Regulation after Brexit

During the referendum campaign I was asked by some of Remain opponents to name a regulation or rule we would want to repeal once we left the EU. I guess it was one of their trick challenges. They expected the Leave spokesman to fail to name one so they could claim there was no point in complaining about all the requirements we did not like. Failing that response, they hoped we would demand an end to employment protections which were important to many Leave voters.

I was always grateful for this question. It enabled me to remind audiences the Leave campaign recommended keeping all the EU employment protections on leaving. It reminded us all that the Conservative and Labour parties both said they would keep the minimum requirements the EU laid down, as we often exceeded them anyway. In future Parliament will be able to decide how much further to go as we do today.

It also enabled me to start listing the requirements we would like to drop. They usually wanted to shorten the list once I started. I began with proposing the abolition of VAT on sanitary products, then recommending the abolition of VAT on green products, moving on to the abolition of VAT on domestic fuel and wanting to change the EU decisions which had led to substantial rebates of Corporation Tax for some big companies. In despair they would sometimes ask for a non tax one!

I would then get stuck into the fishing regulations, proposing a substantial reform to protect our fish stocks and give more priority to UK vessels. I followed that up with changes to the agricultural regime which had penalised parts of the UK industry in the past.

To those who now write to me and ask how the non tariff barriers and arrangements will work after Brexit, I have an easy answer. We will transfer all current EU regulations and decisions into UK law. After we have passed the EU Repeal Act we will then be free to decide which former EU laws and decisions we wish to amend. I propose we start with the tax ones and move on to create our own fishing and agricultural policies first. Repeal will not include the rules on how products and services have to be arranged to be fit to sell on the continent, as these rules then as now will still apply to anything we wish to export. What will be different after leaving is we will have the right to change the rules and specifications for the majority UK domestic trade and for non EU trade if we wish.


  1. Robert Petulengro
    January 2, 2017

    “To those who now write to me and ask how the non tariff barriers and arrangements will work after Brexit, I have an easy answer. We will transfer all current EU regulations and decisions into UK law.”
    Allow me to ask: how do you see the seating arrangements for the actual negotiations after March this year?
    I think the Prime Minister sees a Council sitting there and listening to her demands. Then they will discuss them and, because they are all decent, honourable people, they will agree to them because – hey – they are reasonable!
    And they will have been accepted, perhaps through parliament, into UK law too!
    Well, here’s a surprise!
    “4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.”
    They will discuss the arrangements and we will not even be in the room! Already there have been several meetings where we have been totally excluded.
    So the devastating criticism of your statement about NTBs has in no way been answered.

    1. Mark B
      January 2, 2017

      They are entitled to discuss matters between themselves in relation to our leaving. The fact that they are having discussions already without us being there, and this before Art.50 is given is wrong. But I blame the poor advice, Chairman May is receiving from the Civil Service and not the PM or Ministers.

      We are still a full paying member and, until we issue Art.50 and leave we demand to be included in ALL discussions irrespective of the subject.

    2. John O'Leary
      January 2, 2017

      The EU will appoint an Article 50 negotiating team and it is with them that we will have discussions. You wouldn’t really expect us to be present when the Council subsequently debate the proposals amongst themselves would you?

    3. Peter D Gardner
      January 2, 2017

      You misunderstand Article 50. It is perfectly normal for each side in a negotiation to hold their internal discussions in the absence of the other parties. That is all it means. Britain will do likewise and will also be holding discussions with organisations such as the WTO and World Customs Union in parallel and in the absence of the EU. Britain should also be holding discussions with EU member states separately from the EU on matters that are not EU competencies, including immigration and access to UK waters.

      Be in no doubt that Article 50 requires the EU to negotiate an agreement on arrangements for withdrawal with the UK. There is no other legal requirement for the EU to negotiate anything with UK and Article 50 most certainly does.

      Furthermore, the two year time limit applies only to arrangements for withdrawal, not any future relationship, and these will be agreed on the EU side by QMV, not unanimity.

    4. Mandy Jones
      January 2, 2017

      This will happen in our UK parliament, nothing to do with the EU, do you not know how it works?

  2. Mick
    January 2, 2017

    Just ask Mrs May to invoke article 50 the same day as the court ruling, the more this drags on listening to the whingings and smug looking faces of the remoaners the harder it will get or some other excuse to delay it, I voted to leave the dreaded eu and every thing about it, no ifs or buts just do it you’ve had over 6months now so just do what we voted for

    Reply I have lobbied for the letter to be sent immediately.

    1. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear John–Given that you personally have been ignored and given that people like me (formerly calling himself Truebluechap) have lost faith in what the Conservatives are (not) doing you could quit and rat to UKIP then engage in a by-election on how to Brexit. This delay and palaver has become ridiculous. Making a Remainer PM and Chancellor was absurd and who else but the Conservative did that?

      1. The Prangwizard
        January 2, 2017

        If our hosts comments and behaviour towards Mr Carswell is anything to by when he left for UKIP is anything to go by, snowballs in hell will have a better chance.

        1. Leslie Singleton
          January 3, 2017

          Dear Prang–The way I see it it is a question of being loyal to one’s country rather than Party

      2. Lifelogic
        January 2, 2017

        Certainly May and Hammond inspire no confidence at all so far. They are saying nothing at of any substance on Brexit, red tape, taxation, energy or anything. This while sticking to the absurd Osborne fiscal agenda, pissing money down the drain on HS2, green crap & Hinkley C. Even saying they will increasing red tape yet further with enforced gender pay reporting, waffling on about equality and workers on company boards.

        Muttering about the Jams then mugging them further with large increases in council taxes and train fairs.

        Even absurdly claiming to believe in free trade and free markets when they are clearly interventionist, central pay controlling, tax borrow and waste, greencrap lefties at heart.

        I think there is no chance now of Mrs May turning into a real Tory at her age. Lefty dopes are usually born not made, they rarely aquire much wisdom or change very much I find. It is largely genetic I suspect, some people just value gut feelings, irrational childish emotion and fake fairness & “equality” over logic reason and what actually works.

        Many work in “the Arts”, the church or are endlessly on the BBC I find.

    2. Lifelogic
      January 2, 2017

      Why was the letter not sent by Cameron the next as he promised. Why this expensive endless dithering from May. Why was the referendum bill not organised, by the Cameron government) in a way that, post the result, was legally clear cut? Incompetence yet again.

      We should, I suppose, thank Cameron for at least finally giving us the promised referendum last year (albeit one where he and the government blatantly sloped the pitch) and also for rightly resigning and leaving the house of commons.

      Why on earth is the appalling, IHT ratter and punishment budget promising, Osborne still hanging around? Surely he needs to be expelled from the party. If for nothing else just for being a totally economic illiterate as chancellor with his absurd tax complexity and rates that are above the Laffer point.

      The sad fact is that Hammond seems to be stuck in the same rut so far. Hammond and May really do not seem to be up to their jobs. Mrs May’s tedious new year’s massage was hugely misjudged and patronising or perhaps matronising.

      1. Sir Joe Soap
        January 2, 2017

        The more you think about it, the more Cameron’s whole handling of the referendum was a complete joke. Forget the fact that he “gave” us the referendum-he was dragged kicking and screaming into it by a surge in UKIP support and a little help from our friend here and his ilk. There was no “give” by Cameron about it. Having taken that decision though, to pretend he was equivocal about staying or leaving the EU in the absence of substantive change, then pretending that he had elicited change, and thereby campaigning to stay in the EU, was disingenuous. Pretending furthermore that grave and immediate consequences including WW3 would result from a Leave vote just made him a laughing stock.

        This man should never, ever appear in public life again.

        1. Lifelogic
          January 3, 2017

          Indeed, plus Cameron sloped the pitch hugely, trying to avoid the purdah period, using the absurd tax payer funded leaflet sent to every home, the blatant bias of Carney, the treasury, most of the state sector, Osborne’s pathetic budget threats and the appalling pro EU bias of the BBC and channel 4.

          Reading the book “All out War” is rather instructive of the appalling lengths and dishonesty that the remain camp went to. On a level pitch it would surely have been nearer two to one for leave.

          Mrs May even assured (lied to?) voters that we had control of our borders within the EU under Schengen. How could she as Home Secretary possibly have ever thought this was true?

          Cameron only became leader by lying that he was a Eurosceptic and a Conservative he clearly was neither. But nor was May and it is hard to think she has changed.

      2. Leslie Singleton
        January 2, 2017

        Dear Lifelogic–As I wrote here some time back, albeit with little support, I do not understand why we ever got rid of Attainder. Apart from Cameron’s many wrong decisions, he just freely lied through his teeth in general and on an important matter at a crucial time (immediate sending) over which he had complete control and he should not be allowed just to walk away scot-free spraying honours which used to mean such a lot right and left. If he, not to mention Osborne (he of the doubling or trebling or whatever it is of the National Debt) were attainted JR would not give his imprimatur to what I would do to them but I am a great fan of Henry VIII which should give you a clue.

      3. Lifelogic
        January 2, 2017

        No dukedom for Nigel Farage for his rescuing of British democracy? Surely one is hugely overdue? Also when are we getting the Independence Day bank holiday on June 23rd when we can contemplate all the traitors from Heath through Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg and probably T May too.

        Then again will British Democracy ever really be restored under the dithering remainers May and Hammond?

        Charles Moore suggests it is 7 to 4 against the government in the Article 50 judgement. All that rigorous legal education and still they cannot agree. We shall see shortly, but anyway it is very clear that people who think that judges decide cases on the basis of “the law” are rather living in a dream world. Might not tossing a coin have been far cheaper, far quicker, clearer and rather more reliable?

      4. rose
        January 2, 2017

        David Cameron got the chairmanship of the Charity Commission right with fellow Etonian William Shawcross, don’t you think? In contrast to Blair’s dire Dame. 630 disclosures.

    3. Mark B
      January 2, 2017

      Reply to reply

      We cannot send a letter as we would be in contempt of court. Why can’t we have parliament vote for Art.50, or at least give the PM the permission to send the letter ?

      Once Art.50 is sent this silly waiting game is over as there is no turning back.

  3. Iain Gill
    January 2, 2017

    No you have to start fixing free movement first. If any politicians think the masses from Romania and Bulgaria can continue to (cone ed) in then we have serious problems

    You should know this.

  4. Newmania
    January 2, 2017

    If Mongolia took a body of Insurance law ( for example )pertaining to the UK and enacted it into Mongolian law in some vast tent , they could issue paper into the UK .

    They could, of course do no such thing

    Firstly they would need to capitalise in the UK , a problem applicable only to services banking and so on and then there would have to be an agreement between our countries that we mutually accepted that capitalisation and regulatory matters were applicable across the Mongolian/UK trading area and none might be changed other than by mutual agreement .
    We might then agree to place them on the register of accepted Companies and it would be legal to issue such paper .
    Whether or not an country like the UK would be able to accept such a position without having its own checks is unlikely , across the EU the problem of has eventually been solved by pan European solvency checks . Such an arrangement might have to apply to the Mongolia /UK Insurance trading area Solvency Khan would have to be invented and funded .
    It might be that personnel , land and the tax regime were so cheap in Mongolia that the prodigious expense of bureaucracy would have some good affect for consumers but decimate domestic employment ….I could go on but now we get into the general difficulties of Free Trade between very different countries which leave have , with their usual dishonesty presented as easy.

    Just a small example, of what life is like outside the fantasy world of the leaver. You may now carry on with ill informed fictions harvested from the interweb

    1. Edward2
      January 2, 2017

      Many countries adopt and adapt laws from other nations into their own body of law
      There is no law against copying best practice.

      1. Lifelogic
        January 3, 2017

        Indeed and there are loads of health service systems far better than the BBC to copy while we are at it.

    2. ian wragg
      January 2, 2017

      Shouldn’t you be on holiday with PvL talking such nonsense.
      Had you noticed that at the last count there were 140 or more countries not in the EU and managing perfectly well.

    3. libertarian
      January 2, 2017


      You have no idea what you’re talking about !

    4. getahead
      January 2, 2017

      To trade with the Single Market Britain does not need to be a satellite of Brussels. Switzerland didn’t need to join the EU to trade with it, nor does it need to be in a political union to ensure the goods they sell meet EU standards.
      It’s the multi-national corporatists and their political poodles that love all the EU rules and regulations. Smaller competitors can’t easily afford the compliance costs.

      Are you a multi-national corporatist Newmania? Or perhaps someone from the city?

    5. Anonymous
      January 2, 2017

      Just how solvent is the EU ?

    6. Ajay Gajree
      January 2, 2017

      I can’t tell but me thinks you haven’t accepted the democratic will of the British people.

    7. Anonymous
      January 2, 2017

      “It might be that personnel , land and the tax regime were so cheap in Mongolia that the prodigious expense of bureaucracy would have some good affect for consumers but decimate domestic employment ….”

      Ah. That’ll be the middle classes’ jobs you’re worried about then.

      It was OK when it was working class ones going afar and a real hoot when the jobs remaining were taken by robots and migrants. (not)

      It is no surprise that the proletariat voted Leave. Your party should have ensured that they were disenfranchised *before* we had a referendum. You’ve intimated as much yourself.

      Yes. Leaving the EU will not be simple nor cheap. In 1973 we stepped in a dog turd, it went through a hole in our shoe and became infused with our DNA.

      (The ‘good’ effect of outsourcing on consumers is often less than it seems when the welfare bill hits their mat.)

      1. Lifelogic
        January 3, 2017

        Heath forced us all to step in it without any consent and then the Tories, Labour and the Libdims forced us to remain standing in it for 46+ years. Probably longer still, given that we have lefty ditherer (ex?) remainer T May in charge.

  5. Prigger
    January 2, 2017

    “…asked by some of Remain opponents to name a regulation or rule we would want to repeal once we left the EU.”
    Yes, Labour’s The Rt Hon Alan Johnson asked that one of a Leaver. We should repeal the rule, and make it retrospect, that Ex-UK Parliament Ministers and MPs should be allowed to take up paid positions in the EU and that their past salaries be collected from them in total over the next five years or their properties confiscated and auctioned off to pay the bill. The resultant money should be given in overseas aid… to Mrs Trump. Perhaps a jewelled ring..something small but very expensive. Money put to good use and well-spent, at last!

    1. Lifelogic
      January 3, 2017

      Certainly these EU pension should not be paid by the UK when/if we leave. They are an EU liability if the EU choose to default and not pay them so be it. They should also not have any special tax benefits as they do now.

  6. Denis Cooper
    January 2, 2017

    I think I know why the name “Great Repeal Act” was thrust forward, but it actually means the opposite of what is required and so it will cause endless unnecessary confusion.

    The European Union (Legal Continuity) Act would be a better name, making it clear that the purpose is to prevent any legal hiatus when the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK.

    1. Peter D Gardner
      January 2, 2017

      I have to agree the name is typically euphemistic because its main aim seems to be to enact without much consideration all extant EU law into British law, only repealing the ECA 1972 in order to halt application of EU law in future.
      We await the Queen’s Speech with interest.

      1. Denis Cooper
        January 3, 2017

        That is the main aim, and it is a completely sensible aim. People need to know what the law will be on the day after we leave the EU, and the answer is that it will be same as on the day before we leave the EU. The changes will come later after thought and debate, gradually over some years, and with plenty of prior notice in each case. But it does mean that the name is wrong.

  7. Pete
    January 2, 2017

    How about all of them? Repeal all the intrusive, unnecessary, restrictive and stultifying regulations that hold back progress and inhibit growth. All those people that claim to want freedom and individual choice yet support hundreds of thousands of Euro laws really show their true colours. Were the 1970s really that awful because we didn’t have these regulations? Not that I recall. Actually they were freer and we were better off, contrary to the propaganda we constantly hear. A man could support a family and buy a house on a single wage- try doing that now. An average weeks wage would buy more than 2 ounces of gold- not any more. We are all materially poorer now in large part because of regulations. Free us.

    1. clive
      January 2, 2017

      Bang on 2000 +, new eu laws every year hasn’t made feel any safer or better off. Repeal all laws that came out of eu.lets exorcise the common law that are political class are denying does excist .as bill of rights 1688-89 .also bring back BRABURY POUND. stop paying interest on money printed out of thin air.

    2. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear Pete–To take a bit of the load off JR, Yes, by all means think in terms of complete repeal, and nobody hates the EU more than I, but if they were all repealed at once it would get a bit sweaty and there must (Right? Boris was good today) be something that the EU has done right, though the same escapes me as I write.

  8. JoolsB
    January 2, 2017

    How true are the reports that Fisheries Minister, George Eustice has announced that a chunk of England’s fishing quotas has been transferred to Scotland following the vote to leave the European Union? This would mean that the quota to catch 1,500 tonnes of fish has been moved from the Humberside based Fish Producers Organisation and handed to Scottish authorities.

    Yet another example of England being shafted by a UK Government perhaps? England has voted to leave the EU. Now we need a vote to be asked if we wish to leave the UK.

    1. Mark B
      January 2, 2017

      The SNP, I argue, know how to extract a pound of ‘fish’ from a hopeless appeaser & consensus politician.

      1. Bee
        January 2, 2017

        Why are our English Politicians so afraid of upsetting the Scots?

        They do nothing but carp, and we pay them for the privilege!

        Time they were told enough is enough!

  9. ian wragg
    January 2, 2017

    What about getting rid of the Large Combustion Directive which is turning us into a third world country and being ignored by everyone else.
    Then there is Gideons stupid carbon floor price which is a direct tax on consumers and again not effective in any other country.
    What about the stupid landfill regulations which state that rich dredged material is classed as toxic waste when for millennia it has been used as fertilizer.
    There are so many and now it transpires we are subsidising anaerobic digester which are being fed from grain which we should be using to feed the population.
    Total madness and this from a Tory government.
    Nearly 7 months since the referendum and another 200,000 immigrants and £11 billion handed over to Brussels.
    What’s the target John, population to reach 80 million before we make a start.

  10. stred
    January 2, 2017

    some of the insane EU regulations could be dropped immediately for the UK, also making manufacturing and services more economical for the ROW. For example low-suck vacuum cleaners and biofuels, which don’t actually save any CO2 and may make for more greenhouse gases. The whole belief in immediate climate change and sea level rise could be looked at in a realistic scientific way, allowing genuine debate between scientists and engineers, rather than the political ignorant zealots that rule the roost in the UK and take their instructions from equally deluded opposite numbers in Brussels. This would give more time to design an economical electricity generation system which worked economically. As the late Sir David MacKay said before he died, much as he loved the wind turbines, why not just run nukes all the time instead of switching them and tree burners on and off to support them. We would also have time to obtain competitive tenders instead of giving the work to one company in a negotiation and finishing up paying double.

    Other regulation is unfortunately home grown. For some reason, we hand the writing of regulation to the trade and professions, which then re-write ever more onerous and complex rules, which happen to make the value of their work much more expensive. They have their opposite numbers in the ministries. This has the effect of making customers buy more imports and producing more greenhouse gases. For example, a large extension to a house recently obtained final approval after being finished 5 years ago. We wished to use UK produced timber beams and only one steel beam. Steel has far more embedded CO2 and cheaper RSJs and UBs are sourced from China, where they use 80% coal, having made our steelmakers stop using it. It took the sacking of one engineer, who told us we knew little about engineering and the appointment of another better- qualified engineer to prove that timber worked. The sums are actually quite simple and tables are available. The local authority, of course backed the use of 5 steel beams instead of one. We saved a lot of money too by insisting on using British timber.

  11. E.S Tablishment
    January 2, 2017

    The phoney regulations about banning smoking in pubs. The Labour Party blamed it on the EU. This left the ridiculous position of Germany allowing smoking “pubs” alongside “non-smoking” ones and Liberal England being extremely unpleasant and unhelpful by banning smoking in all pubs. Many landlords and landladies lost their homes, livelihoods and sometimes their bunches.

    According to information later published which I read in The Daily Telegraph the rate of smoking actually rose in Ireland due to the ban as drinkers stayed at home, minus the dart board and snooker table and just sat watching TV drinking and smoking even more.

    So, a repeal of British Labour Party lies. “smoking” pubs to be allowed. Labour Party members to have a life-time ban on drinking alcohol in any pub in the UK but will be allowed to smoke nicotine cigarettes only and not their normal plain packeted funny stuff which still does not have a government health warning on them.

    1. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear E.S–I wonder if I was alone in switching off Witness For The Prosecution when I soon got fed up watching (to create Period Atmosphere, I assume–very not clever) every scene with everybody in it chain smoking

    2. Ajay Gajree
      January 2, 2017

      The kind of pubs which would once have been smoke filled are mostly the ones that have shut. Maybe this reg was one reason, I do however enjoy visiting a smoke free gastro pub.

      1. E.S.Tablishment
        January 3, 2017

        Ajay Gajree

        Actually there can be no such thing as a smoke-free pub nor an alcohol free pub. There can however be a food-free pub. When I used to smoke I found it most offensive to have someone stuffing their faces with the most horribly smelling food. Impolitely speaking with their mouths full too.So rude! When I got home my clothes reeked of picked herrings, garlic mushrooms, old gravy, brown sauce and fried black pudding. Even my hair began to smell of fried sausage and onions. It was so bad my husband refused to sleep with me. I tried going to that pub at least once per day.

        But whenever I sat down I sometimes found smudgy pieces of potato and carrot on the chairs vacated by children. Diners have so little consideration. There were plenty of cafes and restaurants they could have visited to be with people like themselves.

  12. alan jutson
    January 2, 2017

    The “too complicated to succeed” argument with regards to so called negotiations has to be debunked.

    Simplicity is the key, and you have outlined many times the logical steps which need to be taken for a swift agreement.

    Shame many MP’s and much of the media do not yet see it.

    It would be in everyone’s interest (EU Countries as well) to reach a clean and quick settlement.

    1. turboterrier
      January 2, 2017

      @alan jutson

      Shame many MP’s and much of the media do not yet see it.

      I think the majority of us living in the real world can see what’s going on.

      Too many politicians looking after themselves absolutely scared ****less in case someone wants to take them to court or say and do anything that will come back to haunt them on the doorstep come re-election time. So we have those sitting on the fence and do nothing and ope that the problem goes away. Sometimes in life you have to grasp the nettle and stand or fall on what you believe in. Too many especially up in dictatorship Scotland still believe that politicians are only in it for themselves and no amount of trying to be positive will change that view. All you get is apathy and mistrust.

      On line in the Express yesterday was a report on the secret millions paid into the BBC by the EU. If this is what it is then close the whole lot down and start again.
      There are enough life experienced and qualified people around to replace them. The BBC in my view is responsible for creating the majority all this uncertainty and suspicion and until Mother Teresa start to action the talk she is just playing into their hands.

    2. Lifelogic
      January 2, 2017

      It would also be in nearly everyone’s interest to get rid of the absurd political construct of the EURO, but it has not happened yet. Politics, group think and the vested interests of the powerful trump logic here.

      Few people in power give a damn for all the unemployed youth in the south of the EU.

  13. Michael
    January 2, 2017

    The regulations that make the EU Court final court of appeal can be added to the scrappage scheme. A decision of The UK Supreme Court should be final subject only to the UK Parliament.

    1. Peter D Gardner
      January 3, 2017

      It is open to Parliament to change laws following a court ruling that is legally correct but otherwise wrong. Many wanted Mrs May to accept the High Court Ruling because appealing it made it look as if the Government was indeed trying to override Parliament – it wasn’t but now it appears so.

      Mrs May is not a leader but a manager and administrator. In her mind she wants the legal issue tidied up, hence the appeal against the High Court decision. The ineptitude of her legal team meant that all relevant arguments were not even put to the High Court, so it was inevitable that the Court would rule in favour of the appellant. We can expect the same in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may find it necessary to refer some aspect of the case to the ECJ. This prospect is probably behind the new case arguing that leaving the EU still leaves UK in the EEA,, clearly a matter for the ECJ not the UK courts.

      Mrs May’s lack of leadership was immediately obvious when she made no attempt whatsoever to get Parliament behind her on Brexit as soon as she became PM. Six months after the vote she has finally made and in somewhat limp terms a plea for the country to come together. Even if this has some short term effect it will unravel as she continues with her unnecessarily protracted negotiations by extending negotiations on withdrawal to the full two years in order to run negotiations on a new association agreement concurrently, concluding with two treaties to come into effect concurrently with repeal of the ECA72. Administratively tidy but ludicrously unrealistic.

  14. The Prangwizard
    January 2, 2017

    NOW is the time to do some forward procurement planning for new fisheries protection. We ought really to be at the ship ordering stage. I gather we have a Fisheries Protection Squadron of the RN which has all of 3 ships covering England and Wales and 2 more I think for Scotland. There are other small unarmed inshore vessels dotted about including RIBs.

    I also understand that 60% of the EU’s fish is caught in UK waters. It would be childishly niave to imagine that when we take back control of our waters our neighbours will promptly and willingly withdraw their boats and give up their rights. I’m assuming that we will have leaders with the guts to put our interests well and truly and unequivocally first and take them away, but that as they say is another story.

    How do we protect our seas when the Irish Spanish and Dutch get agressive which I forecast they wiil. 5 ships isn’t enough. Let’s have orders placed now for say another 5 of the same class size, plus say 20 smaller faster ones around the size of the MGB’s of WW2-all armed of course. These could double up as border protection, another area which is neglected. And they must be built in UK yards using UK materials. We need to order now to give our run down industry time to tool up.

    With so many remainers and fifth columnists in positions of power and influence will any of this happen in the next two years? I’m not holding my breath but I still have brick in hand.

    1. Sir Joe Soap
      January 2, 2017

      A good point.
      The fishing industry could be a good early-warning indicator of what will happen in later dealings. Immediately after article 50 we should issue warnings and instructions to the Royal Navy to sequestrate any non-UK registered vessel in British waters.

    2. Peter D Gardner
      January 3, 2017

      Agreed. Remember also that the Nimrod aircraft also played a major role in fisheries protection and patrols of North Sea oil and gas facilities. It is desperately sad that our continental looking politicians have so neglected the simple geographic dictates of our islands.

      Incidentally, protection of and access to an independent UK’s waters is governed by the UNCLOS not by the EU. It will be interesting to see how Mrs May approaches it. It is clearly sensible to reach agreement with contiguous states on management of fish stocks, pollution etc but these states may defer to the EU which would then need to decide whether non-contiguous states such as Spain should participate in negotiations. I would hope that UK would not agree to this as access by both contiguous and non-contiguous states is strictly a matter for UK and those states to negotiate bi-laterally.

    3. Peter D Gardner
      January 3, 2017

      Oops. Second reply. Your saying ships must be built in UK yards using UK materials reminds of another demand that UK should make immediately on invoking Article 50. Agreement can be made by MoU or exchange of letters rather than waiting for the complete package. EU Public Procurement Rules should be suspended inUK for all projects expected to complete later than two years after the date of the Article 50 letter. It is absurd that such projects wold be subject to EU rules.

      Likewise the EU requirement to advertise job vacancies throughout the EU should be suspended with immediate effect.

      The EU Ports Directive and many another directive in the pipeline should not be enacted in UK. Mrs May should attach a list to her letter.

  15. acorn
    January 2, 2017

    Don’t get carried away on repatriating fishing rights. The EU Common Fishing Policy (CFP), is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The EU fishing quotas are based on pre CFP national fishing zone catches, when UK boats were fishing around Iceland (before they got thrown out). The UK is doing very nicely fishing under EU rules with the second biggest EU member state catch. Defra is trying, currently, to increase the “total allowable catch” in some zones. There is no reason to believe that UK fishing would be better off outside the EU, particularly on quotas.

    Reply Nonsense – and not the Defra view.

    1. Martyn G
      January 2, 2017

      Hard to believe what you say, Acorn. Just look at the quotas for the most expensive fish in our seas, Plaice and Dover and other Sole and you will see that the majority catch has been awarded to France, leaving very little for the UK.

      1. acorn
        January 2, 2017

        France got 80% of the Eastern Channel zone but, bugger all (4%), in the North Sea.

    2. Denis Cooper
      January 2, 2017

      It’s odd that most of those who are actually involved in fishing the seas don’t seem to agree with what you say, acorn. For example:

      “At an evidence session of the Commons Brexit Select Committee today (19 December) at Aberdeen University, Bertie Armstrong from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and Michael Bates from the Scottish Seafood Association together laid out the considerable prize that Brexit will bring for sustainable food production and the revitalisation of coastal communities.”

      “A return to the normal condition, under International Law, of beneficial stewardship of the seafood resource in the extensive and very rich Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)surrounding our nation. Presently, 58% of the fish and shellfish caught in our EEZ are taken by non-UK EU boats. As explained to the committee, this is far from normal when compared with Coastal States such as Norway. Rebalancing this would simply be a return to normality that would produce real increases in economic activity for both catching and the shore-side processing sector and beyond.”

      ““We need access to other EU members’ waters”. This myth was laid to rest at the committee meeting. We do not need such access as we catch only around 15% of our fish elsewhere.”

      “Fish have no idea about geo-political boundaries, but do know all about biological and ecological ones. That’s why other EU Member States want access to our waters; that’s where the fish are.”

      1. Peter D Gardner
        January 3, 2017

        I think Acorn is right in principle about the initial CFP agreements but the UNCLOS rules allow states to negotiate very widely with contiguous states particularly with regard to historic agreements pre-dating UNCLOS. The real issue is which state is responsible for management of the resources and that is clearly UK for UK waters so whatever the result it would be UK’s responsibility and decision. The other issue is whether the contiguous states defer to the EU or negotiate bi-laterally with UK. I don’t think UNCLOS prevents the EU taking the lead negotiating role but UK should insist on seperate bi-lateral agreements especially with aggressive states like Spain.

    3. ian wragg
      January 2, 2017

      Acorn. Try telling the fishermen that. I would have a very fast getaway vehicle.

    4. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear acorn–This is the silliest blog so far this year–For a start who cares, or will care, what the EU Common Fisheries Policy is or was? In any event in our case as regards the UK at least it will be a definite ‘was’.

    5. acorn
      January 2, 2017

      UK Fishing quota licences are worth money, regardless of what colour flag is on the boat that catches the UK quota. Worth having a read of the “nonsense” Defra agreed

      Likewise, have a read of part 6 of

      “Following Brexit the UK could take full responsibility for fisheries in the UK’s EEZ. However, this does not necessarily mean that the UK will as a result have greater access to fish. […] In addition, there could be legal arguments under international law about the extent to which the current fishing rights of foreign fishers could be abolished.”

      BUT, as far as I can gather, the UK government is trying to assess multi-factor “Hard Brexit” risk factors; the “Walk Away” option risk to the UK economy.

      “If the UK chose to walk away from negotiations, and unilaterally set higher quotas, the EU could respond harshly. For example, when a dispute emerged between the EU and the Faeroes regarding herring quotas, the EU responded with trade sanctions, introduced a ban on Faeroese herring imports and prohibited the entry into European ports of Faroese fishing vessels.”

      1. Denis Cooper
        January 3, 2017

        Contradicted by the leaders of the fishermen, who may know better than a House of Commons librarian.

        1. acorn
          January 3, 2017

          Perhaps you could quote your sources for that contradiction?

          1. Denis Cooper
            January 4, 2017

            I have already quoted one source, above.

  16. A.Sedgwick
    January 2, 2017

    Just abolish VAT.

    In a recent interview Mr.Osborne said how proud he was of his achievements as Chancellor bringing down the deficit being his best offering. The fact the national debt doubled in five years to £1.6 trillion and the tax code pages did similarly indicates his hopeless tenure.

    A revolution in our tax system is long overdue and VAT is part of that process Exit gives us. If, of course, we can magic up a PM and Chancellor who have a clue about fairness, business common sense and sound fiscal administration.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 2, 2017

      Indeed, the absurd rates and complexity of Osborne’s tax system must have created hundreds of thousands of pointless parasitic jobs and hugely damaged the economy.

      Perhaps crowned by his IHT ratting and his truly moronic sugar tax, this being kept on by equally dire so far Hammond.

    2. acorn
      January 2, 2017

      So, you want to abolish 18% of the the governments tax revenue and add it to the £1.6 trillion national debt each year. That would not actually be the problem that Redwoodians would think it to be, ask the Japanese.

      A fiscal injection of £120 billion a year (the current VAT yield), would rapidly use up any spare capacity in the private sector domestic economy, assuming there is any, which I doubt. Hence inflation would kick in quite quickly and imports of them BMWs would take off. Shortly afterwards, the Pound Sterling would dive to try and kill the the current account deficit created (from buying all them BMWs).

    3. Ajay Gajree
      January 2, 2017

      The 2020 tax commission chaired by Alister Heath a few years ago showed a modern tax system, but has there ever been a chancellor who doesn’t like to increase complexity?

      1. Lifelogic
        January 3, 2017

        Or a department or bureaucrat who did not want to tie up the productive with ever more red tape and regulation?

  17. Dung
    January 2, 2017

    “I would then get stuck into the fishing regulations, proposing a substantial reform to protect our fish stocks and give more priority to UK vessels. ”

    Why not give total priority to UK boats subject to new agreements being made?

    “then recommending the abolition of VAT on green products,”


    “After we have passed the EU Repeal Act we will then be free to decide which former EU laws and decisions we wish to amend”

    With over 90% of UK companies not exporting at all it would seem more sensible to do the oppposite?
    I see that after this great repeal act we are able to remove or amend whatever we like but I would not trust Lib,Lab,Con parties to do that.

    1. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear Dung–Yes, while Exports have their importance, I’m in the camp that says that everything to do with them and in particular Exports to the EU have been grossly exaggerated. We’ll probably lose some that we presently send to the EU and gain some to the rest of the world, at least once we are able to get going. We shall certainly profit from a cessation of contributions and from new tariffs on the EU’s (net) Exports to us. Where’s the Big Deal? None of these percentages are large.

  18. Kenneth
    January 2, 2017

    I agree with your post, Mr Redwood.

    It is all pretty simple.

    Remainers such as the BBC talk of ‘complications’ and different version of Brexit.

    IMHO they are deliberately muddying the waters in the hope of delaying our departure from the eu.

    They have already succeeded with £millions already lost while we still wait for the British People’s wish to be fulfilled.

  19. English Pensioner
    January 2, 2017

    The big problem with bringing the EU regulation and decisions into British law, and the repealing the ones we don’t want, is a good idea in theory, but the ‘repeal’ bit will never happen.
    Civil servants simply hate to repeal any regulation; their whole mindset believes in more regulation. They’ve already ‘gold plated’ the original EU regulations and will find an infinite number of reasons why they should be kept. Indeed, I suspect that once we have left the EU, civil servants will still be pressing their ministers to approve any new regulation that Brussels introduces on the spurious grounds of mutual co-operation.
    To civil servants, rules and regulations means jobs, the more there are, the more staff are needed to enforce them.
    In addition, I would be interested to know when Parliament last repealed anything significant; many outdated Victorian laws are apparently still in force; it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if one of our government departments still had inspectors to check all chimney sweeps to ensure that they are not sending small boys up chimneys!

    1. Leslie Singleton
      January 2, 2017

      Dear English Pensioner–Bang on–I understand that the Statute of Marlborough (1267) incorporating the earlier Dictum of Kenilworth is still in force

    2. Peter D Gardner
      January 3, 2017

      English Pensioner – that makes two of us – there are several dangers. There is talk of an interim deal. This means in practice partial withdrawal and continuing application of EU law in some areas, most likely areas of the single market. The EU could then be expected to link its legislative program heavily towards the single market, a practice it has adopted before, in order to improve its power and competitiveness with respect to UK. Legislation such as the Working Time Directive would thus continue to apply to the whole of UK since it would be impracticable for UK to apply it only to activities directly linked to trade in an area of the single market.
      My approach would be for UK to break cleanly from the EU and the single market and concentrate its efforts on developing as an independent sovereign nation. Then areas of legislating needing revision would quickly become apparent and action taken in Parliament (repealing the fixed term parliament act would greatly facilitate this.)

      Likewise the EU should be left to develop its new path independently of UK. Only after a period of adjustment, perhaps several years, should UK contemplate from the calm perspective of distance any further entanglement with the EU. We may well find we don’t need the EU at all. Whereas rushing into a new association agreement while still constrained by whole or partial membership rules and without the clarity of hindsight will almost inevitably result in a bad deal for Britain.

  20. Poorer Proletarian
    January 2, 2017

    “Our Revolution” by Bernie Sanders ( Hillary Clinton’s running mate ) is out . I’ve read the first page or so… he speaks of how he was brought up in a three and a half room apartment 1941 onward and how crowded it was. His father, had a telephone call just after the war in the middle of the night. He was surprised.
    Meanwhile, My sister was born 6 years after Bernie but here in the UK and when she was 17 she lived in a council house, the first home our parents had FROM that year she was 17..Lodgings prior to that ..sharing everything with other families. A phone call in the middle of the night would have been a surprise indeed ..even when she was 17, not a private phone in the street.
    Poverty is relative and Bernie Sanders’ relatives didn’t know how lucky they were….back in the, back in the, back in the USA. He doesn’t either. But that is life and a guy who writes “Our” Revolution as the title but there is only the one name under it , his, the “Our” must be in the index in alphabetical order. All those nameless bookless working class people..most of whom voted for our Donald Trump.

  21. Mark B
    January 2, 2017

    Good morning.

    Changes to the rules regarding the classification of silt in rivers as waste. That way we can dredge our rivers and not have all the flooding we have been seeing that is a direct result of EU interference.

  22. fedupsoutherner
    January 2, 2017

    Lets’ keep it simple. Yes to all those suggestions John.

    The other big thing I would like to see is us repealing the climate change act.

  23. gpmgroup
    January 2, 2017

    It would be good to get rid of the standing charges on energy bills too. The ‘simplification of tariffs ‘ by the last administration placed a hugely disproportionate burden on those least able to afford it.

    I appreciate there are very small niche players offering tariffs where the costs are included in the units purchased but the most vulnerable are totally unaware these options even exist.

  24. Bert Young
    January 2, 2017

    VAT regulations stipulated and directed by the EU should be scrapped immediately ; I don’t see any sense in phasing in any sort of delay ( same applies the the Letter !! ). Above all is the need to free ourselves from the EU restrictions on being able to rid ourselves of the unwanted criminals and other individuals who have been sheltered under the umbrella of the EU Court of Human rights .

    As a fervent believer in free trade with the world the sooner we move to obtain this status the better ; there are many imports from poorer nations that are handicapped by EU restrictions . The CAP has been an unrealistic shield and we should escape from its tentacles .

  25. Monty
    January 2, 2017

    The Large Combustion Directive. It’s too late for my neighbourhood, we already lost a major plant and the jobs that went with it. But we need to be clear of the current capacity peril.

    Then strip away all the dreck that’s been loaded onto our banking and insurance sectors over the years.

    End the restrictions on landfill. Put our waterways back into the charge of the National Rivers Authority and end the obsession with re-wilding zones that people’s houses are built in.

    That’s just a start.

    1. Mike Wilson
      January 2, 2017

      End the restrictions on landfill

      Why? Do you want to leave a world behind you full of holes in the ground with your mess in it? Why would you want to do that? I am perfectly happy to try to recycle as much as possible and to sort waste so that it is not wasted! As far as possible.

      I don’t understand people like you. You seem to think we should get our energy in as dirty a manner as possible – by burning coal, gas and oil and hang the consequences – and by consuming and wasting as much of the earth’s resources as possible by sticking them in a hole in the ground when you are done with them.

      Whether climate change is happening or not is not relevant. We ought to be a bit more intelligent that just burning carbon to get energy. And it is just plain common sense not to pollute the planet we live on.

  26. John Finn
    January 2, 2017

    and wanting to change the EU decisions which had led to substantial rebates of Corporation Tax for some big companies.

    John This is a bit vague. Could you provide more specific details. I don’t think I’d get away with saying “EU decisions which had led to substantial rebates of Corporation Tax for some big companies.” in a Brexit discussion at the local pub.

    I’m not trying to be awkward but, like many of us, who are in favour of leaving the EU, I often engage in ‘debate’ with people who voted remain – including family members. It helps if we can point to specific facts.

    E,g. the case about grouping continental losses against UK profits for certain muktinationals

    1. John Finn
      January 2, 2017

      E,g. the case about grouping continental losses against UK profits for certain muktinationals

      Ok – thanks.

  27. Bob
    January 2, 2017

    1. Repeal the EU Arrest Warrant
    2. Any further additions to RoHS should be applied only to goods manufactured or imported after the 18 month notice period

  28. EU tour operator
    January 2, 2017

    The dilemma for Remoaners was always denying Brussels made our laws and then trying to justify Brussels’existence.

    It still is. Just as soon as you accuse Brussels of having done something even mildly controversial they deny it was ever their responsibility. It was Mr Nobody in their book. They invalidated decades of work of Labour politicians and trade union leaders who seemingly did nothing whatsoever for workers Rights but instead relied on a European dictatorship to underpin that workers have to be paid for the work they do.

    We really do need to repeal whatever regulation or law which sees certain people in say a town tripping off on various meetings to Europe where they discuss with other “delegates” all kinds of stuff which we never hear about. Some of them have relations in Europe so it amounts to a free expenses paid trip to get there. Convenient. But they do speak bits of the language you see.Very useful.Except there is no result for their work. No-one knows what they are for. I’ve met two in one town who do that. Then we have a kind of half-EU half-doesn’t involve the EU twinning of towns and cities with no doubt regulations or some kind of guidance as to what they are for. Well, Councillors have had a few free holidays and I guess our tax-payers money for Education has funded more free trips for those organising stuff. Yes , it should go a long way to stop hostilities and aerial carpet bombing by the UK of France in the future if we arrange for a 15-man band of trombone players to go blow their horns in Lyon in an old people’s home. Need to send a committee to discuss the trip first of course over a banquet with Lyon town council and it is only polite to invite their civic leaders and their families to stay perhaps in some teachers training hall in the UK when it’s the summer holidays and the students will have all scarpered back to their parents’ homes.
    We could pay down the national debt if we disbanded the local EU mini-gravy train.

  29. Antisthenes
    January 2, 2017

    There are many rules and regulations that would automatically no longer apply once we exit the EU even if we only go as far as EFTA/EEA membership(not desirable but the fail safe position) . Also being able to decide on so many more matters that have hitherto been the remit of the technocrats in Brussels must be the crowning glory of Brexit. Remainers would not have us break our shackles that EU membership imposes upon us.

    They fail to recognise that free trade and cooperation can be better achieved by need and persuasion as they believe it can only be done by coercion. The former is done by assent and allows it to change as circumstances change. The latter is the argument that only dictatorship can ensure the populace does what is best for them. True the populace is fickle and sometimes act perversely and do not always act in their own best interests. Democracy dictates that governments are obliged accept that situation. We have the political process to persuade the populace to act differently. It has it’s serious flaws which I will come to later. Dictatorships are no less fickle and perverse often more so.

    So retaining freedom to choose and self determination is by far better than any method that imposes a particular vision, ideology or dogma. Something progressives, socialist and the EU fail to understand. They cynically use the democratic/political process to persuade the populace to take a course of action and then exploit it by institutionalise it and removing democratic elements from it so that which they cannot get by persuasion they can impose.

    When we joined the EU 40 years ago we were persuaded to do so because the truth of it was withheld. Ever since the EU has never done anything by consent. A classic example of how if you give these type of people any power over us they go onto exploit it and build upon it.

  30. Peter D Gardner
    January 2, 2017

    It’s all BGO. Did the Project Fear protagonists really think we were so thick?

    One thing Mrs May should include in her Article 50 letter is that EU public Procurement rules will cease to apply with immediate effect to any UK major project planned to complete two years or later after the date of the letter. She should also point out that many issues are for the UK to decide, eg. rights to UK waters under UNCLOS and are not EU business, immigration rules are for bi-lateral agreement and not EU business unless tied into an EU issue like access to the single market etc. etc.

    She should also say that UK will decide on a case by case basis whether to accept any forthcoming EU policies, decisions, directives or regulations and in return will not participate in discussions or votes on them if considered not to be in Britain’s interests. Plus a list of directives issued but not yet implemented in UK law, eg., the ports directive, which UK will not enact.

    All these and many other matters can be agreed by an exchange of letters, an MoU or other convenient formality, without waiting for an entire package to be agreed.

  31. Denis Cooper
    January 2, 2017

    I think a Part of the Act must explain very clearly how EU-derived laws will be repealed or amended, after careful separate consideration of each one of course. An EU law which has been implemented through an Act can only be dealt with through another Act, any attempt to do it through a lesser measure could rightly face legal challenge. On the other hand an EU law which has been implemented through a Statutory Instrument could presumably be repealed or amended through either a new Statutory Instrument or a new Act. But it is going to get more complicated in the many cases where an EU law with direct effect has been implemented in the UK without any process at all in Parliament, either through administrative orders or court judgments. We don’t want it to become an endless struggle to defeat legal challenges, it needs to be sorted from the start.

    1. Peter D Gardner
      January 3, 2017

      The argument by Remainers and many Leavers such as Richard North and Christopher Booker is that UK needs to go through every EU derived law and decide whether to keep it, amend it or repeal it. They say therefore UK should join EFTA and EEA. There is no such need. Once the UK is independent it will become clear quite quickly what legislative action is required to facilitate UK’s development as an independent thriving nation.
      Staying in the EEA will blur the boundaries between EU legislation, past and future, that applies or does not apply to UK. The EU would classify as much legislation as it can as ‘Single Market’ in order to stymie UK.
      Another complication is that many EU regulations (as opposed to directives) have not been included in UK law either by ministerial or parliamentary action. They nevertheless apply to UK while it remains a member of the EU.
      The key is to have a clean break – no interim deal (in reality only partial withdrawal) – and set a datum by enacting in UK law all current EU law (except for a few outstandingly bad items), remove UK from ECJ jurisdiction, repeal the ECA72 and then focus on development of the UK as an independent sovereign nation. Requirements for change will quickly become apparent.
      the clean break can be enacted very simply around the simple statement, “All EU law extant on [date to be decided] is hereby enacted into the laws of the United Kingdom with the exception of the directives and regulations listed in Schedule XXXX.”

      1. Denis Cooper
        January 3, 2017

        There’s a distinction to be made between:

        a) A treaty where the agreed end point is intended by all the parties to be an enduring settlement, but including transitional provisions to allow enough time for everybody to adapt to the planned changes as they come in over a period of some years; and

        b) A treaty where the agreed end point is not intended by all the parties to be an enduring settlement but instead is planned to serve just as an interim or temporary arrangement, a transitional state, which treaty could quite possibly include transitional provisions for moving to that transitional state before then moving on to another phase through a new treaty.

        There is nothing unusual about including transitional provisions in a final treaty, case a), in fact it is commonplace; for example when the EEC was first set up the six countries allowed themselves twelve years to establish their Common Market, according to a schedule written into the treaty, and similarly when the UK joined the accession treaty included transitional provisions running for various numbers of years, and so too with all the later accession treaties when other countries joined.

        But case b), preferred by North and Booker with their multi-stage plan for withdrawal from the EU, is not quite so common and there will always be the risk that the process never gets beyond the first stage

  32. Lifelogic
    January 2, 2017

    It seems Lord Patton is against T May’s reform of Universities allowing more institutions to be formed.

    True loads of UK universities offer worthless joke degrees and employ some dire lecturers but we all know this. Surely it is a case of caveat emptor and make the student pay if they want one of these worthless degrees.

    Patton the current chancellor of Oxford University seems to be leading the charge he seem worried by the competition. Patton was appointed to chair the BBC trustees, perhaps the first sign that Cameron was certainly clearly going to be a dire, pro EU, greencrap lefty.

    Needless to say he was rather less than a success at the BBC and very expensive too.

    Some Lords even want the universities to be barred from striving for profits – I assume they prefer the institutions to go bust. Do they not realise that profits are needed to reinvest to do the job of education. Is Oxford University just scared of the competition perhaps?

    Even Oxford University has inflicted very many airhead, lefty dopes onto the world who have done huge economic damage worldwide. Especially people who have read PPE, Law, Economics, Geography, Theology and Religion and Modern History I find.

    A few of these people are solid but rather a low proportion I find. Just look at the dire PPE list below.

    Cambridge Economics has a rather poor record too.

    1. Lifelogic
      January 2, 2017

      And of course the LSE.

  33. John
    January 2, 2017

    There is a trend in that the Euro has lost value against other major currencies like the Yuan and Dollar.

    We have seen the same in Sterling but not as much as the Euro.

    This trend also doesn’t apply to many other currencies like the Kenyan Shilling or Indian Rupee where the value has held.

    In other words with those countries that we trade a lot with the EU is devaluing us and to a greater extent, those in the Euro.

    In fact the US Dollar has seen an increase over 5 years say against the Yuan whilst Sterling and, to a greater extent the Euro, sees a decrease.

    The EU is the common denominator and suspect regulation and the rest has something to do with it.

  34. Roy Grainger
    January 2, 2017

    Labour’s persistent claim that the Tories are going to weaken workers rights as a direct consequence of leaving the EU only makes the slightest bit of sense if they think there is never going to be a Labour government again at any time in the future where they could grant them again. Well, they may be right. Of course if the EU takes a right-ward lurch in future with Germany/France/Italy electing “populist” (a term of abuse on the left) governments then how happy would Labour be to stay in ? Not very.

    1. British Spy
      January 4, 2017

      Local Labour controlled areas are very lax in the application of health and safety rules and laws in areas they consider their own domain. But hammer certain companies if it fits their general strategy with union reps overactive..One Authority I know, regularly put pressure via and in partnership with its Corporate trades union on ordinary union members who complained or even mentioned violations. Suddenly they were the ones picked for redundancy. I saw this happen to two people less than three weeks after they mentioned something at a corporate union meeting and angrily said “something should be done.” They also get their Corporate union officials to “campaign” with a view to possible strike action by going round each member getting them to fill in their name and whether they are in favour of the possibility, theoretically, in future of striking. “Union” members are very gullible as they do not know about the nature of Corporate trades unions as opposed to real trades unions believing the questions don’t go right to the Labour Authority. the people who make the decisions on future redundancies. I have seen this done, and heard what happens several times. I get about. I am a spy:-)

  35. NA
    January 2, 2017

    Please can we ignore the EU cookie regulations law, which restricts my click through rate to sales on my websites.

  36. rose
    January 2, 2017

    The BBC skeleton staff let another unorthodox figure on to the airwaves today: Gerard Coyne told us on the World at One that we were coming out of the EU, out of the Single Market, taking back control of our borders, and that employers could no longer rely on free movement of people to give them cheap labour and avoid training their own people. He said we must not waste the two years but get on and train people ourselves. Not a mention of regulations or workers’ rights being lost.

    1. Taxing Times
      January 4, 2017

      When we are not in the EU an employer can apply for permission to the government each year, possibly easily renewable annually once granted, to advertise abroad for someone to pick his carrots. But if he moves to a farming area where the crop is a crop requiring little manual work and then decides to plant a daft crop which requires workers which are not readily available then that farmer should be told NO unless he pays a tax for every individual foreign worker imported. The more local workers he employs , the less tax he pays.
      Nothing complicated about Brexit. Just Remoaners moaning having had bad beer probably the night before. The tax would not allow the net outflow in wages and tax to exploit cheap foreign labouring human beings.

  37. E.S Tablishment
    January 2, 2017

    How many times does Corbyn need to be elected as leader? Once, and eleven months later he had to fight for election again. Won massively. Again. Two minutes later, today, we find another “important” person casting “serious doubt” that he should be leader of the Labour Party.
    Also, his “comrades” question the Leave vote as meaning anything at all.

    We live in an era where a democratic vote is thought invalid before the ballot takes place, when it takes place, during its taking place ,and even after it has…. taken place, literally the very next day.

    So Corbyn may not get into power heading a Labour government. Not the point. The Lib Dem leader will never get into power. Not the point.He too is allowed to have silly unworkable puerile ideas.

    It is in the honourable tradition of Labour and LibDem leaders to talk daft. For them to speak sensibly and level-headingly would not reflect the mindsets of the majority of their members. That is democracy. The Party Leader should reflect the membership first of the Party members and then present in his or her personification that communal view to the greater electorate to see if they agree via a vote. Anything else..such as “moving to the centre-ground” like someone gone completely Blairy would be electoral fraud. Anti-democratic! Non-British! Alien!

  38. I live at work
    January 3, 2017

    So rail fares amount to 14% of a Londoner’s salary? Isn’t that the folly of putting all your eggs in one basket? As a non-Londoner I have found the commuter times inside London as weird.
    There must be a way of regulating companies perhaps through their taxes of just how long it takes their staff to get on site.

    Companies and indeed government seem to look at economics in bits, nicely configured units of production. I know, it’s an old view, but we need to get away from the idea that a company and the environment in which it lives, has made a great profit when more than 5% of the wages of its staff ( not counting their human time ) is. thrown down the toilet of travel

    1. 37/6
      January 3, 2017

      The fact is that government has been subsidising rail travel for a long time. Over the last decade it has reduced subsidy from 50% to 25%. This is why ticket prices have gone up. Not because of ‘rail improvements’ as operators keep saying.

      Our cities are now well overcrowded. This is why commuting distances have also gone up.

      Workers would not need to commute if only they’d accept the small-home lifestyle that their wages truly afford within close proximity of their work.

      The fact is that we are in denial that our wages have not kept up with the true cost of living. Better rail services can be found in the EU but along with them higher rates of income taxation.

      I was in a recent debated with someone who complained that their Cheltenham to London season ticket cost £8,600 a year, which is a lot of money. It worked out at 16 pence a mile.

      1. Wah?
        January 4, 2017

        16p a mile. Just think if one or two others were travelling the same way it would cost very much less.

  39. Not gone yet not yet
    January 3, 2017

    The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP has tweeted

    “Grant Shapps ‏@grantshapps 6h
    About to discuss today’s plan for more Garden Cities on @BBCNews. It’s a good start, but must be more than just calling a place Garden City.”

    I saw him on telly too. He is not a person who is famous for being famous like some faces we see on the box who are vaguely familiar but we cannot recall just which movie or show we ever saw them in.

    He seems to say we should go on building and building for ever.
    First time I have heard this one:–
    “There are some places which actually need more people”

    Yes, Canada.

  40. Lindsay McDougall
    January 3, 2017

    Let us suppose that we place a ban on ALL permanent immigration for at least the next 20 years. Admission and residential rights would be controlled by a system of annual permits, renewable annually. Decisions would be made by the Home Secretary, whose decision would be final. None of this appeal process that takes away some of our sovereignty and lines the pockets of the parasitic legal profession.

    If that were done, we wouldn’t need the minimum wage and a vast array of employment protection laws. Market forces would do the job for us. Nor would we need a plethora of State sponsored apprenticeships. Because cheap foreign labour wouldn’t be available, companies would have to invest in technology and in training up Brits. In short, they would have to use labour intelligently.

    During our negotiations with the EU, we need to state that, while harmonisation has to apply to what is made, there is no need to harmonise how things are made. Why should the EU control our employment and health & safety laws?

    As for the deregulation you would press for, you are spot on.

  41. Freeborn John
    January 4, 2017

    It is vital the “Great Repeal Bill” (GRB) only translates EU law as it stands on brexit-day into domestic law. The EU and its supporters in the UK will want the ongoing automatic transposition of all new and changed EU law into UK law as happens in the EEA countries leaving them “fax democracies” subservient to the EU aquis and locked into ever closer union. I expect this to be the major aim of the “Remoaners” in their amendments to the GRB so it would be worth nipping it in the bud early and repeatedly.

Comments are closed.