Ms Morgan telling us what to do? I consider that they were poor quality ministers when in government, promoted well above their talent/ capabilities, and I am relieved that they were sacked. However, the situation should not have been allowed to develop to the point that such people are able to freely dictate and scaremonger. This makes the PM look weak as well. Not good for the country.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

      As SuperMac said, “events, dear boy, events.”

  13. michael
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Please keep delivering this message again and again. Music to my ears. The advantages of life outside the EU are neglected and many parts of the media keep on running arguments used in the Referendum.

    The Prime Minister needs to inject pace and passion into our Leaving.

    I like the idea of Team UK versus Brussels

    • Tad Davison
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      Michael,

      My thoughts exactly!

      Tad

  14. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Almost 4 months since the British people gave their instruction to the government to take the UK out of the EU. All we have is a delay in starting the process and a daily diet of doom and gloom from remoaners in Parliament ably supported by the broadcast media which seems to have no regard to their obligations to accuracy and impartiality under the broadcasting code. There can be no doubt that there is a concerted effort to thwart the will of the people and to keep us in the EU. Should they succeed the consequences for the future of democracy in tthgis country seem bleak.The government needs to be more pro-active.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      I agree with all you say Brian, but I will add that from talking to some leading Brexiteers, they haven’t gone away. There’s a lot of hard work and effort going on behind the scenes.

      That isn’t to say we must lower our guard though, and vigilance must be our watchword, but discounting the likes of some particularly rabid remoaners like Ms Soubry, some interesting cracks are appearing in some hitherto unlikely places on the remain side.

      Tad

      • mike fowle
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        Quite agree, Tad, but The Times gives a double page spread to Anna Soubry today as if she were someone to be taken seriously. That is what we are up against.

  15. Prigger
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    Some industry “leaders” are insisting on Brexit negotiations that their interests/grants/tax-breaks/support/import protections are upheld. They do not wish fair competition from abroad.
    Our so-called entrepreneurs feel the UK owes them a living. They feel comfortable with the protectionist EU irrespective that in some ways it means more expensive food, for example.
    It is all very nice for Ministers assuring various groups the tax-payer will continue to giving them in effect welfare benefits/income support until at least 2020. Very nice telling them they need not be afraid we will import say protein rich cheese at half the price.
    Yes, let’s get on with Brexit. Then slowly rebalance our industries and their production priorities. Reduce their welfare benefits giving them incentive to work.

  16. fedupsoutherner
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Yes, John, the sooner we invoke article 50 the better. It may help to stop the scaremongering going on which will scare the public into thinking it will all end in disaster. I was talking to a friend last night, who quite frankly, never actually listens to what is really going on and she was concerned about the value of the pound and if we would ever recover from this. I tried to inspire confidence by just conveying things I had read on this post. We must get going before all public confidence in what they voted for has disappeared. As for the threats from Europe – we’ve lived with it all before and come up trumps and I am sure we will again. We just need a few more ministers to have confidence in our country.

  17. Ronald Olden
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    This shambles (see link) tells us everything we need to know about how VITAL is to get Britain OUT of EU forthwith. Not wait another five months before invoking Article 50 and then another two years on top of that.

    As this BBC article points out. When we are out:-

    ‘negotiating an agreement with other countries outside the EU should become easier. To put it bluntly, the British government will not need to care what the Walloon parliament, for example, thinks’.

    The World will be our oyster. These trade deals are easy for single countries to negotiate with one another. The EU however will be stuck even deeper ditch than it already is. The way it’s going the EU won’t have any Trade deals with anyone.

    In any case we should start negotiating deals with countries like Canada, Australia, China, the USA etc etc etc, IMMEDIATELY, so they are ready to be activated the day we Leave.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37735968

  18. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    “It’s time for the government to tell us more of the opportunities from exit”

    I really don’t think they’ve altered their mind-set on this. It would have been wiser for May to have had two-thirds leavers (at least) in her cabinet. The balance of opinion needs to be in favour of Leave or they will always be negotiating on the back foot . They say a good salesman needs to believe in his product to sell it. How can you negotiate when you don’t really believe in the truth of your case?

  19. E.S Tablishment
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    Prime Minister May obviously needs giddyupping.

    All we hear is the EU won’t do this, the EU flatly refuse to consider that. So trigger Article 50 posthaste!
    We may very well get caught out if we stay in the EU very much longer. Portugal and Italy are dead-weights. A 2008 crisis could happen at any time. America too is floating on economic hot air. Printing fiat money by the boatload and dare not press the stop button.

  20. Antisthenes
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    As you point out. The remainers are constantly trying to hijack the Brexit agenda. They are still scaremongering with blatantly absurd claims. Claims that are either fictitious or unbalanced and disproportionate. Some of their claims will come true given the law of averages and some prophecy tend to be self fulfilling which of course they will use to propagate further calumnies on Brexit.

    Brexiteers had a mammoth job in persuading the public to vote leave. The establishment, the powerful and influential in the UK, on the continent and elsewhere all ranged against them. Appalling odds. Despite which in the end they prevailed. The Brexit process is no less a challenge the same opposing forces are not giving in gracefully and are attempting to reverse the referendum defeat by having a Brexit of their choosing. So a battle may have been won but the war is far from over.

    How to win the next and final battle is a conundrum facing Brexiteers. Your way is the obviously right one if Brexit is to achieve all of it’s aims. I cannot see any unwanted consequences from it’s success as the arguments against it are tenuous at best. It does call for faith as it relies on everyone to react as predicted. However that faith may not yet be based on evidence as that will only come after the fact but it is based on the understanding of human nature, logic and common sense.

    All other ways being proposed are fraught with problems that involve delay, unacceptable compromise, the least desirable outcomes and may well end up not benefiting the UK much or not at all. Brexiteers have to have a fall back position if your way is not adopted or if it is it is sabotaged so badly that it’s success is in doubt and that has to be joining Efta/EEA. Not ideal at all but a place in which to regroup and fight on. Not a defeat as much ground will have been gained with the final goal, complete freedom, in sight.

  21. Dave Andrews
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:38 am | Permalink

    With the failure of the Canada-EU deal, it is evident that negotiating with the EU is a convoluted process.
    I wish that reporters on how difficult negotiations with the EU will be would explain why this should be so. To my mind it is quite simple – tell them we will take control of our laws and borders and pay no more into the EU. Invite them to continue trade on the current no tariffs basis, as WTO rules would be damaging to all and any other negotiation is doomed to fail just like Canada-EU.
    Negotiations only need to involve those collaborations we currently enjoy where reason tells us we ought to make a contribution.

  22. Nig l
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Agree. One thought. The remain side seem to have managed to hijack the agenda and focus it on the single market. I voted to get back our massive contribution and free ourselves from the red tape suffocating business, get out of the clutches of the unelected and constantly left leaning European judiciary, etc. You and the rest of the ‘leavers’ need to move the ground that the arguments are being based o.

  23. Jerry
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    I’ll keep it brief, and without my usual intro citations… Just as one can be overly complex one can also be overly simplistic, many rank-and-file europhiles are in danger of the former, but some senior Brexiteers are in danger of the latter (at least in public), but which is the more problematic for Mrs May and her team? It will also not have been helpful that Mrs May appears to have been ill-advised in the way she was very arrogant (if the MSM reports are true) when she told her EU28 opposites that the UK will be playing a full part in the EU right up until actual Brexit Hour, that might well be seen by others as wanting to hinder EU27 post Brexit decisions (a fit of peak by the UK because we can not legally sign new trade deals until after Brexit?). Oh and yes, some of the fears are silly, perhaps even totally unfounded, but it is not just the europhiles who hold such fears.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      Is it really “ill advised” and “arrogant” of the PM to say we want to continue to play a part in the EU ?
      We are expected to continue paying our fees and it could be two years or more before we actually leave.
      We can maintain contacts and even maintain friendly relationships during that time.
      And perhaps modify any legislation and directives that may not be in our interests

    • Andy
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

      All Mrs May has done is state in straight-forward terms the bleed-in obvious. What is arrogant is actually the EU27 trying to stitch up agreements without its second largest member being present. The EU Army is a prime example of this arrogance at work. They should not have even been considering such things until the UK has left. You will note that they did not unanimously declare that the UK should be exempt from any costs incurred by these arrogant decisions – they expect us to pay for them and have no say in them. Wont do.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

      Jerry, Article 50 is perfectly clear. The treaties apply until the withdrawal agreement comes into effect. If the EU wants to exclude UK from meetings, debates and votes it must ask, not threaten. Hence negotiation can ensue. UK should for example, withdraw from processing of policies, directives and regulations which it does not want to comply with and the EU should agree, on a case by case basis.

      • Jerry
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:48 am | Permalink

        @Peter D Gardner; Stop trying to play the rule book… The EU27 do not have to ask the UK for permission to hold EZ meetings, and that is all that will happen if the UK try and gate-crash EU meetings.

        • Edward2
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:28 am | Permalink

          Surely rules are important Jerry?
          What Peter says is correct.

          You have added a red herring by saying EZ meetings

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

          According to the ECJ it did need to ask permission until the status of the Eurogroup was formally recognised in the treaties.

  24. agricola
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Lets keep it simple.

    1. Repeal the 1972 Act of Accession in terms of it accepting dominance of the EU, and then accept it unaltered into English Law for subsequent tweaking at our leisure.

    2. Invoke Article 50. Note, I have no opinion as to the order in which 1. and 2. should occur.

    3. Ask the EU nations if they wish to continue with tariff free trade and financial service access.. If they do wish it, we just carry on without tariffs. If they do not we revert to WTO rules.

    4. Ask the EU nations where they would wish to continue to cooperate with us. This last one is where some negotiation/discussion needs to take place and may take a bit of time. I would add however that all the areas of cooperation are already established so just carry on aiming at improvement.

    Job done. QED.

  25. Alan Hill
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    I recall the time in the early 70’s when I was 2nd Mate on a cross channel ferry. We used to get a lot of French foot passengers travelling to Dover to shop at M & S because it was so much cheaper. In those days the UK was generally much less expensive than the continent.

  26. Graham
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Let’s have more positive progress reports finding their way through (if that’s still feasible given the Media bias) to give countermeasure to the spurious claims that absolutely everything now until the end of time is at the feet of Brexit.

    The Biased Brodcasting Co must have a whole department just set up for this purpose – and some of it will stick for sure.

  27. Tweeter_L
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    A big “thank you” to you, Dr JR for your calm rationality on the issues that come up in the media about our leaving the EU. I first began reading your blog around the time of the Referendum and have now got used to visiting every day for a reassuringly positive view: required reading! I heartily agree that we should get on with it and that it really shouldn’t be as complicated as some would have us believe.

  28. graham1946
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    Pretty much what we Brexiters here have been saying since June. The stumbling block seems to be your PM who seems to want delay and dither. She got a poor reception at the EU yesterday and the disparaging way Juncker blew out his cheeks when asked if they were going to discuss Brexit says what we have always known – they don’t like us and just want our money.

    Mrs. May should have come back all fired up with the instruction to her Ministers to get the letter off as soon as the court case is over and stop kowtowing to nonentities like Juncker. Cast Iron Cameron should have kept his word and done it before he left and all the nonsense started. (Good to see the Tories losing a good bit of their majority in Witney, to the LibDems and you can’t get much worse than that, maybe they will be a little more humble than arrogant CMD).

    The longer the dither, the more a head of steam builds up and the more the EU will believe we don’t really mean it and will come to heel in due course and the weaker our ‘negotiation’ will be. Why ‘negotiation’ I don’t know. If they want our markets then let them come to us, we are their customers, but first get Article 50 in so we know when the deadline is.

  29. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    On Tuesday afternoon, after a three day High Court hearing, on page 161 here:

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/brexit181016-all-day.pdf7

    “THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I am not going to ask if there is any more in case somebody does get up. It merely remains, I am not going to shock you … by saying we shall give judgment in ten minutes. We shall take time to consider the matter and give our judgments as quickly as possible.”

    Then the case will almost certainly go on to the Supreme Court in December.

    Why is it taking so long? Because at the preliminary hearing the government’s lawyer told the judge there was no rush, the end of the year would be fine for the government, and so the timetable was arranged on that basis.

    Ministers must obey the law of the land like everybody else, and while the courts are still deciding whether or not that law permits the government to serve the Article 50 notice without any further parliamentary process then it cannot go in.

    Which would not be too great a problem in itself, if it were not for the fact that with each day that passes the enemies of democracy gather more strength and their stream of propaganda swells, largely unchallenged, and now we even have various people in the EU no longer fully accepting that the UK will actually leave.

    There is one man above all others who is responsible for this, and if I offered my true opinion of him there would be no chance of this comment being published.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      Denis,

      I can think of a dozen such people, but I bet the one you refer to is in there somewhere. I was taken by their look of self-satisfied smugness when on political programmes, which could be telling. It was as if they knew something we did not.

      The one I would put my money on however, is a Bilderberger and parliamentarian of long standing. A person of whom I have often said, is just about the most dangerous man in British politics. Someone who calls the shots for the remain side behind the scenes. I wonder if that narrows it down a bit?

      Tad

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Not that one, the other one who promised that he would trigger Article 50 straight away and then stick around to see us through our withdrawal.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

      Good post. I tried the link and got this:

      You don’t have permission to access /wp-content/uploads/2016/10/brexit181016-all-day.pdf7 on this server.

      Should we know more than what you have quoted above?

  30. Daphne Luddite
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    “There is a temptation amongst ….. politicians on the losing side, to want to complicate matters more and more….. They are not, however, helping reduce the uncertainty or supporting a strong UK negotiating position by constantly harping on about possible problems. ”

    Those politicians cannot know how each their constituents voted in the Referendum. Nor which of them normally vote for them and their Party. So, are not those MPs taking a terrible Russian roulette gamble when they play merry-hell about Brexit? Each of their outbursts may convince some of their voters never to vote for them again in a General Election.

    In rock solid seats which voted Leave in great numbers, those MPs surely from their own standpoint would be better remaining rather silent and concentrating on local constituency work? In one narrow way, perhaps, they should be applauded for speaking their mind. But they do threaten and weaken our negotiating position. It was exactly the same when many Labour MPs announced before Cameron’s negotiations that they would vote Remain even if he was being offered nothing. A very odd position to take if they genuinely cared about our relationship to the EU. It can only be seen as undermining our country as a whole for the chance of Party political gain. The Labour Party at its best isn’t much cop.

  31. Colin Hart
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Add to ‘many officials, senior business people in large companies, and the politicians on the losing side’ many of m’learned friends – no doubt trying be helpful but looking at many years of fees as they add to the complications.

    We should simply tell the EU we are leaving and invite them to tell us what relationship they would like with us. We can then spend the next two years waiting to see what they can come up with (in French if they must) if they are able to get Wallonia on board and agree amongst themselves.

    This could be known as the ‘light blue touch paper’ strategy.

    Anything wrong with it?

  32. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    I don’t have to make up stories to point to some hilariously pathetic aspects of the looming Brexit: The campaign by some British for the blue UK passport from imperial times and even some who want to ditch the decimal and want to revert to imperial measurements. Enough fun for spectators on my side of the North Sea. Let Britain swaddle a few more decades in its glorious past before some time in future, it will get back to its senses. I’m not worried about the trade aspects of the divorce, trade there will always be.

    • Horatio Chegwin
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      Britain came to its senses when it voted for Brexit. Our fun at the expense of the EU is only just starting. Adios losers.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        @Horatio Chegwin: Such a divided country you’ve got now. I wish you luck!

        • APL
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

          PvL: “Such a divided country you’ve got now.”

          For the last forty three years this country has been divided. The issue that has divided us is membership of the amorphous organization EEC/EU.

          Our politicians have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep the decision out of our hands, then through incompetence Cameron accidentally gives us an opportunity to have a say. The rest as they say, is history.

    • Mark
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

      When I lived in the Netherlands it was perfectly possible to be understood when asking for “een pond appels”, and likewise in Paris to buy “une livre de pommes”, or in Köln to buy “ein Pfund Äpfel”.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

        @Mark: You got half a point there, Mark! But these old traditional names (pond, livre, Pfund) have long been adapted to the metric system, all three having become 500 grams (or half a kilogram) in the 19th century.
        1kg=10 “ons” (ounces) or 1000 grams. The only remaining non-metric measurement sometimes used in parallel (in the Netherlands) is in plumbing, in which you might come across a “half thumb” or one thumb pipe.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      Calm Peter
      They are just symbols of independence being suggested after decades of having such items submerged into the commonality of the EU
      Minor matters.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        @Edward2: Minor matters indeed, but illustrating a deep longing for the past. Why??
        There is actually a lot of it in Britain, and I see it as different from just valuing traditions, like you might see in a country like Japan. Anyway, if you value exceptionalism, ok with me, it’s your life and your country.

        • Anonymous
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

          Actually Britain is progressive and multicultural. The EU is an organisation primarily run by stale pale males in secrecy and stifling bureaucracy.

    • Tulips
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

      The late Enoch Powell said on a TV programme hosted by the late David Frost : “Every country needs its myths. For Britain, the myth of Empire” He did not explain what he meant.
      He also said “”Somehow I do not feel Nelson’s words “Let every man do his duty” has the same impact for an immigrant to our shores””
      Powell and Frost are of the past. Myths. But they helped build this Sceptred Isle.
      I do not know if Holland has its myths which set it in good stead. The only one we know is a little boy sticking his finger in it.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      PvL

      Is there not one level on which you would accept that Brexit was partly the fault of your ‘superior’ mindset ?

      That’s what the backlash was against – not red passports !

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:17 am | Permalink

        @Anonymous: Actually, I don’t agree.
        What I saw was complete disinterest and ignorance – the British knowing much more about Australia and its institutions than the European continent (the laziness of a largely mono-lingual country). If anything, the British have a problem recognising themselves as just “equals” with the other Europeans. The so-called backlash has much more to do with home-grown problems, which led people to believe that ANY change would at least be better than no change. Taking the EU as the scapegoat has been drip-fed by anti-EU and anti-Europe writings by the foreign owned British tabloids for about forty years. There must be about a thousand debunked EU-myths in the current collection.
        Maybe the EU was wrong not to defend itself against this? WHat you call a superior mindset is a blatant denial that the UK itself was part and parcel of that mindset, as it was part and parcel of the institutions, the policies and the regulations, most of which were about health, safety, environment, fair competition on a level playing field, etc.

        • Edward2
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:31 am | Permalink

          The same comments can be applied to French and German nations Peter.
          The UK likes Europe but not the EU

        • Anonymous
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

          In answer to my question I take that as a ‘no’ then.

          You evince contempt for us. I infer that our mono-linguism is the reason for our ignorance of the EU. I put it down to the EU’s opaqueness in any language as the reason for that, including its failure to sign off accounts for nearly twenty years.

          Key stories from the the tabloids have been proven to be factual, including the one on bananas.

          The chief aim of the EU is not Health and Safety but Ever Closer Union and for this they would not budge on modest and reasonable demands for restrictions on freedom of movement, which would have swayed the result towards Remain.

          Your EU is antidemocratic and I thank the British tabloid press for their work.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

      Peter van Leeuwen, I agree there will always be trade. Ergo we don’t need to slide into a new entanglement with the EU as Mrs may intends. We just need to leave and, as John Redwood argues, offer free trade on a take it or leave it basis. There is no need for lengthy negotiations. The alternative to being a member of the EU is the normality of the 160 or more other countries in the world which are not members of the EU.

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:03 am | Permalink

        @Peter D Gardner: No problem with your statement. A marriage cab ne broken up. As long as the divorcee pays for any damage. It would be quite unfair if the continent had to bear such costs. It never asked the UK to become a member, neither did it ask the UK to leave.

        • Anonymous
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

          “It never asked the UK to become a member, neither did it ask the UK to leave.”

          But the EU changed from being a ‘common market’ of a small number of nations of equal standing and morphed into something very different.

          Personally I’d go for an annulment rather than divorce had we not been right royally shafted on a regular basis.

  33. Iain Gill
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Talent only when it brings unique skills or skills genuinely in short supply. Talent only when it pays as much tax as locals. Talent only when it does not abuse the healthcare or school systems. Talent only when it doesn’t expect to pick up indefinite leave to remain simply for working here a while.

    So definitely not the way current intra company transfer visas work.

  34. Richard1
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I would be interested in an answer to 2 questions if you happen to know: 1) is there any legal reason why the UK should not negotiate and line up trade agreements with non-EU countries to come into force the moment we leave, as the EU Commission and many Remainers say? & 2) is it the case that if we simply stick with the same free trade we have now with the EU does that constitute a ‘deal’ which would need all the various EU bodies, including the Walloon Parliament, to vote on? The point being, if staying as is requires no special approval, that’s a very obvious reason for both sides to go for it given the experience of the Canada deal.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      As far as I can tell whatever deal emerges from the Article 50 process will have to approved by Wallonia, and that would still be true even for a deal for the UK to leave the EU but stay in the EEA, when Wallonia would no doubt demand a guarantee that every Walloon would still have the right to move to the UK if he so pleased.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        It seems to be very unclear. On the first question the UK should trade the right to open negotiations with 3rd party countries now against not interfering in the EUs future plans. If Walloon et al have the right to veto any EU-UK agreement we should expect them to do so I suppose.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 11:45 am | Permalink

          It is unclear, and it is also unclear who will decide whether Wallonia shall have a veto or not.

          In the EU treaties it is Belgium as a whole which has always been the contracting party, but its ability to ratify has depended upon approval from all of its regions and communities.

          So to take the example of the Lisbon Treaty, that treaty which so memorably ceased to exist at the very instant that it came into force, according to the last Prime Minister, which is still here on the EU’s official website even now after he has let us all down by departing from office:

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

          If you look at the top, the Preamble starts with:

          “HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS”

          as the first on the list of contracting parties, and it says that it was signed just by his Prime Minister, Verhofstadt; but if you go down to Article 7 with the signatures, ” IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty”, below the Belgian signatures it says in three languages that it engages also the regions and communities of Belgium, for example:

          «Cette signature engage également la Communauté française, la Communauté flamande, la Communauté germanophone, la Région wallonne, la Région flamande et la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale.»

          So the precedent has been there for a long time, and I guess that whatever the UK agrees with the EU about trade will have to be accepted separately by all these bits of Belgium. However on TV last night a woman billed as a trade expert made the sensible point that CETA is about removing trade barriers and that is difficult to agree, while the UK would only be seeking to continue trade as now.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:00 am | Permalink

      Richard1, as far as I know the answer to your Q1 is ‘no’. I would add that doing so would considerably steady the shaky members of Mrs May’s government and hugely strengthen UK’s negotiating position with the EU.
      On Q2, under article 50 the two year timescale applies only to arrangements for withdrawal and these would be agreed by the EU using QMV, not unanimity. Any new trade deal or other complex entanglement would require unanimity and is not restricted to two years. The government knows this but is aiming for the two agreements to come into effect simultaneously. Before Canada’s walk-out, the world record for such a deal stood at 7 years. Why Mrs May thinks she can do it in two years is a mystery. Since withdrawal arrangements alone could be agreed within months it seems to me that by delaying Brexit in order to attempt the impossible she is unnecessarily exposing UK to awful risks.

      • David Price
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

        Would it be simply QMV? I thought the council operates on QMV but the decision would be “subject to approval” by the EP – is a simple majority all that is needed in the latter case?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Their common negotiating position is decided by QMV. Nothing is said about whether the agreement which is concluded has to be ratified by each of the member states, as well as by the UK, but I guess that will be the case.

  35. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    “Some now say we could end up not being allowed to fly commercial airliners from London to Paris or Frankfurt! That would mean they could not fly their planes to London either. How likely is that?”

    Could that not be seen as just one option under the EU’s threatened economic sanctions against the UK for insisting on unilateral national control of its immigration policy?

    Somebody sent me a brief reference to some UN rules about economic sanctions, but this seems to be a more comprehensive account:

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/global-taxes/42501-the-adverse-consequences-of-economic-sanctions.html

    This is interesting:

    “42. Sanctions under the United Nations must be imposed only when there is a threat of or actual breach of international peace and security. Sanctions may not be imposed for invalid political reasons (personal grudges, “East-West” or “North-South” politics, “left-right” politics and the like). Sanctions may not arise from or produce an economic benefit for one State or group of States at the expense of the sanctioned State or other States. Sanctions may not result in undue interference with a State’s sovereignty rights under international law.”

    Not that I care too much about the United Nations, but they pretend to care a great deal as can be seen from the numerous references in the EU treaties.

    For example, Article 3(5) TEU:

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

    “In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

    What a joke – “mutual respect among peoples”, and “free and fair trade”, and “the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

    Unfortunately on present showing we are dealing with people who are not only stupid and spiteful, but hypocritical and untrustworthy; should we try to appease them?

    Reply There is now ay they will impose sanctions on the UK!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      That is precisely what they are threatening.

      At present the 28 EU countries have a certain volume of trade conducted under legal and practical arrangements which all parties find acceptable, if not ideal. They have made it clear that when we leave the EU they will not longer agree to trade with us in the same way as now, and they will make it much more difficult for our exporters, unless we agree that all their citizens shall continue to have the automatic right to migrate to the UK.

      In other words they are threatening to inflict economic harm on us in pursuit of their political objectives, which in my view amounts to economic sanctions just as much as the economic sanctions applied to various rogue countries but without any valid justification, let alone approval from the UN Security Council.

  36. DaveM
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Do you think Mrs May wants to get on with it and leave the Brussels lunch club? I don’t.

    • zorro
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, maybe that’s why she voted REMAIN…… and yet ended up as PM responsible for implementing our exit from the EU!

      zorro

  37. Kenneth
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Several times I have heard a BBC presenter tell us how vastly complicated the negotiations will be. They do not quote anybody when making this statement. This is the BBC’s own opinion.

    I disagree with the BBC.

    What worries me is that some people might think the BBC is correct.

    • zorro
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

      Or the opinion of Laura Kuenssberg!

      All the opinions are slanted in this way. There is a dedicated psyop within the media and establishment to subvert the Brexit decision. Of that, there can now be no doubt. I hope that I am wrong but I just do not think May is up to the job at hand. She needs to project the UK as a confident country which is not there to be humiliated by the EU. I have no doubt that negotiations will be futile, and that we should offer them the status quo on ‘free trade’ but fall back to WTO. I do not think that our diplomats would hold the line.

      zorro

    • Horatio Chegwin
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

      The BBC should be legally obliged to flash up a message concerning its EU contributions before and after any programme that discusses Brexit. Any conflict of interest should be declared. That’s what impartial organisations do.

    • Jerry
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      @Kenneth; All in your opinion of course, citing nothing in the way of proof – what’s that nine letter word beginning “Hyp”

      On the other hand anyone who has actually bothered to read Article 50 will understand that trying to get all EU27 member states to agree, as we must, will be complex, and we have limited time to do so. Otherwise we are out on our ear with nothing more than WTO terms, that in its self is complex as Mr Clegg has pointed out, the often quoted 10% across-the-board tariff is its self an overly simplistic construct of the Brexit campaign, some tariffs could be much higher – all assuming that the UK can resume our WTO place upon Brexit without delay of course.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

        You like Clegg and follow his every word Jerry but he is not always right.
        Many nations trade happily with other nations on WTO rules.
        Many nationns trade happily with Europe without being in the EU nor in the Single Market nor agreeing to freedom of movement.

        The EUs share of world trade has fallen again this year.
        The 11th year running.
        Lower growth than the UK
        Lower growth than average world growth.

        • Jerry
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 8:02 am | Permalink

          @Edward2; Stop trying to conflate two issues, WTO tariffs and OECD economic figures…

          “You like Clegg and follow his every word Jerry but he is not always right.”

          Not so, but in this instance (WTO tariffs) he is correct.

          Also stop your silly hyperbole, how can the EU GDP figure be lower than the UK, considering the UK is a part of the EU, perhaps you mean EZ area growth – but even then how can it be so, when Germany’s GDP alone is greater than the the UK’s!

          • Edward2
            Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

            I will not stop Jerry
            You have no right to restrict my freedom of speech

            Many nations trade happily with Europe without agreeing to freedom of movement nor being in the single market
            And many more trade with each other using local trade deals or use WTO rules

            And you need to read what I said
            I did not say the UK has a higher GDP than the EU
            I did not even use the term GDP

          • Jerry
            Posted October 24, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

            @Edward2; I am not telling to to stop making comments, I asking you to stop trying to muddy the waters every time you start loosing the argument, economic growth (how ever expressed) is irrelevant to WTO tariff rates and how they are implemented.

      • Kenneth
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:20 am | Permalink

        Jerry, I can cite with a few Google searches. The example I heard was audio so I cannot find that particular one but at the risk of giving our host more work, here are 2 examples where the BBC has called the negotiations complicated:

        1.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36651829

        “Successful negotiations require a skilled – and large – team, but the UK has not negotiated a trade deal since 1973. The EU has 596 trade negotiators and the UK urgently needs a similarly sized team to craft new deals with major trade partners.”

        2.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887

        The government did not do any emergency planning for Brexit ahead of the referendum – and it is now rushing to hire a team of skilled negotiators to manage the complex business of negotiating withdrawal and ensuring Britain gets the best possible deal.

        Oh, and getting “all EU27 member states to agree” is, I agree, a potential complication, but this is a problem in the eu side and not on ours.

        Meanwhile I cannot see how the BBC can continue to have a licence to broadcast if it continues to peddle its own opinions as I have shown above.

        • Jerry
          Posted October 24, 2016 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

          @Kenneth; In other words you do not like the media (especially the BBC) stating facts that you would prefer not to be broadcast, perhaps not even be placed in the public domain – except that those URL’s do not relate to the BBC’s broadcast licence…. Perhaps you meant charter, and even then I doubt they have done anything against the letter nor spirit of the Charter.

  38. Mark
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    One advantage about Article 50 negotiations is that anything agreed under them only requires a QMV approval under guidelines set by the Council, whereas for example a trade agreement negotiated outside Article 50 would a) be negotiated by the Commission without reference to Council for guidelines, and b) would require unanimous approval (which apparently means that even part of a country could block it, as we see with Wallonia and CETA). Another advantage is that Article 50 compels the EU to negotiate and conclude an agreement (however long it takes, and whether we are still a member of the EU or not), whereas all other agreements would require an agreement that we needed an agreement, and no compulsion to actually conclude the agreement.

    On that basis, things we can safely conclude the EU will want to agree could be excluded from Article 50 negotiations, but things where we might expect a minority opposition but reasonably expect QMV support should be included – at least as an opening gambit. If the EU then want to have certainty on some of the things that we consider need not form part of Article 50 negotiations, then we can trade them into the agreement provided the EU agree points that we wish to see.

    There is a minor complication arising from the guillotine: we could move from being a full member to an interim position with no agreement in place particularly if the EU indulge in a Mexican standoff and fail to honour their obligation to negotiate. As that point approaches, there may be some pressure to remain a member under 50 (3) unanimous agreement extension procedure, or to agree exit on unfavourable terms. However, not long after the guillotine takes effect, there will be a new Commission, and a newly elected European parliament. We would almost certainly do best to resist the pressures, and let pressure build within the EU under new leadership.

    For all the noises about the UK’s lack of preparedness for negotiations, it will in fact be the EU who are unprepared. They haven’t really begun to formulate negotiating guidelines in the Council, who can only formally appoint their Chief Negotiator once we have given formal notice. I suspect that Mrs May’s visits to EU heads of state offer a good opportunity for some back door negotiation despite Mrs Merkel’s attempts to shut that down.

  39. Ed Mahony
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    As a Remainer (but looking for strong reform of the EU), i agree with you. It’s time we got on with it. Everyone is getting nervous/frustrated/bored now with the wait. What’s the point of waiting any longer? I don’t see what purpose it serves. It’s not as if Mrs May is going to gain anything spectacular by waiting. Everyone wants to act now to see what happens – both Leavers and Remainers (and in particular business whether remain or leave). If Article 50 + Brexit works out, great. If not, the sooner we find out, the better.

    • zorro
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

      I agree, but I suspect that she is just putting off the day because she is not agile enough to ‘seize the day’ with regards to putting Brexit into effect.

      zorro

    • Horatio Chegwin
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

      Agreed, comments by Question Time audiences show that the general public that voted Brexit is rapidly losing patience with duplicitous politicians, this will change into something more sinister if May is not careful.

      • Edward2
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

        Thinking Question Time audiences are a representative cross section of UK political opinion is not advisable.
        The BBC are very careful when filling seats on this programme.
        And its panel is even more carefully chosen.

  40. GrowingWeary
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    “Some of them deliberately go further and urge the government to give ground on freedom of movement, or budget contributions.”

    You give your neighbour some bonfire toffee and as a trade she gives you a piece of pumpkin pie but insists her Aunt Dolly goes to live in your spare room and helps you washing up . Is that a trade deal? Is it something you should take seriously? Of course not. Nor would it be acceptable giving her a £10 note before you got your mouth around the pumpkin pie.
    We should trigger article 50 immediately and leave it to the EU to settle matters the like of the aptly named Wallonia problem in their own time not ours.
    Honestly it might be a whole lot better if we just left the EU and fell back immediately on WTO rules. It would be wake-up call to all the Wallonians in the EU.They can lose money in sync with us until they agree to agree. CETA has already taken 7 years. People could go deaf in the UK listening to the high pitched screams and low vibrating moans of the Remoaners over that time scale.

  41. Ed Mahony
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    (and, frankly, i don’t see the point in getting too serious about ‘negotiations’ – the EU are simply not going to negotiate on immigration as any special deal with the UK on this risks leading to the EU imploding. Realistically we’re looking at no deal. And better to get on and see how we get on with that than messing around with negotiations. There are too many Brexiteers and people in the EU not interested in negotiations. So we should just get on with it and see what happens – in particular, how the markets, investors, and the pound reacts. And then we can think again about how to proceed, depending on whether: – the economy plunges, – sinks but with long-term negative predictions, – does OK, – does well – or it’s all glorious and we end up with streets paved with gold).

    • zorro
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      I agree

      zorro

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      “… the EU are simply not going to negotiate on immigration as any special deal with the UK on this risks leading to the EU imploding.”

      You make it sound as though mass immigration is not a boon but a burden for the host country, an unwelcome price to pay for being allowed to trade.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        ‘You make it sound as though mass immigration is not a boon but a burden for the host country, an unwelcome price to pay for being allowed to trade.’

        – Although a Remainer, i get the point many Brexiteers were making against immigration (and let me be clear, most Brexiteers are not racists, just concerned about the over-crowding of this country). I do think the EU needs to be reformed on free movement of people (it was introduced about 20 or 30 years too early) and other things. Saying that, the government should have focused on immigration from outside the EU first.
        Regards

    • Mark
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      I think we’re really waiting for the EU to work out how it will change its own freedom of movement laws that are controversial in several countries. I would expect a retreat to something more akin to the laws as they used to be in EEC days in due course.

    • David Price
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 4:04 am | Permalink

      I agree. Considering the likely outcomes with the EU perhaps we should be focusing more effort on trade negotiations with non-EU countries and on our change of WTO membership status.

  42. Ed Mahony
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Now that we’re leaving the EU, I want Brexiteers to respond to the following challenges:

    – How are they going to ensure the UK doesn’t become a cultural and artistic backwater? (It’s easily possible).
    – How are they going to ensure we don’t become a country of Little Englanders with an arrogant view of ourselves, and a narrow view of the rest of the world, including Europe? (It’s easily possible).
    – What are we going to do to support the geopolitics of Europe, so that we don’t end up with future dictators in some part of our continent and all sorts of other things that lead to instability, including possible conflicts and wars, affecting us in the UK. And how do we keep close relations with the rest of the EU to stop economic migrants flooding Europe from Africa and Asia, to defeat terrorism, to challenge Russia, and more?
    – How are we going to keep close relations with the rest of Europe regarding joint educational programmes, joint scientific projects involving things such as space travel and the building of planes and other high tech projects?
    – How are we going to help the less strong/ less competitive businesses in our country to export out of Europe (it’s hard enough exporting to Europe – but outside Europe is going to involve more financial investment and more work in general trying to understand foreign business procedures etc ..).
    – How are we going to radically reduce immigration from outside the EU (immigration from outside the EU is higher than it is from inside the EU)?
    Thank you

    Reply Surely as the EU is in your view such a beacon of enlightenment and prosperity there is no danger of ugly dictators emerging on the continent.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      One question at a time, please, that is unless you would be satisfied with some short and sharp answers such as “What a damn fool question”.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

        ‘One question at a time, please, that is unless you would be satisfied with some short and sharp answers such as “What a damn fool question”.

        – It’s your job to persuade Remainers to your position now that we’re leaving the EU. Not insult them.

        • APL
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:59 am | Permalink

          Ed Mahony: “It’s your job to persuade Remainers .. ”

          Uh! No it’s not.

          It’s your job to fall into line, with the majority vote which your group lost. And work with us to make our independence a success.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 11:57 am | Permalink

          If I have a “job” in this then it is to persuade those who are open to persuasion, not try to persuade those who are so committed to the opposite view that they ask damnfool questions such as:

          “How are they going to ensure the UK doesn’t become a cultural and artistic backwater? (It’s easily possible).”

          That is on a par with warnings that the Gruffalo books could only be illustrated by a German because we were in the EU.

    • zorro
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      Answers to your rather loaded questions as follows….

      1) You are suggesting a negative result. Why? We will be what we will be
      2) We will be what we will be.
      3) How are we responsible for the whole of Europe? Aren’t they able to sort themselves out?
      4) Talk to people
      5) Talk to people
      6) Enforce strong border control

      Hope that helps ?

      zorro

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

        I’m just saying Brexit doesn’t end with just leaving the EU. Brexiteers have to respond to many key issues that affect this country outside the EU.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      – How are they going to ensure the UK doesn’t become a cultural and artistic backwater? (It’s easily possible).

      A) We’ll still be in Eurovision.

      – How are they going to ensure we don’t become a country of Little Englanders with an arrogant view of ourselves, and a narrow view of the rest of the world, including Europe? (It’s easily possible).

      A) It’ll be our decision to be arrogant Little Englanders if we wish.

      – What are we going to do to support the geopolitics of Europe, so that we don’t end up with future dictators in some part of our continent and all sorts of other things that lead to instability, including possible conflicts and wars, affecting us in the UK.

      A) We can’t. But at least they won’t be OUR dictators.

      And how do we keep close relations with the rest of the EU to stop economic migrants flooding Europe from Africa and Asia, to defeat terrorism, to challenge Russia, and more?

      A) By securing our own borders. Many are crossing Europe to get here – so we are actually the problem.

      – How are we going to keep close relations with the rest of Europe regarding joint educational programmes, joint scientific projects involving things such as space travel and the building of planes and other high tech projects?

      A) ERASMUS already has non EU countries participating. We can still offer student visas to show good will, which will hopefully be reciprocated. If not reciprocated then it’s their bad.

      – How are we going to help the less strong/ less competitive businesses in our country to export out of Europe (it’s hard enough exporting to Europe – but outside Europe is going to involve more financial investment and more work in general trying to understand foreign business procedures etc ..).

      A) Where there is a will there is a way. Trade will always go on.

      – How are we going to radically reduce immigration from outside the EU (immigration from outside the EU is higher than it is from inside the EU)?

      A) That’s the next issue – leaving the EU is the first step. At least controlling EU immigration will lessen the impact of non- EU immigration.

      Thank you

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

        ‘A) We’ll still be in Eurovision’

        – I’m sorry, but there’s more to Europe’s arts and culture than Eurovision. Really! At least it wasn’t the EU that gave the world XFactor. Hurrah.

        ‘A) It’ll be our decision to be arrogant Little Englanders if we wish’

        – Great. Whoopee.

        ‘A) We can’t. But at least they won’t be OUR dictators’

        – To use such language seriously is frankly a bit of an insult to people like Churchill and the millions of men and women in this country who really did have to face a dictator for real.
        I sometimes wonder if there is an element of bourgeois decadence and self-indulgence about some of the reasons why people voted Leave, not forgetting how boredom is a major existential reason in philosophy why groups of people do bad things affecting their country. Please don’t forget the big divide between young people struggling and their parents and grandparents having it much easier and able to afford the luxury of things going wrong with Brexit).

        • Ed Mahony
          Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

          ‘Please don’t forget the big divide between young people struggling and their parents and grandparents having it much easier and able to afford the luxury of things going wrong with Brexit)’

          – Not forgetting how 75% of 18 to 24 year olds voted Remain, perhaps focusing on the economy and what business leaders were saying here and abroad overall. Older people who voted Leave should have more respect for younger people who voted Remain and not forget the insecure future young people face whether we’re inside or outside the EU where they can’t find and afford homes, they don’t have the luxury of safe and secure jobs. And so on.

          • Anonymous
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

            Getting kinda tense, aren’t we, Ed ?

          • Anonymous
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

            The young failed to respond to the referendum in large enough numbers to sway it – despite it being extended for them.

            The biggest block to their prosperity is the introduction of 3 million competitors to their work force and housing market.

            If you deny it then you are as idiotic (or dishonest – take your pick) as any Remainer who claims a 35-year-old man is a child refugee.

            I’m tired of arguing with people like you.

            You lost.

            We won. Get over it.

          • rose
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

            How does flooding the country with cheap labour help young people to get jobs or homes? It only helps big businesses who then pass on the cost to the taxpayer of topping up low wages with benefits. These big businesses have no emotional tie to the country so don’t care about the environment or youth unemployment. If it means concreting over England so they can make even more money, then fine. They will be based somewhere else and so will their children. Please give old people more credit. They know the difference between a big GDP and high wealth per capita. We have sacrificed the latter for the former and it is young people who will suffer.

          • Edward2
            Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

            That cannog be correct because nearly 40% didn’t even bother to vote and some voted Leave

        • APL
          Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

          Ed Mahony: “to use such language seriously is frankly a bit of an insult …”

          Well, yes I agree. To use such language as this; “What are we going to do to support the geopolitics of Europe, so that we don’t end up with future dictators in some part of our continent “, – is an insult to the Continentals who you apparently think can’t conduct themselves in a civilized manner.

          That, if you ask me is a typical ‘Little Englander’ perspective.

      • Ed Mahony
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

        ‘A) It’ll be our decision to be arrogant Little Englanders if we wish’

        – also, let’s not take Brexit too seriously like it’s a religion or something. We’re all going to be pushing up daisies relatively soon. Whatever happens, we should all enjoy the ride together / get on with each other as best as we can. And just hope Brexit works out really well. If it doesn’t, not the end of the world, and we revert to how things were before (but calling this time for a reformed EU).
        Regards

    • Ed Mahony
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      I’ve always said the EU is flawed to a degree but that its the best way forwards, with the UK inside it, as long as the EU is reformed.
      Now that we are leaving the EU (i accept that – no second referendum unless our economy sinks and there is a widespread call for a second referendum), Brexiteers have a duty to fill in the gaps left by leaving the EU, where the UK played a key geopolitical role in the geopolitical role of the EU overall, and other important issues.
      If leaving the EU leads to greater prosperity, great. But there’s so much more to all of this than just the economy. There’s also the other issues I raised that Brexiteers have to respond to, and they’re going to have to respond to each one over the next few years / decades (not just what I think, but what many others think, and will be putting pressure on the Brexit government to respond to if future Brexit governments want to remain in power and out of the EU).

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

        “as long as the EU is reformed”.

        It has been reformed, by Merkel, with her “Reform Treaty”.

    • forthurst
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      “Reply Surely as the EU is in your view such a beacon of enlightenment and prosperity there is no danger of ugly dictators emerging on the continent.”

      Our problem has never been ugly dictators, now or then, but our insistence on interfering, usually at the behest of people who are neither English nor patriotic.

      Before we joined the EU, we were far more open to the whole world than we have become because the imposition of alien influences has made us far more defensive and far less confident. We might have been living in a fool’s paradise but at least it wasn’t a french one’s.

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

      Britain’s membership of the EU is not going to make any difference to the emergence of ugly dictatorships .

      The EU is already woefully imbalance in Germany’s favour and nothing Britain can do can restore balance .

      It’s a dictatorship already as those in Greece and Italy have found out .

      With Cameron’s disbanding of UK armed services and 50 year deal with France we wouldn’t even be able to defend ourselves if they came for us .

      We need a Europe of co-operation and friendship which we do not have now and which cannot come about until the fundamentally flawed EU has imploded .

    • James Matthews
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      And how will we deal with the epidemic of rickets that will sweep the children of the English middle classes as a result of fewer European holidays?

      It is all very disturbing. So many complexities, so many difficulties. Perhaps we should give up the whole idea and return our future to the safe maternal guidance of Brussels (but I rather think not).

      Arrogance though, warrants a special mention. It is so far down the list of real and imaginary concerns being so assiduously collected and invented by the remainders as to be deeply subterranean. A less apologetic approach to the rest of the world and a change from the habit of for negotiating from a cringing position wouldn’t come amiss however. In the vanishingly unlikely event that this were to overshoot into arrogance that would be a problem for others, not us.

      • APL
        Posted October 24, 2016 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

        James Matthews: “And how will we deal with the epidemic of rickets that will sweep the children of the English middle classes as a result of fewer European holidays?”

        While I understand your comment may have been intended in a light hearted vein. It does touch on an important issue.

        We’re always told how wonderful immigration is, yet we’re not so often told of the downside. For example, TB had been nearly eradicated in the UK by the end of the 60’s yet now,
        even the BBC reporst the rate of TB in London is twenty times higher than the rest of the country.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8206887/London-the-TB-capital-of-Europe.html

        Oddly, the statistic I linked to previously from the London authority has been taken down.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:07 am | Permalink

      Ed Mahoney, Your faith in an unelected unaccountable bureaucracy to assure you of these things is touchingly naive. Much of what you want is not government business in any case but the business of the people.

      As for wars and defending freedom, liberty, justice and democracy, pray tell which European country can match England’s track record over the last two centuries?

      Oh, and are you aware of NATO?

    • David Price
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 4:23 am | Permalink

      Why are you demanding that everyone else works to make you feel special?

      How about you tell us how you will contribute to meet the opportunities and challenges others have worked so hard to provide you with.

      Kennedy put it quite well.

  43. Newmania
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    I`m genuinely surprised you can find anyone running any sort of business to speak to you at all but we’ll take you word for it ( seriously who on earth was that ?). Most people are still desperately hoping that the horse will get to the water but …..
    The news form Europe is that we are going to get a punishment beating and if you think trading under WTO rules is ok then I am yet to find anyone who actually has to earn a living who agrees( not Nissan to whom we have had to promise to make up the difference … )
    The only hope is that there will be sufficient warning before we are committed .The Whitney by election showed that opposition is growing stronger and it would only take one event to crystallise
    Its all very well scoffing at remoaners ( yeesh what tragic public school twit came up with that ) but it is not the left –behind, retired, and ill educated who will doing the work of repairing the damage you have done ?

    It will be us paying for it as always

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Newmania – with ‘men’ like you around I fear for this country.

      Stop snivelling and grow a pair.

    • Horatio Chegwin
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

      We will only get a ‘punishment beating’ if we accept it. You need to get out more as WTO rules are fine. Insulting 17.4 m people was a nice touch as well.

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        Thankfully Newmania is wrong on education too.

        Darwinism will do its work. Not soon enough, unfortunately.

    • Edward2
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      The by election was typical.
      A much reduced turn out with Lib Dems doing better
      But with the safe seat still returning the expected winner.
      Come the next General Election it will revert back to the usual big Tory majority.

      On your other point on WTO rules
      It’s plain that many nations trade happily with Europe without agreeing to freedom of movement nor being in the single market

  44. English Pensioner
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    The trouble that the EU is having in getting a trade agreement with Canada just illustrates the problems of the EU. Just part of one country objected so it is on hold!
    With just the UK negotiating a trade agreement with a non-EU country, it should be quite easy to secure with just the two countries talking together.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      One would think that Germany had never sold BMWs to Canada nor Canada sold minerals to Germany.

  45. Braveheart
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

    And I suppose the FT and The Economist like the BBC have all got it so wrong. The sad thing is we will be poorer, more inward looking, more xenophobic. Half the people voting Brexit had no clue what they were voting for and were duped by the simplistic slogans : which nobody will now honour (money back to the NHS etc etc). The imperial past is over. The EU is a flawed institution but life will be much more complex outside of it. We had the best of all worlds , access to the single market and an opt out of the euro. We ended up being hostage to the Eurosecepticd in the Tory party.

    • R.T.G.
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

      @ Braveheart
      “We had the best of all worlds” could be argued – until that notion collided with “ever closer union” (19/6/1983).

    • Mark
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

      When did the BBC, Economist or FT last get it right?

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      But we tried many many times to say that freedom of movement was becoming too much to take.

      What else were we to do but use due democratic process ? Riot ? Refuse to pay taxes ???

    • APL
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 10:24 am | Permalink

      Braveheart** ( Presumably an SNP supporter ): “We ended up being hostage to the Eurosecepticd in the Tory party.”

      In actual fact, your description is the exact mirror image of reality.

      **Not very brave, as too scared to stand on his/her own two feet.

  46. bigneil
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Will the person who decides which “skilled immigrant” is allowed in, be any better than the idiot who lets in 40 year olds as “children”. If claiming to be a teenager with frown lines can get you here, then obviously saying you are a world renowned surgeon will get you and (inevitably) your extended family of 300 , in for a life on our taxes, when it becomes clear they lied to get here – -knowing full well – -once here with the hands out – -here forever with the hands out. etc ed

  47. rose
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    But do we need to negotiate at all? We can’t negotiate on our independence: we just announce that. And having done that, why can’t we just offer the EU tariff free trade? Then the ball is in their court. They have shown over Canada that the Walloons can hold everything up, and I can think of more than one country which would not want to impose tariffs on us – so the status quo would prevail. Anything which needs to be negotiated can be done once we are out.

  48. Alan Rogers
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    Christopher Brooker, in The Sunday Telegraph, has said that our “authorised economic operator” status is part of our EU membership, and that we need to maintain it by remaining a member of the EEA, and thus part of the single market. He suggests that without mutual recognition between customs authorities, our exporters would face crippling delays. Is this true?

    Reply Unlikely.

    • Anonymous
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      I’d like to see Christopher Booker answered directly.

    • Chris
      Posted October 22, 2016 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

      The eureferendum site seems to be the best recruiting ground for remainers as it offers an interim solution from which we will never escape, whatever the intentions of Brooker and North. They have very considerable expertise but they are not politicians, and therefore fail, I think, to see the political pitfalls, nor the solutions, because they are too focused on the minutiae and making sure everything conforms exactly to the existing framework. We are in new territory, we have a mandate to leave the EU, and there is no way that we should assume a begging role. For once we are in control and not subservient to the EU. We state what we are going to do to regain our sovereignty over all matters and we establish a points (or similar) system for immigration i.e. an end to continual waves of mass immigration from poorer EU countries.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 12:29 am | Permalink

      Alan Rogers, Christopher Booker is allied with Richard North, the author of Flexcit, a document advocating a lengthy process of withdrawal from the EU via membership of EFTA. If you read it you will quickly find that it is an utterly ghastly bureaucrat’s paradise of minutiae in which the wood cannot be seen for the trees. That said there is always an element of sense in what Booker writes. An authorised economic operator is a definition of the World Customs Union of which UK is a founding member (1952). As with the WTO the EU has taken over the relationship and the UK needs to get back into the driving seat with both the WCO and WTO. One of the good things about the WCO is that it assists development of technology to enable fast checks on goods crossing borders for customs purposes while maintaining high traffic volumes. Booker’s point in one his articles was that if UK doesn’t remain in the single market it will not have access to this. Well that’s one way of doing it but alternatively it could simply choose to access it by resuming control of its affairs. In the case of WTO and WCO this would be a formality.

  49. ian
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    It quite obvious to me now, that the uk will not be leaving the eu, if the uk was going to leave you would of left on the 1st of jan 2017.

    When negotiation final get underway some time next year not much will happen till you get into 2019 and the eu will then give way on somethings which other countries will be asking as well be then and negotiation will be extended for another six months to finalises a agreement for the uk to stay in the eu, it will be hail as great victory by the media, politician and establishment and by that time you will be 8 months away from the GE in 2020 and con party will say that they will the new agreement with the eu and will put it in they manifesto for the GE and labour will follow with the libs and will leave a beaten up ukip party for coming out of the eu but the other parties know people vote the three main party it will be win for staying in the eu even if it coalition again, by that time the pound will at 90p to the dollar, jobs lost, high inflation, services cut to the bone, no housing and another million overseas people running around the country demanding service which are not there because big business with they accountants have cut the tax they pay right back to get people to want to stay in the eu, the country and the people will be in right mess by then and will be happy to agree to anything.

    That why i never vote, i would not waste my time thinking about some think i already know the out come of and for the agreement they make with the eu nothing will happen they will just carry on as usual, it like the 18 year they have been spying on your compute, if they do not tell you you do not know.

  50. Derek Kemp
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Our Magg’s Wife
    Can any one imagine Japan giving up its sovereignty to become a Federal state with say South korea,Vietnam,the Philippines ,Pakistan,Bangladesh,India,Indonesia,Cambodia,Laos malaysia India.

    With say Singapore as it’s Capital ie (Brussels) With any country having a VETO over them.
    .Plus unelected Asiacrats making their laws.
    I Don’t think so.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      And accepting uncontrolled and unlimited immigration from all its trading partners as an inseparable part of the deal, without which deal they will deliberately set out to impede trade and obstruct Japanese exporters.

  51. Stumped
    Posted October 22, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

    Broadcasting media state today the British Banking Association is openly putting pressure on Brexiteers in the “debate” over the Single Market by proclaiming they are making plans to leave the UK.
    Lets us say first: Au revoir. Let us say second: Auf Wiedersehen. Let us say third: especially from Yorkshire: On your bike!
    The banking experts had much more than their fair share of any “debate” prior to the referendum. Now, pressure should be placed on their leaving the UK. Interference with the democratic decision of the British people cannot be tolerated. There are one or two versions of “democracy” in southern Europe which may be more to their taste . Ryanair has said it is contemplating leaving the UK. So take off!

    • bratwurst
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Yes stumped, let’s celebrate the destruction of the UK economy. Hope you have private offshore means & your future wellbeing is not linked to our economy.

  52. Jon
    Posted October 23, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Does anyone seriously expect meaningful negotiations before the French general elections in April / May 2017 or even the German general elections between August & October 2017? Anyone complaining about uncertainty is going to have to live with it until at least those elections.

    • A different Simon
      Posted October 23, 2016 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      If Brexit discussions are still getting front page coverage at the time of the French and German elections , it would surely be expected to stoke anti-EU dissent in those countries .

      Despite the belligerent response so far from the continent , the EU may be prepared to relent and compromise to avoid that situation .

      The Walloon Parliament has shown Britain the way to make a nuisance of itself by blocking treaty changes and make a nuisance of itself until the EU is prepared to come to the table for adult discussions .

  53. Gobby
    Posted October 23, 2016 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    Paralysis by analysis or multiple variations on this theme, are predominantly exercised, in my opinion, by Clegg, Benn, Farron, Ummuna, and those poorly copycatting them such as Cooper and Kendall.

    It really is time for the House of Commons to have a Chair to Parliamentary deliberations rather than the role of The Speaker. We really cannot have the aforementioned wasting the time of our people. If 65 million people listen to them for one minute then that is 65 million minutes lost of possible productive time. Simply by switching them off like long-life battery operated toys we could increase the UK’s productivity considerably.

  54. rose
    Posted October 23, 2016 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks to Lord Dubs we are now in the position of having to take in anyone who says they are under 18, keep them, and pay their university fees and expenses. This is a huge incentive to come. Added to which we also say anyone who gets in can bring in their family, leading to more university fees etc.

  55. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted October 24, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    And another thing. How much power does the EU have to prevent the City of London from carrying out whatever Euro based transactions and investments it wishes to?

    Reply It will be difficult to stop anyone outside the EU doing deals in the Euro! Under WTO any discriminatory rule has to hit the USA and China as well as the UK.

  56. a-tracy
    Posted October 26, 2016 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    My eldest didn’t vote Brexit because he said we’d be sold out and left paying in as much with no say. This latest report that PM May when Home Secretary spoke to Bankers (why would she as HSec? Surely that would be the Chancellor or Treasury remit) that she allowed one of them (who? shouldn’t we know who breached security) to tape record the meeting, don’t parliamentarians have any security arrangements at meetings in the age of the mobile phone? The papers and tv are full of the remainers warning of impending doom where is the balance?

    Lord Hill earlier in the week, why is this guy even being interviewed, he let our Country down by immediately resigning and spitting his dummy out, if he wanted a say and any sway he should have stayed in the post he’d been placed in by the British PM.

  • 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