Representing Remain

I take seriously the need to bring the country back together after the Brexit vote. I have spent much of the last five months seeking to look after the interests of Remain voters.

I took seriously their fears about possible economic damage from the vote. The Remain campaign concentrated on setting out the possible short term and longer term economic damage they saw. I am pleased to report that now almost six months after the decision there is no visible damage to jobs, output, confidence, house prices and earnings. It is true the pound is down a bit more after the vote, though it has rallied strongly against the Euro and the yen over the last month. The biggest part of the substantial devaluation since June 2015 occurred well before June and well before markets thought Leave would win.

I have spent time setting out in articles and interviews why there is no need to experience any short term economic damage. I have discussed with Ministers actions that can help power more growth, more jobs and higher incomes. I have proposed various ways of ensuring we build more homes and create more better paid jobs. I have been pleased that the government has abandoned the severe deficit reduction policies of the previous government, and is using more realistic – even pessimistic – figures for future revenues and borrowings, In the last Parliament the government regularly failed to hit its revenue targets and so had to borrow more than planned.

I am happy to take up any specific worries or issues Remain voters in Wokingham have. My aim is to help the government build new and better trade relationships for the UK with the world as whole. I want to see a UK open to talent, investment and ideas from around the world. I am pleased to report that so far since the vote jobs are up, pay is up, housebuilding has increased, car out has increased, inward investment continues and the markets are higher now than on June 23rd. Now comes the task of negotiating good future friendly arrangements with the rest of the EU. We will continue to trade, have many collaborations, do much with our EU neighbours after we have left. The aim is to be richer and freer. We will also be better Europeans by allowing them to get on and complete their union which most UK voters did not want to join. I was struck in the many debates I did during the referendum by how practically all the Remain spokespeople said they did not wish to join the Euro, or Schengen, or the political union or the common army.

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

143 Comments

  1. Prigger
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Remain as a body of opinion, a group, does not exist, nor does Leave, in my location. My area voted overwhelmingly for Leave.
    There are MPs in Parliament who speak of the people who voted Remain. That was on June 23rd. There are people who ate fish and chips on June 23rd and on the other hand those who had a boiled egg and soldiers. Today the fish and chip people and the boiled egg and soldiers people are non-existent. They did not form a Party. They did not arrange meetings in church halls every Wednesday for mutual support or celebrations.
    Predominantly LibDims and Labour should get over it! Grow up and move on!

    • Edward2
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      Correct
      Clegg was on TV Sunday complaining that Leave groups didn’t have a detailed manifesto before the referendum.
      It’s not a political party standing for election to Parliament just a quickly assembled single issue group which now has no role.

      • NoMoreEU
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

        Brillo should have asked Clegg; Where was the manifesto from the official Remain campaign – Britain Stronger in Europe?

        A manifesto that addressed, what the future would look like, if we stayed in the EU.

        There was no manifesto from either side – the Moaner Mr Clegg and his Liberal Party should stop selectively highlighting the shortcomings on the part of Leave. Glasshouses and stones!

        I no longer call the LibDems by that name now – they are now the Liberal Party.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

        Indeed and we still have remainers largely in charge even now.

      • NoMoreEU
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        In that TV interview with Nick Clegg, Andrew Neil should have asked where the manifesto was, on behalf of the official Remain campaign…

        Mr Clegg should have been called out about that.

        Remain should have had a manifesto, to explain how the UK would cope on Health, Finance, Education and Immigration, and the future expansion of the EU.

  2. E.S Tablishment
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Remainers should be given subsidised travel to the Euro-area if they so wish, to stay, as some threatened. The good news is, they will get approximately three-quarters of a per cent more Euros for their Pounds since yesterday thanks to Italy. They may be wise not to exchange all their sterling immediately: there is more good news on the way.

  3. Social Worker
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    I see Lidl is going to provide 500 extra jobs in Doncaster. Seems they like the idea of an expanding UK retail sector despite Brexit. Remain people can now come from hiding under their beds with their hands cuffed over their ears….a position they were in a month before the vote actually. They should be encouraged to take up a hobby. Sky diving or cliff-diving. That should bring them out of their shells.

  4. Nanny Says
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    People who formerly voted Remain and then voted in the Richmond Park byelection should not be viewed as all bad. They were encouraged to pursue a course of Un-Britishness and anti-democracy. Nor do they have special needs, special concerns. We all have concerns even those of us who voted Leave. They should try and try to tap into our courage. Just remember those car workers in Sunderland who voted Leave yet more than suspecting they would lose their jobs. Brave, good people. British!

    • Hope
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

      Record car sales despite Brexit, remainers apocalyptic views wrong, again. Are you listening Clegg, Clarke, Blaire, Hesltine, Cameron Osborne?

    • rose
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      “Just remember those car workers in Sunderland who voted Leave yet more than suspecting they would lose their jobs. Brave, good people. British!”

      And all thos farmers who voted Leave thinking they would probably lose their grants. So much higher-minded than the luvvies.

  5. Leader
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    JR you were looking after Remain voters when you took the decision to lead the campaign to Leave.

  6. Sam Stoner
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Had the Leave campaign been fought on your terms, Mr Redwood – that is to say, making economic forecasts and predictions of good trade deals that seem to me to be wildly implausible but are nevertheless sincerely held and carefully expressed – then I think most Remainers would accept the result.
    But Leavers with a much higher profile than you fought on an utterly irresponsible platform of having the cake and eating it, ie no obligations owed to the EU but all the benefits retained (Johnson) or a downright poisonous anti-immigrant stance (Farage). And that’s without even addressing the 350 million for the NHS.
    This is why most Remainers do not accept the result.

    • alan jutson
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      Sam

      The simple reason the leave campaign could not promise anything, is because it was not in government, and thus had no power to do so.
      Even the civil servants were banned from working out a Leave plan by our Remain Prime Minister at the time.
      Likewise you can only ever promise to try to get what you want in negotiations, not what you will actually get, because the other side also have a bearing on the result of those negotiations.

      All Leave could ever do was state a range of possible options and alternatives, which I think Leave did reasonably well to explain.

      The Remain side had a very simple argument:
      This is what we have been offered, so this is maybe what you will get if the EU ratify what has been offered.
      Unfortunately they then preceded to explain that the world would collapse if we voted to leave, and undermined their whole argument with stupid threats.

      After 40 years of trying and failing to have some influence over the EU from within, many of us thought it was time to stop banging our heads against a wall, and paying to do so at the same time.

      Many other countries in the World trade within the EU area and do not have to accept the free movement of people, so why should it be any different for us if we leave.

      Time to open our minds and look forward.

      • Know-dice
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        Excellent well put 🙂

        There was absolutely no flexibility from the EU when CMD went on his Grand Tour, they didn’t have to move much and the result would have been very different.

    • Edward2
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      And Project Fear was all about the truth?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

        Not just project fear, the bias of the state sector, Carney, and especially BBC was appalling, it still is. Also Cameron was going to stay on and issue the section 50 notice the next day.

        He only ever became party leader by pretending to be a Cast Iron, Eurosceptic and a low tax Conservative at Heart. What a complete joke that all was. Why did he join the Tories, just for a better career options than the Libdims, I assume?

        Now we have T May who seems rather the same but is rather tedious with it. Worryingly she is, it seems, guided by God rather than reason. Hopefully it will not turn out as badly as it did with war on a lie and then repent at leisure, Tony Blair.

        • Anonymous
          Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

          Carney is turning Brexit into a socialist issue which it most definitely isn’t.

          “We need to address inequalities.”

          The best way to do that is to stop immigrating people who are unequal and making most of us poorer.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

      A short – truncated – radio interview with the winner in Richmond Park here:

      http://talkradio.co.uk/news/new-richmond-park-mp-sarah-olney-dragged-air-pr-after-grilling-julia-hartley-brewer-1612027334

      The first question was:

      “When is the second by-election going to be held?”

      Very amusing, unfortunately cut short by her PR man.

      You had your chance to convince the British people to vote to stay in the EU; you had the government and most of the British establishment and foreign politicians and international organisations all piling in on your side; but nonetheless you lost the vote; and there is no excuse whatsoever for you or any other Remainer to now refuse to accept the result of the vote, or as one said on TV recently decide that you will not “take it lying down”.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      Still waiting for my punishment budget with immediate income tax rises for all …. still waiting …

      • Lifelogic
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        If you look at the detail in Hammond’s Autumn Statement it was another misguided increase in taxes and tax complexity. Hugely damaging it will be too.

    • Yudansha
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      Sam Stoner – All concerns were expressed during the referendum. People voted in full knowledge.

  7. Newmania
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    Richmond got you spooked has it ? Welcome to the new politics John . I have no stake in Brexit , my views have been stamped on like so many cockroaches . In an election the winning side best appeals to the centre . Labour in 1997, for example, adopted Conservative spending plans.
    This farce of a referendum was an appeal to every sort of absurd extremist and has handed power to the most extreme 5% in the country . Its as if we shared cake and having carefully cut in two I noticed my half was a little larger . That I took as an excuse to eat the whoe lot stick two fingers up at my companion and accuse him of “Moaning ”

    Thats what we are enduring and I shall do all I can to punish our own Conservative MP for all that I voted for her. In fact matters are well in hand and Maria Caulfield is toast .

    With your vast majority you can afford to continue infuriating with impunity so I wouldn’t worry about it ,. mind you it could get close

    Reply No I am not spooked by Richmond, where the Remain vote seemed to fall sharply in the by election compared to the referendum – we cant be sure owing to the different boundaries. I wrote to all Remain voters in Wokingham immediately after the referendum, as I do represent all the people of my constituency.

    • lojolondon
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Unfortunately Newmania has been exposing himself to the Biased media, especially our state broadcaster. In the referendum, no less than 72% of Richmond residents voted to stay in the EU – this is a REMAIN heartland. So for Zac to poll 48% is a massive 24% swing towards LEAVE. Awaiting the bloodbath that will occur when Labour MP’s who are committed to REMAIN need to face their upcoming by-elections.
      And if anyone has any doubts about the EU-Bias of the Biased BBC, look at the masses of publicity given to the Richmond election last week, every news broadcast on TV, national and local radio (especially in areas that have nothing to do with Richmond), interviews on morning and evening TV, etc. versus the total information blackout that is currently in force over in Sleaford and North Hykeham. The BBC is a pro-EU propaganda tool, and we are way overdue to stop the TV tax.

      • Newmania
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        Point msssed as ever .What we saw was that Remain could organise in a real election across Party lines. Perhaps Brexit also can but I am dubious about that, my suspicion is the Brexit consist of a few hard core believers and a vast mass of generally non political types who won`t turn up

    • Anonymous
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      Newmania – I don’t know why you’re grumbling. We are still in the EU. Nothing has changed and it seems nothing will change.

      Your side has won by the very bigotry and aggression you accuse us of. (Yet – without you having to give an inch – Dr Redwood exhorts us to consider YOUR feelings and not our own.)

      Now, my dear man. Is there any possibility of you at least trying to understand why we voted Brexit that goes beyond calling us xenophobic ignoramuses ? I don’t expect to restart Brexit by these means but for us to continue cordially you need to recant some things you’ve said and show a bit of contrition.

      Quite the opposite of what you say – it is the 52% who are to be crushed and not appeased in any way at all. How easy to do when you have dehumanised us by your choice of language, long before the referendum.

      Please show me where our language has dehumanised Remainers ?

      (The Richmond by-election showed a Remain slump of around 20% if you insist on making it about Brexit btw.)

    • Yudansha
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

      We get Trump/Farage extremism when we are repeatedly denied small ‘c’ conservatism because it is deemed to be too nasty.

      It’s what happens when Labour party imposters – who are pro EU and anti grammar school – stand as Tory candidates.

      Look in the mirror Newmania.

    • John
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      The remain campaign strategy was targeted and achieved much of its goal.

      I looked to box in and corner the leave voters to only those that were prepared to leave the lot including the single market, thereby, reducing the number that would vote leave to the least number.

      That is where it succeeded, only 52% voted to leave as those were the ones prepared to leave with no deal and leave the single market. Had the vote included options on negotiations etc etc then the percentage would have been much higher.

  8. Surprise vote result
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    I understand why you as an MP need to represent people who have different shades of opinion, those who voted Leave and Remain. I have not met anyone before or after the Referendum in my town who was or is for Remain. The MP parachuted in, is a Remainer. I’ve not met the person.
    There was 25% or a bit more who it is said voted to Remain. It’s hard to have confidence in the veracity of the referendum ballot. 5-10% would have been realistic for the Remain vote…quiet people, secretive people,

  9. Roy Grainger
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Nick Clegg at the weekend clearly set out what Remain voters want: to stay in the single market, the customs union, have free movement, be subject to ECJ, and to continue contributions. Why are you reaching out to Remain voters when it is clear they don’t want any compromise at all ? They lost. They should get nothing. If they had won the Leavers would have certainly got nothing. That’s how it works.

    By the way, you see what a big mistake it was of Davis to say contributions to the EU “might” continue. Now this point has been conceded the debate has moved on to how much we should contribute with Boris pontificating on this. Why not employ some PROPER negotiators ?

  10. Lifelogic
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    There is far more that May and Hammond could have done to help the economy. They needed to cancel HS2 and Hinkley, cancel all their silly yet more red tape interventions, reduce and simplify tax rates, go for cheap energy, cancel the green grants for white elephant renewables and set a proper Tory direction. This rather than following a bonkers Ed Miliband agenda.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      Also in the Mail today details of government funds given to businesses by Local Authority Partnerships including restaurants in Cornwall. So you tax on business then give the money to the one up the road so it can put the first over taxed but more efficient one out businesss. Is this really a sensible way to use taxpayers money?

      The government (and some “charities”) promote all sorts of such unfair competion killing more competitive and better run private businesses. In health, transport, old age care, education, housing, energy, renewables, biofuel, farming and now even restaurants it seems. It is pure economic vandalism from government, hugely damaging to businesses ability to compete.

      If the want more productivity just kill all this unfair competition dead and have a level playing field.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:22 am | Permalink

        Sorry I meant Local Enterprise Partnerships or LEPs.

  11. alan jutson
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Your last sentence gave me some amusement given the claims made by some that Leavers did not know what they voted for.

    If the Remainers do not want, the Euro, Schengen, Political union, or a common army, why did they vote to Remain.

    Did they not know what they were voting for either !!!!.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      It seems the by-election result in Richmond foolishly called by Zak and it seems permitted by T May suggests the remain vote is diminishing further still since the referendum and not the reverse.

      Clegg was asked by Andrew Neil if they should perhaps drop “Democrat” from their party name, they should indeed, but then they are not very Liberal either. What about the calling them the Pro EU, Expensive Energy by Design Party (with other bonkers ideas for good measure) Party. Or just the “BBC think” Party.

    • Jane Moorhouse
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      No, I think many who voted to Remain hadn’t a clue what they were voting for. How could they when the EU can change rules, contributions, build an army without their consent. Had the vote gone the other way it would have meant even closer union possibly an insistence we take on the Euro and being forced to be part of the chennen area. There would have been no discussion then on whether we should re-opt in, the deal would have been done. A complete loss of sovereignty and handing over every law we have to the EU. Result greater unemployment, further unprecedented immigration and massive influx of illegal immigrants. The rich would not give a penny towards the integration of these people they would just be happy for them to be on the streets. Well I wouldn’t. We already have a housing crisis, NHS crisis, schools need I go on. We are not part of mainland Europe but a little Island. We need our fishing, farming and other industries to give those already here good, decently paid employment. Immigrants deserve to be respected, housed and fed but there is a limit and we are well over that limit.

      • Yudansha
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

        Had Remain one there would have been no mention of the Commons library briefing paper.

        • Yudansha
          Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

          Won

  12. Gareth Jones
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Perhaps you would give us your views on the utterly disgraceful attacks on the judiciary by the Daily Mail? etc edSome on the Leave side are, I’m afraid going down towards demagoguery.

    • Yudansha
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Gareth Jones.

      There is plenty of rational argument as to why the judiciary should not be involved at all.

      Indeed, pro EU judicial activism caused such unhappiness it is a significant reason why the referendum happened in the first place.

      • Gareth Jones
        Posted December 7, 2016 at 8:31 am | Permalink

        Yes, but there is plenty of opinion the other way too. The judicial system is there precisely to settle legal disputes. There is absolutely no excuse – none at all – for the kinds of irresponsible reporting we’ve seen from the Daily Mail, which I’m afraid is doing less and less journalism and more ranting.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

      Dear Gareth–I don’t agree with you at all–The High Court lost the plot with all the gibberish about some case (Chote was it?) in 1610 and should have got it in to their heads that our Law on Referenda is half way between out-of-date and non-existent, and more to the point done something about it. It is unarguably obvious that our Constitution needs updating for the onset of Referenda which were all but impossible in 1610. Personally I have no interest in what the Courts or Parliament have to say given that the people have spoken. I do not see how it is possible even to begin to argue that the people can be wrong. Jeremy Wright has taken a lot of flak but from what I have read today he is taking exactly the right line. The Constitution and our Laws have been changed in the past doncha know and it’s about time they were changed again now, in favour of many more Referenda for a start. The fiasco at Richmond hasn’t changed my mind much on this.

      • Gareth Jones
        Posted December 8, 2016 at 8:23 am | Permalink

        I would agree, but you raise a constitutional issue about referendums – which is for Parliament to change, not the judges. They are bound to interpret the law as passed by Parliament; it’s the attacks on the independence of the judiciary to which I object.

  13. Ian Wragg
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    What makes you think Europe wants to complete their union. I don’t think the people have been consulted.
    The way the barricades are going up it looks more like a continent of nation states.
    Italy looks like they’re heading for a comedian as leader. Looks familiar.
    It looks to me that the remainiacs are well catered for having the BBC, majority of MPs and all the movers and shakers on their side.
    It’s us the winners that need someone fighting our corner.

  14. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:03 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood, why are you pleased your government has abandoned it’s deficit reduction policies?

    We will shortly owe £2 trillion as a country and will still be borrowing further. You have written here that the fiscal stimulus of the last eight years hasn’t worked but now appear to be supporting further stimulus.

    If so could I have my child benefit back? That would enable me to spend two and a half thousand pounds per year into the economy which will be multiplied several times over as a stimulus.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      Well they need to borrow to subsidise restaurants in Cornwall and the likes. And to pay all those gold plated pensions and remuneration packages to bureaucrats and people like Carney.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      Dear Shoulders–I agree with you–I don’t generally fall all over myself agreeing much with Mrs May but I did agree with her when she recently said to Mr Corbyn something like ” what you call austerity I call living beyond our means”. Does anybody seriously consider this debt will ever be repaid?

  15. Lifelogic
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    It seems Mrs May is guided by God over BREXIT and other matters. Perhaps she just has a crossed line or is being misled by one of the many C of E Bishops, whom for some reason, are still in the Lords endless talking lefty irrational, unworkable, drivel.

    Did this God also guide T May to fight for remain in the referendum and to lie to the voters that they had control of UK borders, even within the EU, through Schengen? This in order to trick them into a remain vote?

  16. formula57
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Whilst “I take seriously the need to bring the country back together after the Brexit vote” is very commendable, I much regret that I cannot join you, having come to regard Remoaners as beyond tiresome and some tending to treachery.

    That Remoaners continued disingenuity and falsehoods are not harshly given short shrift as they manoeuvre to preserve membership of the single market etc. (just about everything bar the Council of Ministers) to deliver the outcome that Brexit means Remain is, in my view, a pity and an outrageous indulgence. Let us hope the Supreme Court knows its duty to the people even if the government does not.

    • Gareth Jones
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      It’s our country as much as it is yours, pal. Now, you may have won the vote to Leave, so we accept that and that’s what will happen. But we have just as much right as you to say what form Leave should take: no more right, and no less right. And it isn’t moaning or treachery if we take a different view to you.

      • Yudansha
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        Gareth Jones – I can say, in all honesty, that I would have accepted a Remain result without rancour. I would not have tried to change its form and would have fully expected to result in full-steam-ahead federalism.

        The referendum was clear. In or Out.

        You are trying to cheat and it IS treachery.

        (So long as we are in the EU it is not your country btw. The degree to which we Remain in the EU is now determined by the other EU states and not you. Better off out altogether.)

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

          I disagree completely. As a Remainer, I would not have expected a Remain vote to result in the UK joining a fully-fledged Federal EU. This is not a case of “if you are in, you are in all the way; and is f you are out you have nothing to do with the EU”. I think some BeLeavers have a one-dimensional blinkered outlook on this. Foreign relations are often multi-level, multi-lateral and complex; ours with the EU will – even outside it – also be that way. And if you think there is a nice easy “one snip and you’re free” way out, then Northern Ireland alone should disabuse you if that simplistic notion.

      • libertarian
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:20 pm | Permalink

        Gareth Jones

        Pal ? Really? How about trying to understand some facts? There is only ONE way to Leave the EU… Article 50. Thats it there isn’t any other . After that the options are very clear and always have been. We will negotiate trade deals with the EU and negotiate how we handle UK/EU residents in current situations. Thats it. Nothing else, no such thing as soft Brexit. All other “options” are just remainers trying to stay in the EU via the “backdoor”

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

          Simplistic nonsense. Even invoking Article 50 leaves open a whole range of negotiated futures with the EU, from hard to soft.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        @Gareth Jones

        No, you don’t have the right to say we have to have a soft Brexit. Soft Brexit and paying into the EU, accepting unlimited immigration and not able to trade with the world is exactly why we voted to leave!! If we stay in the single market and pay the EU for the ‘privilege’ then we haven’t left. Leave means leave and not let the EU have any say in how we run this country. We do not need EU interference in any form. The question on the ballot paper was do you want to leave??? Yes, we do.

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

          That simply is not correct. All the referendum vote did was ask should we be in or out of the EU. It said nothing about what “out” should look like. Even an out that accepted the four freedoms is still an option – though not a likely one. If you BeLeavers thought it isn’t one thing and one thing only, you are wrong.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure the Supreme Court sees itself as having any duty to the people.

      They have been asked to rule upon a point of law, which is being misrepresented as a question of whether a tyrannical government can use the archaic Royal Prerogative to do whatever it likes irrespective of the views of a sovereign, but nonetheless weak and quite defenceless Parliament, but which in reality is more a question of whether the past negligence of parliamentarians* has been worse than the past negligence of the government**; and if so, should the government now be allowed to keep a promise it made to the people before the referendum without having to go back to ask Parliament to confirm that it can do that.

      * By failing, over arguably thirteen years, to make use of multiple opportunities to assert a claim to control the service of an Article 50 notice.

      ** By failing, arguably over more than two years, to put on the face of the EU referendum Act what would ensue from a vote to leave the EU.

      • stred
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        The failures of the government to make clear must stem from government lawyers failing to explain to the politicians that Article 50, itself made complicated and unclear by a lawyer working for the EU and now in Westminster, could not be initiated as claimed in the literature sent to every household. Even though lawyers in the HoC library wrote that the referendum was advisory and apparently no ministers or MPs noticed this, lawyers almost immediately began a legal challenge to delay the process and the ex-Remain PM wishes to prolong the legal process by appeals.

        The question is whether the Remain PM, who campaigned so honestly for his suddenly revealed enthusiasm for the EU, knew that the legal challenges would be made. And did the new ex-Remain PM know the challenges would be made? We must assume that the government lawyer knew what they were writing.

        • rose
          Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

          Having seen the brilliant and much lauded government QC say “Pass” when asked about the Great Repeal Bill, I am more inclined to think it is all incompetence and lack of attention to detail.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

          In the High Court that House of Commons Library briefing paper was presented as though it was an official government document written by a constitutional expert which all parliamentarians will have read.

          None of those three assumptions is true. The House of Commons Library is not part of the government and it does not speak for the government, the author was a young lady barely out of university – who was probably surprised, although gratified, to find herself being cited as a constitutional authority – and there is no way of knowing how many MPs read it or were influenced by it.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:22 am | Permalink

          It is a fair question whether Cameron knew that the government’s referendum Bill was defective and was content for it to be so.

      • acorn
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        What did you expect Denis? I have said several times before that the UK democracy, is at least two centuries past its sell-by date. Brexit in the Courts today, is demonstrating the unstructured mess of a constitution our Mickey Mouse politicians have bequeathed to us.

        You can understand why we need near three and a half thousand Judges in a Court system that nobody outside of it, has the first idea how it works.

        If one in a thousand of UK citizens, has any understanding of what was going on in the Supreme Court today, I’m a banana! I listened while I was developing a spreadsheet. Big mistake; multiple errors; gave up till Friday.

        I am fairly sure that none of the Judges or QCs I listened to today, had a less than £230,oo0 a year contribution to their income from the UK Treasury. It’s all one very lucrative game for the 1% metropolitan elite. Brexit or no Brexit, the 1% will come out of it smelling of roses.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:27 am | Permalink

          Oh, but it’s all being explained by the mass media, and apparently it’s just the latest episode in the historic struggle of Parliament against the overweening power of authoritarian oppressive government. Of course the people, and the referendum, are of no relevance.

  17. Anonymous
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    There is, as yet, not a single shred of acknowledgement or consideration from the Remain side as to why people voted Leave, nor any attempt to properly understand it – instead they have ramped up their attacks on our integrity and motives and express intent to increase all things EU out of spite towards us.

    We are still ‘thick’, we are still ‘racists’.

    We on the Leave side have had yet to receive any thanks for having used due democratic process peacefully, intelligently and (most of all) patiently. Instead you allow us an unedited Newmaniac kicking every so often.

    As yet Remainers still have everything (every single thing) going their way. We on the Leave side ? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

    I fail to see how there can be a reconcilliation between either side when there is no contrition from Remain or self awareness that their cherished policies have caused harm and that the Leave’s position is reasonable – our continued patience in the absence of anything we voted for on the 23rd June has been magnificent, particularly in view of the vicious assaults against us, including the conflation with terrorism.

    In fact Steve Coogan is being allowed to mount a full assault on us at this very moment on BBC Breakfast TV, reprising his role as Allen Partridge to parody the ‘rediculous’ Brexit middle Englander.

    One despairs.

    It is galling to read both Dr Redwood and Peter Hitchens advocating that we should start representing Remain when those of us who voted Leave have yet to be represented at all having allegedly won the referendum.

    We have won nothing.

    We are NOT leaving the EU.

    Why on earth do Remainers need representing ??????????

    • Anonymous
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      ridiculous

  18. DaveM
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    John, (Maybe Dennis C) – a question.

    There’s a lot of speculation about whether the Scottish Parliament will vote somehow on Article 50 etc. If this happens – and more importantly, if it holds any legal sway – does it mean that the Scottish MPs sitting in the HoC don’t get to vote? (Rhetorical question of course.) Surely the constituencies in Scotland – who represent about 5 million people – don’t get two votes on the same issue?

    • Know-dice
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      Good question…

      Also, how come everybody and their dog are going to have representation at the Supreme Court over a legal matter for the UK Parliament – Yes although it is in London it does represent the UK and has members from the Regions (including Scotland) that sit there…

      Devolved assemblies should “lobby” their UK Parliamentary representatives, they [the devolved assemblies] should have no direct say in this current matter.

      Off topic – was interesting to hear Greg Dyke on Sky News the other day saying that he was disappointed to be losing his EU (or was it European) passport. I’m disappointed that such an apparently intelligent person was so willing to throw away his national identity to some “quango” superstate based in Brussels…

  19. Bert Young
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Optimism is the keynote at this stage ; the media – the BBC in particular , have made most of their gloomongering and spread fear . It is a time for horizons new where opportunities abound , jobs are secure and we reach out to the world markets . We can look forward to leaving the tentacles of Brussels and its relentless bureaucracy .

    The Italians have spoken very clearly that they are fed up with their establishment echoing the feeling from the other side of the Atlantic . The message is equally strong here ; the House of Lords is no longer a serious mitigating feature in the life and importance of politics and enoblement does not carry with it that mark of distinction and respect it had in the past .

    This week features the activity of the Supreme Court and will show whether or not it responds to the call of democracy . It would be absolutely ludicrous if it concludes that it functions in a subservient manner to that of Brussels .

    • Gareth Jones
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      It is an independent judiciary. It is not there to do the will of Brussels, nor the will of the people – it is there to interpret the law and constitution. Attacks on the judiciary are the sign of undemocratic minds who do not understand that the law is there to protect citizens from arbitrary government, regardless of whether that is Brussels, Whitehall or Westminster.

      • Yudansha
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        Gareth Jones – I have never actually blamed the EU. It is what it is.

        I have, however, often blamed our own politicians and judicial activists who use EU law to come to all sorts of morally repugnant decisions.

        The Brexit issue has actually brought focus precisely where it should be – on the British establishment which has continually lied to us about the nature of the EU and their own intent.

        The People have finally been brought in conflict with the Judiciary and it’s been a long time coming. This is what Brexit is really all about.

        Well done the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun.

        Let them gag or ban the papers. Let them overturn Brexit. But they’ll have to serve the EU in full public glare now.

        It won’t come to violence – we British are not like that – but let’s put and end to this insulting chirade that we live in a democracy.

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 8, 2016 at 8:27 am | Permalink

          Then I’m afraid we fundamentally disagree. Morality is highly subjective; what’s right to one is wrong to another. Gay marriage, for example. Parliament and the judiciary, together. Are what separate us from mob rule, which I’m afraid is what you propose.

      • libertarian
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

        Gareth Jones

        Two faced hypocrisy .

        Didn’t hear much support for judges when they hand down piffling sentences for killers, rapists and paedo’s . An undemocratic mind belongs to a group of people trying to overturn the result of a national referendum

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

          Garbage. No one is trying to overturn the referendum result by this action – just reaffirm the sovereignty of Parliament over the process by which we leave the EU. And whilst anyone is free to have their opinion over judicial decisions, we equally are free to have our opinion over those who attack judges; and such people are arrogant, bigoted, unthinking demagogues and an affront to a democratic system that relies on the rule of law as interpreted by a judiciary separate from the executive and legislature.

  20. a-tracy
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Some days it feels like we’ve woken up in a film set like a real life ‘The Truman Show’ film. Whilst we were all unaware that we’re living in a refined bubble controlled by unknown people we feel like something is wrong but can’t put our finger on it, but once we become aware we feel contained, controlled and orchestrated against, then we rail against it. The people in charge of the show obviously need to put us back in our boxes.

    They don’t want to accept that we may be more wary of the icebergs ahead and we don’t believe Captain Junker that this beast of a vessel can just carry on regardless. Our nice petty officer Cameron went to tell them but they know best get back below decks, enjoy your party everything is fine!!

    The problem for May, all of the Judges and the self-named “insurgents” is perhaps we’re right, perhaps expanding our trade again to the whole world, taking back what we can and can’t do with our fields, seas and money is the right thing to do.

    The right wing news media were wrong to blame the judges the last time, their frustration should have been with the people’s (Government) representative. I heard Gina ? on the radio this morning, making two contradictory statements about the supremacy of the parliament and the rights of the people, the people voted to leave so the fundamental right of the people should be upheld – the judiciary work for us don’t they?

  21. oldtimer
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    I think that those who voted Leave also need reassurance that the referendum result is not bogged down by those still fighting the Remain campaign – either to slow down its implementation or to frustrate the result altogether. The political class risks digging its own grave if it fails to implement the result swiftly and efficiently.

    Many people who voted in the referendum but who do not normally vote in elections (many in the belief that it makes no difference if they do) will conclude that the referendum vote was equally pointless. How they would react to a successful Remain campaign is uncertain; but however they reacted (with indifference or anger) could and would only be bad for our democratic and constitutional processes.

    • miami.mode
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      ot

      ……not bogged down by those still fighting the Remain campaign…….

      Currently on TV they are broadcasting the court case resulting from the Remoaners moans and the commentator said that there are so many lawyers involved that they have to have the TV feed in a separate room. Who’s paying for this lot?

  22. margaret
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    You specify that no short term economic damage has been done. Short term damage hasn’t even happened yet . We are still in the EU. The short term reaction is purely that , a reaction and one which relies on bluff and confidence. Of course I want us to grow , be prosperous and autonomous ,yet belief is not grounded in the practical happenings of day to day negotiation .As you have stated the British did not foresee the engulfing nature of the EU when we joined and the same can be said about any interaction with Brussels . That is the problem. I am sure the answer is to remain positive , however I am not sure that being confident about reasons attributed to lack of short term damage are valid.

  23. JoolsB
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    Nearly six months after the vote and we are no closer to leaving the EU now as we were then. “Brexit means Brexit” remainer May should have triggered article 50 the day she came into office if she had really meant it which I am beginning to doubt as we learn she and Hammond and probably many more in your party along with the opposing parties are in favour of a soft Brexit.

    Not sure how you will bring your ‘One nation’ (dis-united) Kingdom together John when the ‘we’re only part of the UK when it suits us’ pampered Scots are demanding their decision to leave be respected. As they and the NI and the Welsh will have a say in the Supreme Council hearing and a say at the UK Government table with no-one to represent England in either as usual, no doubt the wishes of the English will come a a very poor second to the demands of Scotland.

    We English are used to being shafted and ignored by your Tory Government to their eternal shame so we shouldn’t be surprised when our vote for hard Brexit is replaced by a meaningless soft Brexit.

    • Peter Davies
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      Wales voted out

      • JoolsB
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

        Yes quite true but my second point was that they (Wales) along with Scotland and NI have a voice and will have a say in what Brexit means to them whereas the largest part of this so called union which also voted OUT has no voice and therefore will have absolutely no-one either at the Supreme Court hearings or the UK Government negotiations, representing it and demanding that their wishes are also respected.

    • Graham
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

      So true sir

  24. A.Sedgwick
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    Nick Clegg on Sunday Politics was incredulous in his understanding of democracy. Andrew Neill was excellent and ended asking if the Libdem Party should just drop the Democratic word and be known as Liberal. With Remainers like him it is difficult to have any respect for their arguments. One thing for sure had they won there would have been no talk of a second referendum or the future damage to our economy by the daft and restrictive policies of the unelected Five Presidents and their various bureaucracies.

    • stred
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

      Andrew Neil is certainly the lone voice of even- handed reporting at the BBC. Last week,when the net migration figures were reported, no mention was made of the part of the ONS report which gave the National Insurance figures. I have not seen any other MSM report about these either. When the 2015 figures came out and revealed that the numbers were very different from the official net figure obtained by sample interviews at ports there was considerable coverage. The Reverse campaign seems to have tightened its grip.

      The reason given for the difference is that the definition of a migrant only covers persons who stay or intend to stay for more than one year. As our European neighbours can take a cheap flight home and do so fairly often, when they are asked whether they will stay in the UK for at least one year, they will honestly reply ‘no’. This year, according to the ONS, 130k of all immigrants came ‘looking for work’, up 107k from 2015 and ‘statistically significant’, but these are the job seekers counted as staying over one year. Some of these jobs may be essential and local labour is unavailable. Whether charity work or selling magazines is as essential as picking fruit or building is not a matter for us to say at present.

      The figures given for NINos are 629k for EU nationals and 195k for non-EU.
      The net figures last week were 189k for EU and 196k for non-EU.
      Presumably, if someone needs a NI card, then they will be working and entitled to some benefits and tax refunds. They will also be here for most of the year and need housing, transport, health services etc. We can possibly conclude that 440k people have come from the EU and are not counted in the net migration figure of 189k.

      https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/dec2016

      • rose
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        In addition to what you say, the VC of Bristol University and other remainiacs are demanding that foreign students be removed from the figures. He wants to add 5,000 students to his present numbers and other VCs have similar expansionist aims.

        • rose
          Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

          His Chancellor is sitting in the Supreme Court as Lady Hale.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Indeed any they might as well drop Liberal too. Why not The Wrong on Every Single Issue Party (other than civil liberties very occasionally)?

      • Anonymous
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

        Wrong And Never Knowingly Ever Right Party.

    • Qubus
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      Nick Clegg challenged Andrew Neil’s comment on Sunday Politics that he was going back on his word by saying that it was just “textual analysis”. I think that Mr Clegg would probably be more at home in Alice in Wonderland’s world:

      when I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

  25. Antisthenes
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    The only attraction of the EU for the UK is the single market and some areas where it benefits from mutual cooperation. Under normal circumstances it would be wrong to leave it. However the EU single markets is far from normal it is not a free and fair single market and it comes with political and economic baggage. The EU’s primary concern is not the single market that is just there to make economic and political union more appealing. As the single market is just an adjunct to a much more ambitious programme the single market is organised so that it encourages embracing all the EU’s objectives. Therefore the UK is no better in the single market than it is out of it. For the UK the single market is a malignant force if the UK wishes no more than to trade and cooperate non politically with the EU.

    • Peter Davies
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

      It’s the only tangible selling point the eu has as far as I can see.

    • getahead
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

      The EU’s internal market, wrongly called a single market, comes with freedom of movement, budget contributions, the supremacy of EU law and the all the rest as part of the deal. It only comes with membership of the whole EU.

      In other words if we remain in the single market, we remain in the EU.

  26. agricola
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    I share your views on the dire warnings from Remain. They over egged the sauce. However ,remember we are still fully in the EU so the long term effect of leaving will not be known until we have been out for some time. Personally I am optimistic. If the EU fail to see the advantage of continuing with tariff free trade for political pique, then they are the losers.
    Industry, trade unions, local government, research institutes, and agriculture need stability in the areas that concern them. Therefore the rapid repeal of the 1972 Act of Accession and it’s acceptance into English law is paramount in achieving this, and removing the worries they may have.
    Finally in an attempt to reduce the need for multiple entries in your diary, I would say that your concerns and required actions for Wokingham’s flood defences require repetition throughout the UK. As with other UK infrastructure there is a lot of catching up to be done from the neglect of decades.

  27. miami.mode
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    ………Remain spokespeople said they did not wish to join the Euro, or Schengen, or the political union or the common army…………

    These points should be put to Remoaners whenever they are talking about staying in the EU as they are fundamental to whole set-up. If the Remoaners are saying that they want to remain in the EU on our current basis then they should be accused of wanting their cake and eating it!

  28. LordBlagger
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Hooray! Democracy won! The regime’s liars and its propaganda are the first losers in this referendum. Times have changed. Sovereignty belongs to the people, now we start to really apply our Constitution. The first winners are the citizens who raised their heads and went to vote en masse – and they didn’t care about the advice of the TV and newspapers.

    This is Beppe Grillo today.

    Meanwhile over in the supreme court we have the elite fighting the elite as to who is the elite.

    Time to start a revolution in the UK.

    The public are to be put in control and not to be subservient to the crown, unelected judges or parliament. It’s the other way round

    • Anonymous
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:41 pm | Permalink

      The elite pretending to fight the elite !

      Both court cases are forgone results.

      • Mitchel
        Posted December 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        Precisely.An expensively staged pantomime.

  29. margaret
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I believe today is the day Article 50 and our withdrawal is to be presented to the courts. I await our decision prior to be presented to the ECJ.

  30. Annoyed
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    I am listening to the Supreme Court LIVE on BBC.

    Outside a courtroom, in the world of pure politics, I was advised by one seasoned politician: “You’ll hear all kinds of complicated , complex, intricate and long-winded arguments in support of this or that which, at any given point and at the time may sound good sense. But what is important… is in a sense to forget the arguments,- just look to the short conclusion.Does it make sense?

    The conclusion was reached prior to the High Court and prior to the Supreme Court and prior to the placing of a question over Article 50. The conclusion was LEAVE and is LEAVE.

    The promise given in the House with full attendance was “The very next day after 23rd June I will sign Article 50 , taking us OUT of the EU and OUT of the Single Market” ( Cameron ) No-one challenged that statement, that promise.

    So BBC viewers should get a discount off their next TV licence for a wholly inappropriate though interesting broadcast of a procedure in the Supreme Court which itself should be illegal.
    Hopefully after this sad event, Parliament will make legislation to ensure this kind of event can never happen again and that the Government should not need to state the obvious in all such cases as in this case since it stated the obvious in binary fashion prior to the referendum.

    • JJE
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

      Or they could just pass legislation to give effect to their promises. That way we could continue to live under the rule of law and not Daily Mail fuelled mob rule.

      • Anonymous
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

        JJE – Give it a rest. I see no ‘mob’. A public which used due democratic means, peacefully and patiently over many years (and which still calmly awaits the fruits of its hard won victory, sometime never) is not a ‘mob’.

      • Mustard
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:54 pm | Permalink

        I am British. I live under the rule of no-one and no-thing. Daily Mail? The idea a newspaper such as that fuels mob rule is a vast overestimation of the power of journalism.

      • Annoyed
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 12:00 am | Permalink

        I believe the Referendum was formulated under the rule of law and agreed excuse the pun, by all parties. The signing of Article 50 was pre-agreed, by all parties, 24th June…as was declared by Mr Cameron in Parliament. A legally binding agreement between Parliament and the British people. Let those who oppose it be arrested .

        • Gareth Jones
          Posted December 7, 2016 at 8:37 am | Permalink

          “Let those who oppose it be arrested”.

          How easily you slip into fascism.

      • Mr Literal
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 12:23 am | Permalink

        I’m guessing but I think you are speaking figuratively when you write “mob rule”. The only sizeable political mobs in the UK usually carry leftie liberal /green/animal rights/feminist banners and those a paticular religious grouping

    • rose
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      It isn’t just the fatuous waste of time and money, and making a fool of us in the eyes of the world, but the dangerous precedents this charade is setting:

      1 Mediocre judges can now rule us directly rather than elected government
      2 Rich foreigners, including giant corporations, can now manipulate government and parliament through our courts.

  31. Iain Gill
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    Referendum result does not seem to have changed much. Many of our politicians openly reject the will of the people. Nothing seems to be happening. All seems to be on “go slow”. I think people are getting even more disenchanted with the supposed democracy we have, it does not seem to be working in practise. And the people having voted for the party offering the tightest immigration control of any of the main parties still have immigration going up and obvious abuses all around us. None of this is acceptable. Really if this is the best the politicians can do they should just give up and go do something else.

  32. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Good to read this.
    There is still a substantial remain min or it.
    A smooth Brexit will be best, both for England an d for the continent.

    • Anonymous
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

      I think it’s safe to say many people across Europe loathe the EU. Enough to create a majority in our country who are prepared to defy warnings of dire consequences if we leave.

      Do Remainers ‘love’ the EU as much as Leavers loathe it ?

      One hopes they do but seriously doubts it. Do share your passion with us, PvL. Take some time to wax lyrical about your love for the EU, so that we may understand that some might be prepared to conflict with fellow countrymen to keep them in it.

      (How on earth can anyone *love* the bloody EU !)

      • Peter VAN LEEUWEN
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

        @Anonymous: Just a cut & paste from British press (21/11/16, FT):
        Support for the EU has risen in Europe in the wake of Brexit — including in Britain, according to a survey published today.
        In Britain, support rose to 56 per cent after the Brexit vote, compared to 49 per cent before. Approval rates fell in Spain to 68 per cent, but rose in the other four big continental member states – Germany, France, Italy and Poland.

  33. APL
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    JR: “I take seriously the need to bring the country back together after the Brexit vote.”

    That’s rich! The country has been divided by the European Union since we joined in ’73.

    It’s just that your party, in concert with the BBC did everything it could to keep the EU out of the news. It wasn’t so long ago that you were telling us, the EU doesn’t sell on the doorstep.

    Turns out, at least 50% of the population have been against the EU all along. That, despite the continuous pro EU propaganda spewed by the BBC for the last 43 years

    • Andy
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

      What is actually interesting is the fact that the EU Referednum of 1975 was won hands down by ‘Remain’. To have voted in that Referendum you would now be 59 plus. It is those voters who were 18 + at the time who voted in their droves for ‘Leave’. Remainiacs should be asking themselves why those young people of 1975 have turned so against the EU Project.

      • APL
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

        Andy: “why those young people of 1975 have turned so against the EU Project.”

        Bitter experience.

        Not to mention, and somewhat topical in light of the recent by election in Richmond Park where turnout was only 53%, the ’75 EEC result was decided on a 64% turnout.

        In the recent EU in/out referendum the turnout was 72%

  34. Peter Davies
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Many people I come across still swallow the scare mongering of brexit. V few believe in the eu federalist direction of travel but may have voted to stay for fear of economic consequences more than anything else

    The key messages to answer is how will passporting work if we are frozen out and how will the automotive sector adjust to being outside the single market.

    I think if the public could hear more practical answers for issues such as rhese the process would be far smoother

  35. Roy Grainger
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

    The apparent acceptance by Davis et al that we have to pay the EU to access the single market is puzzling. As we are in massive trade deficit with them how come they won’t have to pay us ?

    The sly Remainer Greg Hands who is now #2 to Fox is saying that we might stay in part of the customs union too for an unnamed sub-set of goods and services – part of the strategy to complicate things so much so that fudge is all that is delivered after 2 years.

    Reply The government is still forming its negotiating ask, and I do not expect it to include any offer of budget contributions or sectoral trade.

    • rose
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t heard anyone significant accepting we have to pay for access to the EU, just a polite non committal answer from Davis and a more emphatic one from Boris to the contrary. I have heard a lot of junk TV people telling us what you are alleging.

      • rose
        Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

        By the EU I meant the internal market but there isn’t really a difference.

      • a-tracy
        Posted December 6, 2016 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        Rose – Today 6th Dec “Away from the court, the Chancellor Philip Hammond has this morning said he wants a “smooth and orderly” transition and refuses to rule out paying into the EU for access to the single market.”

        • rose
          Posted December 7, 2016 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

          Yes, he is a worry and it is a great pity the PM appointed him just because she liked him.

          She should have understood that a convinced Brexiteer was needed in that post. Our very own Mr R, with Jacob Rees Mogg as Chief Secretary.

          • rose
            Posted December 7, 2016 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

            On the other hand he didn’t actually say anything definite one way or the other.

  36. rose
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

    This concerns their oppostion to the Preorogative power of the Crown being used to start the process of exiting the EU.

    During the Falklands War, the prerogative power of the Crown was used to press merchant navy ships to supply the Navy. It was long dormant, and antique, but we couldn’t have done without it. The mediaevel historian on the bench should like that.

    • rose
      Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      This power hadn’t been used since the Hundred Years War.

  37. Doug Powell
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    JR, I offer a polite suggestion: Before discussing the economic concerns of the Remoaners, it might be more useful to offer them enlightenment, eg, explain the meaning of the word ‘leave’, then a quick overview of ‘democracy’, followed by a basic insight into ‘mathematics’ by demonstrating that a 52% – 48% spread is by no means a close run thing!
    Should your words fail to penetrate EU indoctrination, which is more than likely, then give them the good news: – There are 27 countries to which they can emigrate in order to continue enjoying the EU ‘good’ life – Dictatorship by Bureaucracy; No Democracy; No Accountability; and widespread Corruption. And to cap it all, their children can look forward to wonderful futures with youth unemployment currently averaging 25%.

  38. Yossarion
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

    How do you bring an unequal union back together, I see later this week the devolved administrations will have input at the supreme court, who will be standing up for the English at this event?

  39. Gawd!
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court in its introduction stated that their ultimate decision would be based purely on the point of law and was not concerned with the background as it were, of political events. It then immediately referred to persons ( themselves as judges and the persons bringing the case , being threatened outside the court, before the court was brought into session, at a date when it was not formally notified of an Appeal. That such threatening persons would be punished by the law. Well, given the Supreme Court, right from the very beginning has informed all the world that it cannot so much as utter 200 words without tripping over its shoe laces in infantile contradiction..it may just as well not exist as a legal body. This is Alice in Wonderland or something which may be adjudged by the late Sid James. When is Charles Hawtrey going to put the case..showing a suitcase with ladies stockings tumbling out all over Mi Luds front bench?
    It is behaviour like this which makes the planet fall over themselves laughing like drains at “Thin Englishmen ” and their dead-pan insufferable pompousness.

  40. JJE
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    I’ve stopped watching the feed of the Supreme Court hearing, fascinating though it is, because it’s just embarrassing watching large parts of the government case being so easily ripped apart by a few simple questions from the judges. Still, maybe they’ll pull something out of the hat.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      The greater embarrassment was the bumbling over references. I didn’t see the judges asking other questions which they couldn’t have answered for themselves.

      • rose
        Posted December 7, 2016 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

        Only Lord Carnwath seemed to have heard of the Great Repeal Bill but even he only seemed to know it had been mentioned at the Conservative Party Conference. The engaging fellow whose job it was to have mastered every relevant detail and extracted arguments to win the case said, “Pass”.

        A room full of the most expensive lawyers and judges in the kingdom and none of them know what parliamentary intention the government has announced in connection with this matter. And they think they can now tell Parliament what to do! Though one of the quiet ones did say that would be a constitutional novelty.

  41. M
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    Boris made an exceptional speech about post Brexit globalisation. He was s[pot on . His questions and answers session was too ‘ I…’ ‘I…”I’… and ‘stuttery’

  42. ian wragg
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

    John, it’s a shame you withdrew my comment on the power demand at 0830 this morning.
    Today we are really in fantasy land with demand at 98%, 51.11GW with wind supplying a paltry 0.85GW or 1.66%.
    Most of the STOR generators are running making filthy diesel generated electricity. So much for reducing pollution.
    Disgraceful.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted December 6, 2016 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      @Ian Wragg And so much for increasing our energy bills too!!The grid in our part of Scotland can’t take the power out now but we have just been lumbered with yet another application for God knows how many gigantic turbines which we will all pay to switch off on a regular basis. Common Sense??? I don’t think so.

  43. Theatre Critic
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    The Supreme Court judges, though speaking in highly educated voices , are of course playing the fool. They are not so intelligent that their humour is not recognised by “lesser” mortals than themselves. Far from it. Their humour is base. Inappropriate. Oh we can hear them. ( well I can ) Oh we can see their half-hidden smiles meant for what they consider the initiated. Their joke is extremely bad taste. But their false teethed palette knows no better. Butter would not melt in such a mouth.This should be the last time this horseshoe tabled people with some minion continually going along at the back adjusting their chairs an inch here, an inch there. Are they physically incapable of moving the seat upon which they sit???? OMG this is a pantomime…for their grand simultaneous entrance like a amateur directed Gilbert ans Sullivan Operetta.
    Let us be not insulted by the presence on our TV screens again. What an absolute abomination!

  44. Juliet
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    My thoughts – representing Remain [ not interested ] would they be sympathetic to Leave if the shoe was on the other foot, No they wouldn’t

    First political turmoil and now Supreme Court Hearing
    … who has final say on invoking Article 50

    “It’s not if Brexit happens, it’s whether Ministers and Parliament trigger the process what’s the point, I don’t see democratic process, Parliament is not independent why would it be when many MPs are Remain, and Politicians keep changing their tune every day, nothing will come of this.

    Had David Cameron informed people before the referendum
    – MPs were to have the final say to take us out of the EU as they are proposing to do,
    – triggering of Article 50 was not going to happen next day after the referendum
    I suspect many people would have voted their MPs out of their seats,
    and held Cameron accountable to triggering of Article 50

    From day 1 Remain has been playing mind-games from the PM to MPs

    Where is the Trust
    How do you differentiate between personal interest and
    ‘in the best interest of the people you represent’ …

    Did Parliament vote when John Major needed support in passing the Maastricht Treaty
    – 1993 vote of confidence in the government
    Did Parliament vote when Tony Blair
    – MPs reject move to investigate Tony Blair over Iraq by 369 votes

  45. Juliet
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    Representing Remain makes no sense !

    Parliament (Remain MPs) has decided to act as middle-man when the role does not exist
    Everyone (even MPs) were eligible to vote in ‘one time vote’
    But MPs are expecting to get a second vote, where is that written in constitutional law
    People did not vote to Leave EU to have MPs vote on their behalf
    that would imply People are not trusted or capable to vote

  46. Collector of info
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    The High Court moanings of “We live on a different planet and although sending people to jail in our past not for the crime but as a “deterrent” and although someone we know advised / frightened a jury to find an IRA terrorist “Not guilty ” as “the IRA would attack the jury members “…we are going to look at this application by a desperate political party with due consideration. That is, to Brexit or not to Brexit.”
    No, you’ll find in favour of HM Government ! Hopefully, you’ll read this! Think on!

  47. John
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Nice to hear some one talk about bringing the country together again. Look what happened to Scotland with the SNP nationalists not accepting the will of the people.

    At the weekend we heard from a prominent EU ‘headbanging’ nationalist who, on the Andrew Neil show, wants to divide the country and split it politically as for or against Brexit rather than looking at what he, with his connections, could do for Britain as we leave.

    Its a shame. I didn’t think we would end up as divided as Scotland though I don’t think we are. I suspect those who don’t accept the result are very low in number, just high in vocal delivery.

  48. Maureen Turner
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

    There is tide in the affairs of men when taken at the flood leads men to fortune. Omitted all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. The Bard of Avon.

    Our opportunity to depart the EU was 23rd June 2016 and whilst we succeeded in bringing about the flood we failed to harness it on the 24th. Not as eloquent as Shakespeare but in modern parlance I suppose it might be – He who hesitates is lost.

  49. anon
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

    Interesting link setting out some arguments.
    a)legal, constitutional and political.

    websearch lawyersforbritain.org

  50. Cosmic
    Posted December 5, 2016 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Well, personally I thought Mark Carney would end up the top person in the ECB following Mario Draghie . But his comments today were more mainstream political than before. I wonder if he is thinking of standing as MP or more in Canada? Prime Minister Trudeau is likable and popular but his economic policies would not be approved by Mr Carney. Perhaps the Canadian Tory Party?
    If my astrological prediction comes true I’ll apply for his old job at the BoE as I will have proved I know my Aries from my Taurus. I can always borrow their crystal ball and, dried buzzard bones to toss before the Osbornes of this world make a budget.

    • stred
      Posted December 6, 2016 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      Carney has been explaining that ordinary folk, who haven’t had a pay rise for years because of robots, are disillusioned with big business and bosses getting loads of money and not paying taxes. Like bankers who are paid £16,000 a week even thought hey get all their forecasts wrong and allow banks to reduce interest paid to savers from a few % to zero.

      Low wages are due to automation and nothing to do with freedom of movement of labour from countries where pay is very low and issuing 629k+195k National insurance cards this year. If only: it might improve our rotten productivity.

  51. Dauber
    Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:26 am | Permalink

    The Turner prize is £25,000. I bet if the prize were instead last year’s winning entry it would
    attract a thousand and one times as many entries

  52. Guardian not British
    Posted December 6, 2016 at 1:53 am | Permalink

    The Guardian newspaper 5th December 2016 headline:

    “Turn of the tide: Europeans hail Austrian far-right defeat”

    I don’t need The Guardian to tell me I’m not European but British. Their headline is a dead giveaway as to their own paper’s nationality.

  53. British Spy
    Posted December 6, 2016 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    I should, but do not find it astonishing that the European Commission seeks to use our money (still, our money ) to engage in political activity/interference within EU-nation states in accordance with its own defintions of “extremist parties”. Also, when does a “populist” party ( of which there can only be many thousands of definitions ) automatically seriously damage your health?
    Here is a report on the Commission’s deliberations from an EU-friendly source.

    “The Commission argued that easing up on the fiscal austerity imposed to help beat the debt crisis is increasingly vital given the rise of populist and extremist parties in Europe that are riding a wave of frustration with Europe’s low growth and high unemployment economy.”
    http://www.france24.com/en/20161205-eurozone-ministers-torpedo-eu-plans-more-spending?ref=tw_i

  54. Dauber
    Posted December 6, 2016 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    Undecided which one it was from the artists Gilbert and George, probably the Ernie Wise one,who said he could not see why English people were denied a vote in the Scottish Referendum for Independence. I put it down to anti-English racism and an acceptance of racism against English people in the UK. We have suffered long. Though we stand out in comparison as being strong enough to take it.
    Remain…are /is not strong enough to take a hit to the chest, to the heart , and yet feel for the thumper. Lo, but they got the Mother of thumps. Knocked the water out of them.. Not that we should display childish triumphalism about it.

  55. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted December 8, 2016 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    Why bother? We have enough trouble from Remainers without your helping them.

  • 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