Double standards – no democracy on EU matters

Most people in the UK currently pay for and take instructions from at least  three or four governments – EU, UK, County, District or Unitary Council.  Many also have Parish Councils.

One of the reasons people voted to get rid of one of the layers of government is that we have too many competing layers, seeking more money and imposing more rules on us than are needed. Sometimes the competing layers seek to achieve different things or impose contradictory rules and requirements. Defra, the Agriculture Department, often lost cases in the ECJ because they found it impossible to implement EU policy in a way which did meet with the satisfaction of the European Court. They were trying to comply!

One of the odd things about UK Opposition politicians and the media that feeds off them was the complete absence of any informed opposition to the EU government whenever the Conservatives were in office. All the government had to do was to claim some law, payment or decision had come from Brussels, and the Opposition parties backed off. They either acquiesced in not even debating it, or they went through perfunctory motions of asking a few polite questions and then voted with the government or abstained  so the measure could pass. Bill Cash, aided by a few good Labour MPs who did wish to probe and question, led his European Scrutiny Committee to require the important issues to be debated in the Commons chamber itself. These debates were usually peopled by a stalwart group of Eurosceptics pointing out the problems or undesirable features to a disinterested House. Government Ministers whichever side was in office always sought to make the debates low profile and could avoid answering any difficult question, safe in the knowledge that there was always a front bench consensus so they would win easily any vote we forced . The media rarely covered them, on the grounds that government and the official opposition both supported whatever measure it was.

This lack of democracy on EU matters allowed Ministers to push through a vast library of new laws and controls, and large amounts of public spending with effectively no democratic check or balance. Whole areas of government, from fishing and farming, through the environment, to trade, energy and business received this treatment. The EU was  brilliant at extending the acquis by increasing the occupied field -their language for the process of establishing their dominance in area after area. Once the EU had legislated on a  subject, the UK Parliament then had to leave it alone or work round the EU laws and rules, never contradicting or modifying them in unapproved ways.

It will take years for successive Parliaments to review and modify where it wishes what was done in our name without our proper consent. Legislation and decisions are better for a probing and sometimes hostile opposition forcing Ministers to think things through and sell them to the public as necessary and desirable. EU laws were pushed through on a vast scale in a lazy way. It meant many people in our country had little idea just how much is now controlled by the EU, and how little room for change the UK has all the time it accepts this legal framework.

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

82 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    Exactly, it is an absurd form of government, lots of levels very often fighting against each other. All funded by tax payers who get nothing but inconvenience, damaging uncertainty and the bill.

    The Government’s main aim (if they actually want better productivity as they claim) should be to get out of the way, reduce the levels and size of government, reduce the levels and arbitrary nature of the courts, reduce the number of lawyers, tax accountants, regulation, HR and other “red tape” experts and all the other layers of essentially parasitic non jobs.

    What sensibly run company would fund one department to have expensive arguments with others in the same company (thus damaging their profitability). Yet this is exactly what government does all the time. The government (soon hopefully to be parliament again) need to set the direction and stop all this waste.

    In health we have a huge financial battle between LEA’s, the NHS, GP’s and others pushing patients form pillar to post rather then treating them. All costing a fortune and benefiting few but bureaucrats.

    • Hope
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      JR, you make a powerful argument why the liblabCon are different cheeks of the same arse and that there is no difference between them. This why the public is fed up and want real change. Sadly we see Osborne and his ilk still speaking treacherous bile and learn Cameron tried to get a dissenting EU editor sacked. Osborne should have been sacked or the public having a proper right to recall- the same for those voting against the public wishes who elected them! Drain the swamp.

      Thankfully UKIP forced the EU referendum, that none of the liblabCon wanted. Enoch Powell was right in 1975 the public did not know what they were voting for and when they realize, which might take years, they will want their country back. He was smeared by the establishment like Farage today. Jim Prior sitting next to him wanted him to shut up- obviously to continue the con on the public with Willie Whitelaw and Heath.

      The so,union to your blog, We need radical reform of parliament and wholescale clearout.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        Google “enoch powell dec 1976 a prophecy” he was spot on. As he was in his predictions over the likely outcome of Scottish devolution.

        • Hope
          Posted February 6, 2017 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

          I watched his interview with Robin Day on the election night in 1975. Very intelligent man who the establishment was eager to smear in the eyes of the public to make him appear a maverick or lone wolf. He was acutely intelligent and knew exactly what the treacherous Heath and co were doing. The interviewers, try as they might, could not get the better of him. A sad loss.

          Compare with Theresa May and you see what a poor choice we have as a PM. Again brought about by Tory subversive behaviour.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted February 6, 2017 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

            Indeed.

  2. Lifelogic
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    “Tories break with Thatchers home policy” says the Observer today.

    Totally wrong as is usual from the Guardian/Observer stable. The person who was attacking tenants & landlords massively was George Osborne (now continued by Philip Hammond). The extra 3% stamp duty, the taxing of profits that are not even being made, the restricting buy to let mortgages through bank regulation. Each of which reduces the supply of rental properties, decreases choice and thus pushes up rents.

    Thatcher actually gave tax relief (under the old Business Expansion Scheme) to investors providing properties for rent to increase the rental supply. She sensibly wanted both options available and to let the customers choose.

    It seems we are to get a white paper on Tuesday. Given Theresa (Miliband) May I assume it will be damaging, interventionist, government know best, lefty, red tape pushing, counterproductive stupidity. We shall see.

    • graham1946
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      We must build more houses people can actually afford to buy.

      The trouble with renting is that it is for ever and even though you may pay as much or even more than having a mortgage you never own a single brick.

      This is a time bomb waiting to go off, because once people retire and lose their incomes, relying on ever more depreciated pensions, ripped off by the insurance companies, they will not be able to pay ‘market rents’. Will Landlords lower their rents when this happens? Of course not, it will fall to the government of the time to bail the tenants out and continue filling the pockets of landlords. We need a new way of financing house buying. If you can afford to rent, you can afford to buy – just the system needs changing for the new century. Renting is out of date.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        Renting is far better for people who only want something short term, or if prices are stagnant or falling. Perhaps as they may need to move for work, or perhaps they will want something rather bigger soon. You either rent the home or you borrow (i.e. rent) the money to buy one you pay rent or you pay interest. With high stamp duties, legal costs, land registry fees, agents fees, valuations, abortive costs, …… the cost of a buy and sell can easily end up at 10-20 % which is quite a lot of dead money. You also have insurance, & maintenance to pay and are tied in until you can sell.

        Less than perhaps 8+ years it is often cheaper to rent.

        • graham1946
          Posted February 6, 2017 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

          Possibly, for the short term, but at the moment people are looking to rent because they cannot get mortgages, and not enough houses are being built by a long way, so it means long term, even though they have to pay the equivalent monthly price of a mortgage. So your 10-20 percent ‘dead money’ is 100 percent dead money to them with absolutely nothing after 25 years or more, but ever bigger rents. When exactly do house prices fall or are stagnant? Once only, in the 80’s, but soon made up.

          Once on the rent trap, people can seldom raise the money for a big deposit. With what you say, how do you BLT people make any money? You have all the costs, but they are met by the tenants and then some, pretty obvious.

          We need to get the banks and building societies out of the way and provide a better finance alternative so people can buy at rental prices without the hoops to go through. The Tories have a visceral hatred of council housing, so that won’t happen but they could instead put up the money for people to borrow and get more houses built. Won’t happen of course, too many vested interests for them to do something socially useful to help out. The JAM’s had a short life span from when the Great Ditherer promised to help to when she hit them with big Council Tax rises.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted February 6, 2017 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

            Indeed we need to build more or have fewer people.

          • anon
            Posted February 6, 2017 at 11:56 pm | Permalink

            I wonder if someone could give the average build cost of a new apartment in an average sized large bloc by a volume builder? or the rebuild cost or insurance value.

            Why are we not centrally contracting large volume builders to produce decent larger sized apartments, but high rise and then sell them via a public auction to those who do not own more than one property (excepting a transition period).

            They could be built near high density rail stations, possibly above them.

            The freeholds should be vested in the occupier owners e.g. common-hold and not be allowed to be held offshore.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Stamp duty under Thatcher was a maximum of 1% and not the absurd 15% as currently. Turnover taxes at these levels are hugely damaging to the economy and raise less money too. Well done again Osborne! The main object to affordable housing is the government as usual.

      • Anonymous
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

        I see the Redwood request on multiple postings has already gone for a Burton.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Don’t forget that Mrs Thatcher stopped councils reinvesting income from the sale of council property under “Right to Buy”.

      Is this why there is a shortage of council housing?

      Reply Not so, Councils could reinvest proceeds of sales, but did gave to repay any mortgages they had on the homes

    • Hope
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      She assured Miliband her climate changes will go further than his! the Climate Change Act needs to be scrapped not enhanced. Complete idiots, how does she invasion this will help industry by having a ludicrous energy policy particularly as we leave the EU? Again, giving the EU advance notice and strengthening their hands.

  3. Bernard from Bucks.
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    Review and modify, you say, but I have a sneaky feeling that not much will change. Once things have been implemented someone will say “it’s far too expensive to reverse it”.
    Maybe a relaxation in fisheries and agriculture, but not much done in other areas.
    I’d be interested to hear what is going to be done in the area of Defence. It seems we are carrying on with helping to form an EU ‘army’, still sharing everything with the French.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

      A good approach would be what Trump has implemented, if a department wants to introduce a new regulation they have to repeal two existing regulations at the same time.

  4. Mick
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/04/brexit-bill-rebellion-row-erupts-eurosceptic-claims-27-tory/
    Who are these MPs, name and shame any one who is against us leaving the dreaded eu, I can guess who one of the leaders of them is and she is female with blonde hair, plus it’s getting abit like crying wolf went they insist they recognise the leave vote, no they don’t they carn’t except it, well tough I’ve said it before if you love the eu that much then pack your bags and catch one of the transports to Europe , bye bye you’ll not be missed

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      Another is Ken Clarke. Once an affable fellow but doing his now exaggerated reputation no good by pursuing project fear to Majoresque proportions although he thankfully has been quiet of late. Regrettably Mr.Clarke and Ms Soubry now rank with SNP leaders as the biggest turnoffs for me. Being in political denial repeatedly is increasingly tedious, counter and non productive.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:16 am | Permalink

      I suspect there will be rather more than 27 given that the vast majority of Tory MPs were strongly for remain before UK independence day.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      Dear Mick–Yes, it is all a bit of a joke and now one reads that whatever we do we must make sure that the rEU stays in place and thrives because that will make them wealthier and “wealthy people make good customers” (Mr Hannan). There might be something in that if there were much chance they would treat us the same way, especially as on a net basis they are our customers not the other way round, but I see little of that–instead they actively try to do us down. If the EU were to collapse I reckon that after a decent interval we would still sell the same to the reborn countries, perhaps more because the South would be able to pick themselves off the floor and buy more.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

        Postscript–Isn’t Trump’s and his new Ambassador’s approach simply marvellous. How wonderful to see the nobodies in the EU opening their mouths and making threats and their being unequivocally told to shove it. Said nobodies should try and grasp that the reason Trump doesn’t show respect is that he doesn’t have any–do they think he is making it up? Loathe the EU means loathe the EU.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted February 6, 2017 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

          Sorry–Should have read ‘we are their…’

    • Oggy
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      Hi Mick,
      When UKIP win the Stoke on Trent by election on Feb 23rd – it should concentrate a few minds in Westminster and remind them that WE will not forget any MP’s who try to scupper Brexit. They will be toast at the next General Election.

    • forthurst
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      The Tory Party has finally understood that once we leave the EU (and that of course means the Single Market as well), that the pitched battles and rebellions will end after forty years and the party will then present a united front as the one party government of the UK. This is not good for democracy either. When the ruling party becomes the effective government of this country for the first time in two generations, it becomes imperative that there is genuine opposition to them; this can only be achieved by proportional representation, the norm in practically every other country.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

      Probably right Mick.

      The one who wants to give the negotiating advantage to the EU – How is that in the British national interest Anna?…

    • M Davis
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Seems to me that the Conservatives will be toast at the next GE. It seems that most Politicians know nothing of how the EU was/is constructed. I suggest that Mrs May and the rest should take notice and read Booker (todays Telegraph) but especially, Dr RN North’s EUReferendum website. They might learn something but it’s leaving it a bit late in the day!

      • mike fowle
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

        North (and Booker) used to do a marvellous job exposing the lunacies of the EU, but nowadays North has become a bit of a laughing stock – everything is so complicated that only his giant brain can understand it, everybody else is a fool, and if we don’t listen to him we’re all doomed, I tell you, doomed.

  5. Prigger
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    Yes a recent interview was instructive of the former UK Ambassador to the EU Sir Ivan Rogers, in the Parliamentary Committee Chaired by Bill Cash MP .

    There, it was stated as true that as much as 80% of laws coming from some committee in Brussels were not scrutinised at all by MPs. They were rubber-stamped into our laws.
    In fact, MPs did not know anything about them or their very existence.

    Amazingly, quite senior Remainers in Bill Cash’s Committee appeared serene about it. Even though they knew they were on TV! They did not challenge or comment on it.
    Merely saying they were sorry we were leaving the EU as they believed it would be a disaster.

    When did Remainers have basic democracy and obviously but a mild liking for our Country throttled out of them?

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    David Beckham surely did richly deserve a knighthood (and Farage a Dukedom). But then I suppose he is male, white, able bodied, perhaps he did not donate enough to the right political parties. Also the powers that be always tend to see the beautiful game as being a bit working class.

    Then again when you see the dire quality of so many on the list does he really want to join them?

  7. agricola
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    Excluding yourself and a handful of other MPs, Parliament signed away our democratic rights over successive governments. Thanks largely to Nigel Farage the people gradually woke up to the fact. The fact was that government had allowed the EU to reduce all other forms of democratic expression to that of a parish council. In effect government abdicated, and was largely happy to do so.

    In the history of this act of submission the conservative opposition was just as willing as any labour opposition to take the EU shilling. It was in my judgement one of the greatest acts of betrayal by politicians that the UK has ever experienced.

  8. alan jutson
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    It will be interesting to see who and when some of these EU laws will be discussed and eventually cancelled.

    Another bonfire needed, but like the first, I doubt it will ever happen.

    Procrastination will win the day yet again.

  9. bratwurst
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:15 am | Permalink

    You are right – we have been very badly served by Parliament over at least the last 40 years (and probably much longer).
    The 35 ‘Chapters of the Acquis’ shows how much policy & decision making was handed over to the EU by our Governments & Parliament over the last 40 years, usually without our consent.

    We should ask ourselves what is the point in repatriating power & responsibility from Brussels only to hand it back to those institutions that gave it away in the first place?

    We should seek wholesale reform of our political system – now that would be the strongest reason for Brexit.

  10. DaveM
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    What we have is dictated democracy. When does England get to have a democratic choice? Why the arrogant presumption that everyone in England wants the U.K. to remain as is? We can’t even have proper EVEL. Why not press for a revision of Hague’s fudge? Why can’t England have a first minister?

    The extent of the democracy we have is decided by arrogant politicians. I was attracted to this site by its pro-English stance, but whereas the monumental decision to leave the dictatorial EU has been won by politicians like Mr Redwood, we are no closer to democracy for England, and the Scots, Welsh, and Irish are getting more and more of a say over U.K. and therefore English matters.

    We’re not asking for much – just EVEL at every stage and an English First Minister who can sit at the table when the other First Ministers are talking to the PM.

    • Posted February 6, 2017 at 12:24 am | Permalink

      Hear hear! You could say “Double standards – no democracy on English only matters’

      May has already had numerous meetings with the First Ministers of the devolved nations stressing she wants the voices of the devolved nations to be heard in the Brexit talks and their wishes to be taken into account. However she hasn’t had a meeting with an English First Minister because England is denied one. How can she listen to English concerns if a FM for England is not present in the discussions. She therefore insults the English by pretending these talks are fair as an English voice is excluded. England predominately voted LEAVE and now Sturgeon and Jones will have a chance to change a democratic vote by threatening to put the UK at risk if they don’t get their way. May has also said she wants to repatriate some of the powers won back from Brussels directly to the devolved Governments. As usual the E word wasn’t mentioned. All England is offered is the farce called EVEL.

      Sorry John but you could say 650 UK MPs have double standards and don’t know the meaning of democracy certainly not when it comes to England

  11. Geoff not Hoon
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:18 am | Permalink

    Don’t forget to add a National Park Authority to your list Mr. Redwood.

  12. Iain Moore
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    We never did find out who was blocking the energy deal for Port Talbot , whether it was the British Government or the EU. At least Brexit will make clear where the Buck stops. Unfortunately our 40 year entanglement with the EU means a large number of MPs have been voted into Parliament are frightened of responsibility and accountability, and find becoming the decision makers again is a really unwelcome imposition .

  13. Anonymous
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    We left the EU because governments blamed it all the time. I don’t think the average person is much interested in politics so long as the bins get collected.

  14. The Prangwizard
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    All this is so and with the seemingly endless and relentless opposition to Brexit from many, determined to undermine and reverse it, including I see this morning the unpleasant Soubry, it will if we ever get out take many years to reverse the damage, so the effort must continue.

    I have to say that Mr Redwood has had a tricky problem in his first paragraph. He writes we have EU, UK and then County. Why omit national? The answer is because how would he get round the fact that England alone has no representation or recogntion of national identity, and he opposes an English parliament.

    There can be no getting away from it.

    • Mark B
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      Good spot. I think our kind host should explain.

  15. Miguel Federico
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    Oh Dear!
    Statutory Instruments have at last been put in the spotlight!
    The opposition has – this time – got it right. We have to leave the EU and we also have to join EFTA and the EEA and to try and pull European countries in after us.
    M. Delors was quite right – before he changed his mind. We need a European village. Not a EUSSR.

  16. E.S Tablishment
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    What emerges, post Referendum, via the investigations of the Brexit team and through the work of Bill Cash and others is that both Remainers and Leavers were not informed of the true nature of the EU and its legal entanglements with our laws and representative democracy.
    Who is to blame?

    • hefner
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

      “Who is to blame?”
      What about successive governments, MPs and the media for having avoided for half a century to explain properly the real impact of the various decisions taken in Parliament?
      And I would bet we are not going to get any other referendum or more proportional representation soon.

  17. Ian Russell
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Worse still the EC & EP do not always pay attention to their treaties or understand them. In his appearance before the committee last week Sir Ivan Rogers made it all too clear that he conducted David Cameron’s negotiations on the basis of the appetite of the EU 27. He made no reference to the provisions to deal with economic imbalances within the community. In other words the EU is unable to face up to its problems and resolve them.

  18. Fred
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    You have put it quite well- “a disinterested House”. These are the people that are supposed to represent their constituencies and look after their interests. Instead we have a greedy, disinterested parliament that does nothing to help it’s tax slaves but merely rubber stamps regulations that are designed to extract more money or reduce freedom for working people. Perhaps you can enlighten me Mr Redwood, why exactly are we paying for rulers that do nothing for us?

    • Mockbeggar
      Posted February 6, 2017 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

      Actually, what is meant is ‘uninterested’. ‘Disinterested’ means even handed or unbiased.

  19. sm
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Perhaps it would be useful to suggest – perhaps even enforce – that Parliament spends 50% of its time from now on re-examining major tranches of legislation solely with the purpose of refreshing or revoking EU-imposed legislation?

    Well, one can hope.

  20. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    For years before we voted to leave the EU we were told that EU laws had little impact on our country. Now suddenly there is such a huge mass of EU laws, and so deeply entangled with every aspect of our economy and our lives, that it will take aeons to sort it out and therefore really it would be better if we changed our minds and decided to stay in after all.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      They don’t want to leave the country, they want to stay and fight hard for the cause of Parliamentary sovereignty, a cause of paramount importance which they have belatedly discovered and adopted since June 23rd 2016.

      A cynic might ask how they voted on amendments to affirm that sovereignty which were laid on past occasions. Such as this, Division No. 161 on January 11th 2011, on an amendment which would have inserted the words:

      “The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.”

      into the European Union Act 2011.

      https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110111/debtext/110111-0004.htm

      Ayes 39, Noes 314.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        That was intended as a reply to Mick.

  21. Mark B
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    All the government had to do was to claim some law, payment or decision had come from Brussels, and the Opposition parties backed off.

    And the reason for this is given below.

    Once the EU had legislated on a subject, the UK Parliament then had to leave it alone or work round the EU laws and rules, never contradicting or modifying them in unapproved ways.

    Not sticking up for anyone in opposition or any party but, none of this would ever have been the case if the UK had not signed the Treaty of Rome and, pushed it through parliament without ever telling or asking the people first.

    Only after we joined the then EEC was the people asked and, they were misled by the government and opposition of the day into believing it was a trading community and not a project to do away with national sovereignty and democracy.

    But we are where we are and, if we do indeed leave the EU then the Conservative Party would have corrected a terrible wrong. And I for one shall forgive them.

  22. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    The EU is an anti-democratic organisation determined to see the end of individual, national states. For years too many of our MPs have betrayed the people from whom they were temporarily entrusted with power by ceding authority to the EU. Their abject subjugation cannot end soon enough.

  23. LordBlagger
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Lords – they dictate.

    MPs – they dictate.

    Civil servants – they dictate.

    Minister – they dictate e.g. Statutory instruments.

    More and more politicians telling the population what to do.

    We’ve got rid of multiple layers, eu council, the eu parliament, the eu commission, the court, the court of auditors who have been about as crap as they come.

    Time to do the same in the UK. Lets start with the Lords.

    I’ve multiple state secrecy certificates, signed off by the Clerk of Parliament. Now for those that don’t know, he dishes out the expenses for the peers. We aren’t allowed to know how many days they used their passes to gain access to Westminster [sitting days], because I was going to compare that with their expenses. If we were to know it would bring the Lords into disrepute.

    So here’s something for you to do John. How about you ask that question and we will see if you get fobbed off, or they give you a state secrecy certificate?

    or perhaps its like pension debts. Not for the plebs to know

  24. turboterrier
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    it is reported in the DE on line today that Clark, Carmichael. Soubry and Morgan are looking to revolt against the vote of parliament and cause more trouble for the PM.

    Enough is enough call a GE and let push go to shove. Now is not the time to have no hopers and spoilt children throwing their dolls out of the pram because they lost.

    If they had any bottle they would have joined Clarke in voting against the bill.
    They should go back to their electorate and seek their support through the ballot box but not under the Conservative banner.

  25. turboterrier
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Like a lot of industrial management personnel, politicians have had a very easy ride in doing their job as they all carried a free get out of jail card as the implemented the rules forced upon them via the EU masters. No need to force issues or markets as it was explained away by “EU restricts us, cannot do that we will lose our funding”

    The whole Brexit scenario has now changed all of that and it is time for all those outward going lateral thinkers to step up to the mark and destroy the shackles that we have been subjected to for years. But the 40 year mindset will be hard to break down but it has to be removed for the taking of the opportunities that will become available. New blood is urgently needed the type that does not leave their brains on the gates when they come into work, no more than in Westminster itself.

    Not one remainer has highlighted that Greece are again struggling and what the knock on effect will be and what could possibly follow. It is the EU that are moving steadily towards the edge of collapse. When it happens as it surely will I wonder will we see the likes of Clarke and Soubry given the air time to still support their view that the electorate in 2016 got it wrong are still to be held accountable. Pathetic all of them. Sign on or ship out preferably to any place across the channel

  26. graham1946
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    The main reason is that most MP’s are pro EU and even now are trying to find ways of thwarting the will of the voters. This morning on Broadcasting House on BBC radio, a person, I think from France, anyway the EU, said his view was that we would not actually leave the EU and that the referendum but would trigger new thinking. He may be right. A fudge is coming.

  27. alte fritz
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 11:27 am | Permalink

    Very interesting point. Both the Divisional and Supreme Courts in the Miller case made a lot of Parliament formally enacting legislation stemming from the Treaties, but my recollection is that Parliament rubber stamped directives.

    In my own experience, legislation in the ares of employment and financial services, introduced more or less without amendment from directives, has given us statutes which contain incomprehensible provisions.

  28. Ken Larking
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    ‘It will take years for successive Parliaments to review and modify where it wishes what was done in our name without our proper consent’.

    Totally true but very few people seem to grasp the scale of the task let alone the massive significance of it. I would suspect a full parliamentary term of five years to address the major issues and a probably a further five years to extricate ourselves from the minutiae.

    It is imperative that we do it – not to do so would be to betray a very significant proportion of all those people who cast their vote to leave (including myself) but is there, at the moment, the political will in Parliament to do it? I doubt it and creating that political will is likely to be no easy task.

  29. formula57
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    And there is the EU Parliament, where rather than proper debate and open scrutiny provided for in a second reading, “closed-door deals are now the preferred method of law-making at the EU” with not a single bill reaching second reading in 2016, so says https://euobserver.com/institutional/136630 .

    The EU stands for a repudiation of democracy and it is appalling that it has been assisted in that by the front benches in our own parliament as you describe. Thank goodness for Brexit.

  30. Antisthenes
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    Governments are seen by most as a mechanism that best ensures our security and prosperity. Certainly they have a role in achieving that but they are not the means that is reserved for the citizens. Who individually and collectively through enterprise and innovation improve our existence. How governments are perceived is therefore wrong it puts too much importance on their role in society and has a far too high an opinion of their competence.

    Governments have been allowed to flourish, expand and multiply because we have given them so much credence. We notice the problems arising out of this arrangement and are at last recognising that the arrangement must be changed. Two schools of thought on how that should happen. One is that the arrangement should be strengthened and expanded the other that it should be rolled back. Those who love statism and therefore an Orwellian society prefer the former. Those who are for liberty and supremacy of the will of the people prefer the latter and as that is what has given us the wealth and civil rights that we enjoy today who can blame them for voting for Brexit.

  31. sunshine
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Takeover by stealth and design nearly succeeded in UK and may yet.
    Half of US is having a coup against same takeover .
    They need to send May a precis of what’s really going on.

  32. libertarian
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    We urgently need a complete total overhaul of our so called democratic systems. Starting with scrapping the unelected House of Lords, and the total removal of at least one more layer of local government .

    We need to move away from the 18th century “rotten boroughs” constituency system that we have as it no longer suits the 21st century and make great use of referenda as practised by the very successful Swiss .

  33. Chris
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    With regard to jettisoning EU legislation, it has been claimed by the UK fishermen apparently that May’s government is not going to help the UK fishing industry, and that reclaiming UK fishing rights and waters has been ditched and instead used as a bargaining chip. Do you have any further information on this, Mr Redwood? It would certainly go against one of the pledges of the Leave campaign.

    Reply I doubt that!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589191/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf

      “8.16 In 2015, EU vessels caught 683,000 tonnes (£484 million revenue) in UK waters and UK vessels caught 111,000 tonnes (£114 million revenue) in Member States’ waters. Given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry and the importance of EU waters to the UK, it is in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU’s fishing communities. Following EU exit, we will want to ensure a sustainable and profitable seafood sector and deliver a cleaner, healthier and more productive marine environment.”

      Well, let’s hope the balance of that “mutually beneficial deal” reflects the relative tonnages caught in UK and other EU waters, that is in a ratio of 6:1.

  34. Fairweather
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    I wish I could post your diary on Facebook. The remainers have no idea about all these issues

  35. Old Albion
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    You forgot to mention National Gov. too. You know the one the Scots, Welsh and N.Irish have but is denied to England.

  36. GAB
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Am 450575 in the waiting list !

  37. Ian Wragg
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    So we now have a 5th column in the Tory party trying to keep us in the EEA.
    EU by another name.
    What with Italy being bankrupt, Holland losing indigenous population on an epic scale and let Penn waiting to take over France. Just what is it that wants supposedly intelligent people shackled to the EU corpse.

  38. Roy Grainger
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    But of course the Labour party did not question EU laws because the vast majority of them matched their own socialist agenda. Hence their current claims that leaving the EU will damage workers’ rights – what they really mean is they want workers’ rights set by the EU so they can never be challenged whether Labour are in power or not, rather than in the UK parliament.

  39. ian
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Yes the new white paper on housing of 1 million affordable houses which will be mainly for rent and the money will come from cuts in services but the housing will not be for people hear living in temporary accommodation but for refugees and new workers from overseas for the elites businesses for if you come out of the eu and then after a few years it will come out in the news that there are same amount of people living in temp accommodation as before.

    You should know by now that elite politician in all parties only work for elite business interest with your money.

    • Mark B
      Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

      Yep !

  40. Chris
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    Could you give us your thoughts on the views expressed in this Andrew Neil interview, which are very much an extension of Project Fear? £30 or even £60 billion bill on leaving apparently, otherwise a legal quagmire.
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/763364/Andrew-Neil-fumes-30-billion-figure-UK-expect-pay-European-Union-Brexit

  41. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    Reading this today:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4192352/May-faces-Tory-revolt-cliff-edge-Brexit.html

    I can only conclude that some Tory MPs believe Theresa May is a complete idiot.

    Whatever happens we will not be going over any “cliff edge” when we leave the EU, not unless other EU leaders insanely decide to hurl their countries off the precipice and take us with them – in which case a Commons vote telling our Prime Minister to go back and make renewed pleas for them not to commit suicide would most likely be nugatory.

  42. Paul Cohen
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    There are two imperatives to be accomplished in the coming Brexit “talks”.
    Firstly by leaving the EU we can halt the present slow but nevertheless sure subsumation into a European Superstate. Secondly we would take over the controls of our own borders and decide our own policy .

    The EU should then be asked if trade should continue as before, if not then the imbalance in their favour would be replaced by WTO rules, them therefore having disadvantaged themselves.

    Anybody watching the last “Hospital” programme will have been incenced at the way we are being cheated by some other countries to arrange free treatment on the NHS.
    Watching the hospital official trying to get at least some contribution towards their treatment was dispiriting. Why don’t we deduct these eyewatering sums from the Aid Monies paid to these people?

  43. Chris S
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    There is precious little following of EU financial rules in the Eurozone, let alone here in the UK.

    When they come along demanding their outrageous €60bn bill in return for any kind of trade deal, we should just say that we will pay up when Germany starts keeping within the Eurozone 6% trade surplus rule. Currently they are distorting and damaging the whole structure by running a trade surplus of around 9% of GDP, 50% above the maximum allowed.

    It seems that Merkel operates on the basis of one rule for Germany but a completely different set for every other Eurozone member. No wonder the EU is in so much trouble when no EZ member dares to even question Merkel on the damage she is doing to her so-called friends.

  44. Margaret
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    Aer you saying that somewhere between the layers those who held pivotal positions were deliberately getting good salaries to let the EU walk all over them ?

  45. GAB
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Am in. That was worryingly quick.

  46. Felix
    Posted February 5, 2017 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

    JR,
    Slightly off subject, but I am puzzled why RBS is still required by the EU Commission to split off part of the bank, as a condition of receiving the rescue package from the UK government, when we will be Brexiting? Can you shed any light on this for me, please?

  47. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted February 6, 2017 at 2:30 am | Permalink

    But we – UK governments from both sides – DELIBERATELY delegated vast swathes of decision making up to the European Commission at the expense of our national parliament. It was no accident and we really can’t blame the EC and the ECJ for acting in their own interests. The real question for our UK politicians is how they failed to notice and react to the fact that the EU was morphing into a German empire. Nick Ridley noticed and warned you all as early as 1990.

    Now that we are leaving the EU, we need only two tiers of Government – national and local. Local government can be at District, County, or Unitary level (note: OR, not AND).

    With luck, in two generations we can abolish the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Stormont devolved parliaments, which were only created at the behest of those opposing the Union.

  48. keith
    Posted February 6, 2017 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    I agree to disagree with Mr Redwood here. When the Major government and followed by Blair contracted out vast swathes of public sector; Blair under his `best value for money` criteria they could have left well alone and we continue to receive good services with contented staff but the EU with its pages of legislation on tendering for these services which small UK operator has not time nor money to study and by default never bids to run services. The multinationals with departments set up to legally rob us of good services move in and therefore as free market exponent Mr Redwood has dilemma; to decide whether such company from EU; a lot of EU waste contractors run UK disposal for instance, can continue or mere fact they are based in EU, in future cannot bid?

  49. Juliet
    Posted February 6, 2017 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

    John Bercow needs a muzzle. Is this what they call Labour using their parliamentary sovereignty and pretogative powers, social media to ruin UK and USA telations is a huge mistake to make a personal point. Bercow is going too far now. This is damaging UK reputation

  50. Margaret
    Posted February 7, 2017 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

    Listening to this afternoons debate , I did detect an element of hysteria , however this is not surprising since we are about to take a giant leap into the unknown, Brexit is brave, however many brave people die in battle and as a fighter I welcome compromise rather than win or lose. From one step in the right direction a platform exists to renegotiate.

    The temporary transient arrangements that Dominic Raab referred to seem to be that sort of platform , but having to agree with our labour MP who has sat in the house for 17 years I would agree that to give up power to the executive is the wrong despotic way.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

    Promoted by Fraser McFarland on behalf of John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU

  • 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