In the EU we did not have any Parliamentary control over new EU laws

What a nonsense this row is about so called Henry VIII clauses.

All our current EU laws either were imposed direct with no reference at all to Parliament, or had to be voted through Parliament as Statutory Instruments in order to comply with decisions already made by Brussels. Thousands of EU laws became our laws with no opportunity for Parliament to debate and vote on them as draft Acts of Parliament. Parliament was warned it could not vote down SIs that were needed to implement Directives, and an alliance of the two main front benches ensured they always passed.

Now Parliament is debating at great length transferring all these laws into UK laws by a full Act of Parliament. Thereafter if we wish to change any of them we will be able to so, but again it will take a full Act of Parliament to do so. That is the restoration of the democratic control we voted for.

Because the draft Act says Ministers for a 2 year period may make technical adjustments so these laws still work in the way intended once they are Uk law by passing a Statutory Instrument Labour is wrongly saying this is not democratic.

The power will only be used for technical changes like striking out reference to other member states in what becomes a UK law, or substituting a UK’s court or other body to adjudicate or act where an EU institution does at the moment. Parliament will still be involved as any Statutory Instrument can be debated and voted on if the Opposition wishes.

It is embarrassing to hear and see so much airtime given over to this non story. Why did we never hear about the complete absence of democracy for all those laws the EU imposed on us? Why was it right to allow SIs for major changes to our law when it came from the EU, yet it is not even allowed to use SIs for technical changes to keep the purpose and effectiveness of the inherited EU law?


  1. eeyore
    July 17, 2017

    “Thousands of EU jaws became our laws . . . “. Was there ever a happier misprint?

  2. Peter
    July 17, 2017

    Remain are still making all the running in the ongoing battle for Brexit.

    A common theme these days.

  3. Mark B
    July 17, 2017

    Good morning.

    It is clear that the ‘Opposition’ just wishes to make things as difficult for the government as possible. But what about our country and its people ? Never before in modern times has it been necessary for both government and opposition to be more united. The EU made sure ALL 27 other members spoke with one voice and we should be doing the same.

    United we stand, divided ‘they’ rule !

    Question: Once this Act of Parliament is passed, from that point on, what happens to any new Directives coming from the EU ? Do they get ignored / debated in Parliament or, do they get adopted as before ?

    Parliament was warned it could not vote down SIs that were needed to implement Directives, and an alliance of the two main front benches ensured they always passed.

    An admission that those we elected colluded in what I view is the greatest fraud against the people of this country in its entire history. ie We were denied our democratic voice by the very people that we elected to speak for.

    For those that still think this is all about trade, money, immigration etc. I say not ! It is about the ability to govern ourselves and hold those we elect to account for the things they do and do not do at the appointed time in the political cycle.

    In truth, we are not much better that Greece.

    1. Mark B
      July 18, 2017

      Still in moderation. Why ?

  4. alan jutson
    July 17, 2017

    Its all part of the frustration plan to delay and complicate our exit from the EU.

    Why else would someone who wants to stay/remain in the EU refuse to transfer such laws which are currently on file which apply to us already, refuse such a transfer.
    You would think that is exactly what they would want to argue for.

    Of course when its transferred into UK law Parliament can scrap, modify or add to it, just as they do to all present laws if they think it needs such modification.

    I do wonder if some politicians actually want the responsibility they were elected to hold, if not then they should simply resign and make way for somebody who does.

    Politicians simply posturing at the Countries expense.

    1. nigel seymour
      July 18, 2017

      Agree totally, but be in no doubt that ALL anti-Brexit commentators will ramp up their rhetoric and vitriol towards pro-leavers. Suggest you get used to it.

      1. getahead
        July 18, 2017


  5. Bryan Harris
    July 17, 2017

    “Labour is wrongly saying this is not democratic”

    Labour do not understand democracy – they work with innuendos and falsities to wreck our society, then they use mob rule to get their way.

    I think we should always expect labour to lie and play dirty, while the Tories, generally speaking, act out and do the right thing.

    When are all Conservatives going to realise that labour are at war with the rest of us?

    If we let them into power now they will have won, and there may be no going back!

  6. agricola
    July 17, 2017

    You must question the motives of those who fail to see the good sense in this transfer of EU law to UK law. Providing ministers publish the changes that are made so that it is clear to everyone, and there is a short period to enable discussion before implementation, I see no problem. Those who wish to frustrate the process should be highlighted for what they are doing.

  7. James Neill
    July 17, 2017

    Because we joined the EU club way back freely and with our two eyes open therefore we were obliged to comply with the rules of that club- now we want out of the club so when we do get out we can change the laws any way we want to suit our own needs- simple

  8. Alan
    July 17, 2017

    EU Directives have to be approved by the Council (which consists of elected politicians from each country) and by the EU Parliament (which is more representative of the people than the UK House of Commons). That is where the democratic control of the EU lies, not in the House of Commons which should be concerned with UK domestic law.

    The UK is not in a good place to boast of democratic accountability. The House of Commons is unrepresentative of the people (look at the representation that UKIP and the LibDems had compared with the number of people who vote for them). The House of Lords is totally undemocratic and a disgrace to a modern state.

    Mr Redwood is confusing powers that he and his acquaintances have with democratic powers exercised by the people at large. Most of us live in “save seats” and cannot affect the composition of the House of Commons, and have almost no impact on the decisions taken by government. I accept that the House of Commons will have more power when we leave the EU, but the House of Commons is less democratic than the EU system.

  9. Andy Marlot
    July 17, 2017

    So on the one hand you complain (rightly) about EU laws being imposed on us by Brussels- mostly unnecessary, expensive and counter productive laws, and then you argue for transferring them into British law so they can be modified later. This is absurd. Why not simply do away with them? What is everyone so frightened of? Will the country turn into a war zone overnight because we’re no longer subject to stupid regulations? Will you neighbours burst out of their homes with machetes to kill you because the EU working time directive no longer applies? How did we get by before we were subjects of the Brussels empire? Do away with all the restrictive, pointless rubbish we have been saddled with now because we all know that once it is all in UK law nothing will be done to free us from the burden.

  10. Ed Mahony
    July 17, 2017

    I agree, i don’t think H VIII powers, here, is a big deal.

    However, if you say no big deal here, then why EU laws such a big deal?!
    Not forgetting, of course, that EU political union (flawed / excessive as it may be) is about preventing home-grown nationalism from destroying itself (like Germany in WW2), and destroying others (like Germany in WW2), or home-grown nationalism destroying everyone at the same time all over Europe (like WW1), or of home-grown nationalism destabilising Europe in general, whether it be in a small nation or large, not forgetting, also, how the EU is about building up the prosperity of Europe in order to strengthen peace + security on the continent as a whole, not forgetting how peace + security are very much tied up with prosperity).

    Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and so on haven’t gone away. They can easily resurface if the economic and political conditions are right. Brexit has nothing to say how on how it hopes to keep Europe economically stable as well as politically peaceful and safe over the next few decades. (Nor does it say how Europe is to stand up together against countries such as Russia, how we fight control migration from North Africa and the Middle East, how we successfully work together to defeat terrorism from outside and inside the EU, how we work together, closely, on big commercial projects we can’t do on our own, as individual countries, competing against large countries such as China and America).

    Reply EU laws were a huge deal as they drastically changed our law codes with no reference to Parliament or people. These powers are for technical changes only!

    1. Ed Mahony
      July 17, 2017

      Also, whilst Brexit will resolve some problems, it will also create new problems for the future. And the whole debate over the EU will go on for years and years and years. EU debate unresolved. The country still divided (even Brexiteers are divided over what Brexit is really about: 1. immigration 2. the economy 3. law and Parliament.) Not forgetting that in the Referendum, many leading Brexiters suggested the EU was not about leaving the single market but just the EU. Don’t believe me, then do Google search for, ”Open Britain Exposes All The Times Brexiters Promised We Wouldn’t Leave The Single Market’).

      If we will face problems both with remain and leave, at least with remain we:
      1) Don’t have to go through pain, for years, for new problems to arise, and we can focus on paying off our national debt, building up our economy, and getting on with bread-and-butter but important national issues.
      2) Most importantly, have the opportunity to reform the EU to our benefit (and no, it’s a myth that we’ve tried to reform the EU, we’ve only ever tried to get concessions from it). And now more than ever, the EU is ripe for reform. People throughout the EU want reform now more than ever. And many Brexiters would be OK with remaining in the EU as long as it were reformed.

      So we still have this great opportunity for our country – to having our cake and eating it by remaining in the EU with the EU reformed. Best of both worlds. Let’s think and act big for our country by grasping this great opportunity. But time is running out.

  11. oldtimer
    July 17, 2017

    The answer to the questions in your last question is clear. It does not suit the narrative of the Remainiacs or the Labour party which seeks at every turn to discredit the May government.

  12. Ian Wragg
    July 17, 2017

    What about todays latest. ECJ wants to continue fining us after we have left.
    No doubt they will find dozens of infringements real or imagined so we can be made to fill EU coffers.
    When is someone going to take Hammond and his traitorous mates to one side and have a word in his ear.
    Don’t you see the public are getting very annoyed at the posturing of certain MPs who are determined to overturn the referendum result.
    They would rather destroy the Tory party rather than disrupt the imperial ambitions of Brussels.

  13. Nig l
    July 17, 2017

    We have seen Labour’s position on student loans exposed as a lie and this is another. It is articles like these going on the attack that are needed. What is the new Director of Comms doing? HMG should be all over the media about the loans. What we don’t want and certainly don’t need is cabinet ministers acting like children promoting their own interests over the corporate good. It is pathetic and don’t deserve my vote. They are in the main in comfy home county seats so obviously ‘I will be all right Jack’ is the order of the day. Sod the members in marginals.

  14. Richard1
    July 17, 2017

    The Labour Party is all over the place on Brexit, perhaps it’s even intentional so they can preserve support from both Leave and Remain voters. Rebecca Long-Bailey – who admittedly does not seem to be very bright – was almost comically inadequate on these issues, interviewed by Andrew Neil. What a terrifying prospect that this woman would be Business Secretary in a Corbyn government!

    Meanwhile do we know who are the cabinet ministers who are walking straight out of the meeting giving verbatim quotes of discussion so as to undermine their colleagues? Of the reported suspects, the only one who should be viewed as remotely indispensable is Boris Johnson, and he would probably be better deployed as Party Chairman. I read somewhere that Andrea Leadsom still considers herself a potential replacement for Mrs May! Have such people no sense of the reality of their capabilities? Mrs May should make an example of at least one and boot them out. There are loads of far more capable people in junior ministerial ranks and on the backbenches.

  15. Norman
    July 17, 2017

    Well said, JR. This needs to be given maximum prominence in the media. It is a message I feel sure the vast majority of sensible people in Britain will wholeheartedly approve!

  16. Epikouros
    July 17, 2017

    Double standards and being irrational is natural behaviour in some elements of our society. So Labour being morally indignant and deploring the attempt to impose actions today that yesterday they quite happily indulged in themselves is no great surprise. To them it is all about expediency as they do not believe being fair and reasonable should impede their ambition to turn the UK into a progressive socialist Utopian state.

    A perfect example is Corbyn and Momentum are only in favour of leaving the EU not because it is in the best interests of the people of the UK but because the EU is an obstacle to them achieving their Marxist goals. Certainly the EU has many attributes that can only be described as socialist inspired hence the majority of the more moderate of the left wanting us to stay in but not nearly socialist enough for Corbyn and his lot.

  17. Count Lucre
    July 17, 2017

    “Why did we never hear about the complete absence of democracy for all those laws the EU imposed on us?”
    Why don’t journalists challenge 1/Ex-PM John Major, 2/Ex-PM Anthony Blair and 3/Ex-Deputy PM,Ex-MP Nicholas Clegg? Why did not they have the goodness to resign completely from politics? They could have gone to live in Australia or Canada where for all we know they have there properly functioning Parliamentary democracies. They could have made something of themselves.

  18. ChrisS
    July 17, 2017

    Opposition forces on all sides of both houses of Parliament are playing games at the expense of debate on things that really matter.

    I do not exclude Conservative members from this criticism either. There are persistent rumour in the press about 15 Conservatives in discussion with the Opposition to thwart the end of FOM and keep us in the Single market, for example.

    Our host called my raising this in a post as a “silly” comment but it doesn’t go away. It suits the usual suspects to make trouble for Mrs May and David Davies but I can’t believe that even those Conservative members would be so stupid as to go through with it. But it is destabilising and has a corrosive effect on the Government.

    Single Market and Customs Union MEMBERSHIP is, or certainly should be, a dead issue. The 27 are not going to waiver on this and Mrs May was right not even to attempt to make it an issue. Those like Clegg and Blair continuing this lost cause are just aiming to stop us leaving the EU. At least Blair is being honest about his intentions. They know only too well that the only important issue around the single market is ACCESS.

    Similarly this nonsense over the so-called Henry VIII clauses is a smoke screen to hide Labour’s obvious disarray over pretty well everything related to Brexit. As for the SNP, least said the better. Same applies to the waste of space that is Plaid Cymru. These regional parties bring nothing positive to the table about anything. All they are really interested in is getting their hands on even more English Taxpayer’s money.

    Sometime, a brave Prime Minister is going to have to stand up for England and say ENOUGH ! He or she will then put an end to the hated Barnett Formula and bring Scottish and Welsh expenditure under proper control.

    In all the years I have been following politics, I can hardly remember at time when the quality of debate has been worse.

  19. bratwurst
    July 17, 2017

    “substituting a UK’s court or other body to adjudicate or act ” – if, of course, such a body exists. In many cases it won’t as the EU institution will have replaced the UK one.

    As to the absence of democracy in accepting EU laws imposed on us, we can thank our parliamentarians over the last 40+ years who handed so much control of our daily lives to an unelected supranational government.

    Brexit needs to happen but not in a way that hands power & control back to the people who gave it away in the first place. They cannot be trusted with it.

  20. Brian Tomkinson
    July 17, 2017

    It is all part of the process of trying to overturn the result of the referendum. The Remainers can see no wrong with the EU. Anything from Brussels is fine with them. They increasingly question the validity of the referendum process itself even though Parliament has voted to trigger Article 50 and negotiations have begun. There should be no doubt that they didn’t get their own way, which they don’t like and not used to, and are still determined in effect to keep us in the EU.

  21. A.Sedgwick
    July 17, 2017

    Democracy seems to be being turned on its head since the EU referendum. Where is the real justification for this two year +? transition period from PH. It reminds me of tight business projects where the doubters are told meet the deadline or someone else will. Then we have a far from sure footed LF sort of agreeing with him. There are practical and administrative challenges which are surmountable by 3/2019, but there appears to be a sub plot by many current and ex politicians to delay our exit to the point of non exit, which clearly is not going away.

    As your piece says the passing for many years of endless directives on the nod from Brussels is a world away from the Parliamentary and legal scrutiny already taking place at Westminster and this will accelerate dramatically in total contrast to the closed shop of the Eurocrats.

  22. Chris
    July 17, 2017

    If this is true, it is unacceptable. We did not vote in Corbyn to help conduct negotiations:

    Jeremy Corbyn to join Brexit talks: EU negotiator Guy Verhofstadt in shock demand to May. GUY Verhofstadt has suggested Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn should join Theresa May’s Brexit negotiating team.

  23. Master of Disguise
    July 17, 2017

    Many MPs do not realise how upsetting it is for Electors to see them so intelligent, so educated, so loquaciously refined and accomplished. Upsetting as seeing Burt Lancaster playing Birdman of Alcatraz…based on a real person. Their Talents unapologetically with mixed metaphor buried in lies and, with aforethought in the unsaid.

  24. JoolsB
    July 17, 2017

    The laws the EU made will now come back to this country quite rightly too but that doesn’t go far enough for the people of England. Davis and Green have both stressed once powers are repatriated, then the devolved governments will be given even more powers than they have already. Meanwhile no mention of England of course who will still have their laws decided by self serving UK MPs from across the whole UK, 117 of whom will still be unelected and unaccountable.

    As far as England is concerned John, your party along with the other anti-English parties obviously don’t know the meaning of democracy.

  25. Leslie Singleton
    July 17, 2017

    Dear John–Would the odd Mutatis Mutandis help?

  26. Remington Norman
    July 17, 2017

    I agree entirely John. What is disturbing is that you, and the like-minded, seem incapable of getting your message across to the media and via them to the wider public. Theresa May has played a poor hand, given the cards she was dealt, to the point that we now have thinly disguised dissent at senior government levels. Do you wonder the media regards the Brexit process as chaotic? Mrs May herself is perfectly able to put the public record straight on the issues you raise, but appears unwilling, or unable, to do so. As long as this continues, the left-inclined media will rung rings around government.

  27. Denis Cooper
    July 17, 2017

    Correct all the way through. Presumably as a true democrat Corbyn would want there to be a full Act of Parliament to authorise any minor technical change to an EU-derived law which may be made necessary by our withdrawal from the EU. Well, if that is what he really believes then as a matter of principle he can oppose each and every one of the statutory instruments which ministers intend to use for that necessary technical purpose, over a maximum period of two years as I gather, and no doubt he could get them blocked in the Lords if not in the Commons and so force the government to introduce innumerable Bills instead. If anybody doubts that, remember what happened in 2015 when the Lords took against Osborne’s proposal on tax credits and used the power granted to them in the parent Act to block the secondary legislation he had introduced.

  28. Denis Cooper
    July 17, 2017

    I watched two rather random ladies having a discussion about Brexit on Sky News, and what they said was actually quite sensible in the context of the media narrative being successfully promoted by Remoaners. Not in the context of reality, but that of a false narrative which the government inexplicably allows to go unchallenged.

  29. WingsOverTheWorld
    July 17, 2017

    I think you know the answer to your questions “why” is that a small, but powerful minority are desperately trying to frustrate Brexit in order to overturn the referendum.

  30. Bob
    July 17, 2017

    There is a conspiracy between Remains in the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall and the MSM to turn Brexit into a bugger’s muddle and dilute it to the point of irrelevance.

    The fact that the Brexit Cabinet is made up from two thirds Remains should tell you what you need to know.

  31. Terry
    July 17, 2017

    Why do the media, the Socialist parties AND the Government choose to ignore the anti-democratic way in which the EU operates? The Government response is a polite silence whenever it crops up.
    The Brexit Team are being too ‘British’ at present and need to become more agressive, like the Germans. We must fight by their rules and not by those of honest Gentlemen.
    Such a businesslike approach benefits the EU but impairs our own position because, sadly, a ‘softly softly’ approach is taken as a weakness these days.
    So, with their 27 against our 1 we have to adopt guerilla tactics to win.

    JR has explained how The EU out-trumps and overrules our own elected Parliament and that fact alone should raise the hackles of all of us pariotic British citizens. So why isn’t it? Fear of the unknown? The Normalcy Bias?
    This old Country sacrificed millions of lives and Billions of GB Pounds fighting to remain Independent of a European dictatorship. So, a little hardship this time will be a very small price to pay to rid ourselves of another one who wishes to control our daily lives. And with no accountability in doing so.

  32. graham1946
    July 17, 2017

    Lets hope you are right JR, but thin end of wedges do seem to expand and it is not unknown for Ministers to exceed their legal brief – the Gina Miller affair being one such. Is there anything in the bill which actually limits the powers of the executive as you suggest, or are we relying on good intentions, maybe of people who may not even be in office when the time comes? I know your third paragraph mentions this but how much of a change is a change which would have to be referred to Parliament? What happens if Labour form a government?

  33. Martin Cole
    July 17, 2017

    Quite so, I feel sure the author sincerely believes his argument has both merit & logic….BUT given such facts, are these assurances of future goodwill & intent of any worth, coming as they do from MPs, many of whom purely for self-interest via Party advancement have offered assurances throughout our EU membership. that UK democracy & national sovereignty, remained intact. Fearsome of another GE or Tory Party fracture, a candidate for replacement PM. whom the public can beieve has their and The nations’ interests at heart, appears to be being sidelined again.. Apparent mental pygmies, meanwhile are in place, to apparently sabotage any sensible progress.

  34. Bert Young
    July 17, 2017

    We should become “French” and ignore anything from the EU that we regard as nonsense . Legally I wish for our own democratic control to be ours as soon as possible ; dragging out negotiations is a waste of time and taxpayers money .

  35. Terry
    July 17, 2017

    It has just ocurred to me that the anti-Independent Britainremoaners are continually trying to persuade us voters that we did not know what “Brexit” actually meant. This is nowt but pure subterfuge.

    I have just checked and there was no mention of any “Brexit” on the Referendum Paper.
    The wording came down to ‘Do you want to LEAVE the EU or do you want to Remain in the EU’? The word ‘Brexit’ did not feature at all.

    So why are the Europhiles trying to distort the fact? Hmm.
    So, what are their vested interests in wishing to remain under the thumbs of Brussels?
    They are either personally gaining from UK membership or they are closet masochists at heart. Either way, they refuse to put their Country First and deserve neither respect nor airtime.
    Leave means leave. Brexit means whatever you want it to mean.

  36. Beecee
    July 17, 2017

    Apparently the F35 and its derivatives is on time and on budget says the MOD today – disagreeing with reports in the newspapers, internet, and accounts from the USA. It also seems we have not bought the technology and software to make it effective for the role it is intended on our Carriers.

    Our Civil Service and the politicians who front for them clearly live in cloud cuckoo land!

    When did telling the truth and mea culpa become anathema?

  37. Mr Voxpopper
    July 17, 2017

    Totally agree with this. The hypocrisy of Remainers over the supposed surrender of parliamentary sovereignty in the Repeal Bill is nauseating, when for decades they were content for this same sovereignty to be handed over to the undemocratic EU without a murmur.

  38. Old Albion
    July 17, 2017

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if politicians would speak openly and honestly. Instead of constantly playing political games.

  39. Qubus
    July 17, 2017

    Dr Redwood,
    You are a beacon of light in a sea of obfuscation, if that is not mixing my metaphors.

  40. Denis Cooper
    July 17, 2017

    I’m getting fed up with this ill-informed nonsense about transitional arrangements.

    Be they politician or journalist or just random lady invited to comment on Sky TV, if they care to look at the 1957 Treaty of Rome:

    they will see straight off in its Article 8 that the original six countries allowed themselves TWELVE YEARS to complete the establishment of their common market:

    “The common market shall be progressively established during a transitional period of twelve years. This transitional period shall be divided into three stages of four years
    each; the length of each stage may be altered in accordance with the provisions set out below … ”

    And when the UK later joined the EEC there were transitional provisions written into the accession treaty; many of the transitional periods were for FIVE YEARS but others were not, as the parties to the treaty decided.

    It’s absolutely commonplace for transitional provisions to be written into international treaties, so why all this stupid fuss about that possibility?

    It’s also perfectly possible to the parties to a treaty to agree to write in a provision that such-and-such implementation measures will be accomplished in this-or-that period of time after the treaty as a whole has come into force, but then later agree to extend that period because the adaptation is taken longer than was expected.

  41. sm
    July 17, 2017

    I think that the concept of Statutory Instruments was incomprehensible to most voters, and was assiduously swerved past by pro-EU politicians and the media when attempting to discuss just how undemocratic the Brussels process really is.

  42. A Briton
    July 17, 2017

    It’s a given that: We cannot remain under the control of the ECJ and remain a Sovereign Nation and I cannot understand why British Remain Parliamentarians cannot or choose not to see that! Whist they ( the EU) may find some sort of compromise over Immigration it is nonetheless obvious to even the most ill-informed that they will NEVER compromise on ECJ after all how ever else will Brussels be able to control Nations.

  43. Tabulazero
    July 17, 2017

    Does anyone here believe Theresa May’s government is going to last through summer ?

  44. Mike Wilson
    July 17, 2017

    I’m tired of the endless negativity around Brexit. I think it could all be avoided if we had a captain of the ship who had vision and charisma.

    May might have been able to go on fooling people – if she hadn’t been daft enough to (slightly) expose herself to the British people.

    I can’t think of a single Tory who could pull us out of this mess. Maybe, just maybe, Jacob Rees Mogg might be the man. But, I’m not sure. I was surprised at the general reaction to him on his most recent appearance on Question Time (a few weeks ago). I thought he would be subject to the sort of opprobrium reserved for perceived ‘toffs’ like Cameron and Co. But, no, even the Labour leaning people in the audience reacted well to him.

    I say, Jacob – stand up and give it a go. You haven’t got a cabinet position or career to lose – your country needs you.

    1. alan jutson
      July 18, 2017


      Jacob Rees Mogg certainly speaks with clarity on many subjects, but then he can, simply because he is a back bench MP and not a Minister. Likewise JR and a number of other backbenchers, but unfortunately many suffer when promoted.

      The one thing JRM has on his side is that he has not been tainted with past decisions/policies as yet, and is still young enough to be a candidate in future years.

      Certainly I agree, one to follow with interest.

    2. graham1946
      July 18, 2017

      I think the reason is, that JRM has such clarity of thought and does not just do soundbites which just criticise the opposition no matter if they have a good argument, just for the sake of it. He reminds me in many ways of Enoch Powell, very learned, classical and precise with language and a calm temperament which cuts through. I believe in the country there is a growing groundswell of support for JRM, but that will count for nothing when MP’s are voting, as they are most concerned with their own advancement and choosing who is most likely to favour them personally, so we end up where we are. Since Margaret Thatcher there has not been one leader of substance or success. They keep doing it and as Einstein said that is madness.

  45. HenryS
    July 17, 2017

    Who cares about democracy and the other mantras like taking back contro and statutory instruments?l.. it wil make not one bit of difference to the old man living in flat 23a on the third floor.. his lot will remain just the very oh my what nonsense you go on with?

  46. Hope
    July 17, 2017

    All this chit chat about split cabinet. If there was a leave dominated cabinet, as we voted for, then he remainers would not be grumbling about how to implement a policy they opposed. Therefore why does not Hammond resign? He does not want to leave the EU and is kicking and screaming like a child. If a minster disagrees with a govt policy he should resign. I think it is quite simple. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking he is trying to bring down the govt to out the EU before country. After we saw it before with Thatcher.

  47. Malcolm
    July 17, 2017

    I have just watched a very biased report on Dutch news about Brexit. The interviewer talked to Peter Wilding, Adrian Pabst and (god forbid) Tony Blair. The impression was very pessimistic, scare mongering and of a Conservative government in chaos. Why can’t the Brits get behind their leader and present a much stronger hand. They need to strongly counter these negative and often incorrect stories circulating in the media. I fully agree with your views John and a lot of friends here in the Netherlands are also sick of the way the EU is developing. Your story and arguments need to get out there. I am surprised how little my UK friends know about what the EU gets up to and how it works. It is certainly not the panacea people think.

  48. Chewy
    July 17, 2017

    Really good article and absolutely correct, but I don’t see this type of reason prevailing in the current climate. Let’s look at the political opposition lining up to lambast the government as anti-democratic.
    The Lib Dems, SNP and a large proportion of the PLP are highly Europhilic and despite any burblings about respecting the will of the people, or in the case of the latter their election manifesto commitments, would love to see Brexit reversed. The Labour leadership may be cooler towards the EU but discrediting the government and trying to get their paws on the leavers of power trumps anything else; “the end achieves the means”; to quote one of their favourite philosophers!
    With the BBC and media establishment in general playing up references of TM wanting to behave like a medieval monarch ( although technically it should be Renaissance) what chance has the truth got?
    A couple of months ago the poorly thought out and presented social care reforms got nailed as the dementia tax. The logical arguments about trying to relieve younger people of having to pay for the care of the elderly and of trying to reform a system that wasn’t working simply got swamped. The catchy Tim Farron comment about if you’re sick and have dementia “the Tories are coming for you” proved more persuasive.
    I don’t like writing things that are simply unconstructive. But I think JR and like minded MPs really need to coordinate a way of hammering their point home in what will be a hostile media environment regarding this issue.

  49. Simon
    July 19, 2017

    John I do not suppose that you will exhibit the slightest trace of embarrassment to find that the UK’s leading expert on public law Professor Mark Elliot from St Catherine’s, Cambridge profoundly disagrees with your usual over optimistic, very superficial cheerful analysis. The Henry VIII clauses are absolutely unprecedented in scope and a recipe for dictatorship. They will quite rightly not pass without forensic analysis and rigorous opposition.

    Reply That is simply not the case. Try reading the draft Bill

Comments are closed.