A simple answer to the EU’s proposals on Transition

There is a simple and easy answer to the latest EU paper on Transition – No thanks.

The UK should refuse it politely, and say we need to discuss both transition and what we are in transit to at the same time. Ideally we will not need transition. We have 13 months left to sort out what needs sorting out. The EU should change its self imposed rule – which is not a legal requirement – that it cannot talk about trade until after we have left. We should aim to have a Free Trade Agreement ready to sign and implement on 30 March 2019.

If the EU will not enter into positive talks for a Free Trade Agreement now, we should prepare to leave with no Agreement, which means no extra money for the EU.

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


  1. Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    There are probably many of us here who agree with you wholeheartedly. But there are so many ”shoulds” there. Perhaps our negotiators might bear in mind the words: ”letting I dare not” wait upon ”I would”.

    • Peter
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      Mr. Redwood’s proposal is sound and one most posters here agree with.

      Once again, the difficult part is finding enough politicians with the power to drive this through.

  2. duncan
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    ‘The UK should refuse it politely’. I believe this should read, ‘May, Hammond and Heywood should refuse it politely’

    The UK voter had its say. They refused EU membership, politely.

    Unfortunately, in these authoritarian times we have a political class who couldn’t care less what democracy says. It can simply nobble the system and carry on regardless. This mendacious, treacherous behaviour can only be challenged by those on the inside. People like Mr Redwood, JRM and many other decent MPs who know this nation is heading in the wrong direction. They have to speak up against May and her politics

    • jerry
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      @duncan; “The UK voter had its say. They refused EU membership, politely.”

      We declined full EU membership, no one was asked what sort of relationship should follow (or even with whom), no doubt because Mr Cameron thought the question would never arise…

      “Unfortunately, in these authoritarian times we have a political class who couldn’t care less what democracy says.”

      Indeed, many Brexiteers don’t, even though some of the 29 Leave manifestos advocated leaving the full membership of the EU but then retaining close if not very close links, one such option put forward was the “Norway” option, indeed some put it forward on this very site.

      “decent MPs who know this nation is heading in the wrong direction.”

      That is a point of debate, not a fact, the only people attempting to “nobble the system” are the hard line Brexiteers who try to claim a mandate that they do not own.

      • Longinus III
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

        There won’t be any carrying on regardless if May sells us out. The backlash will be like nothing seen since the Civil War. If you are not prepared to fight for your freedom then you’ll fight for nothing.

      • Hope
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

        Utter rubbish. It was clear the U.K. Would leave immediately. It was clear no single market or customs union. It was clear our laws, money, borders, courts. The no one was asked what sort of relationship drivel raises it head again. Or how about no one voted to be poorer. All specious rot used to keep the U.K. As closely aligned to the EU. We voted out in its entirety. Cameron made that clear.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

          Dear Hope–Absolutely unarguable just as you say–There was no scintilla of doubt

          • Leslie Singleton
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

            Postscript–That ‘no-one voted to be poorer’ is a preposterous and wholly disingenuous thing to say–What was not voted for, or even a possibility, was any kind of compromise–It was time for a decision and everybody knew it

        • jerry
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

          Hope; “It was clear the U.K. Would leave immediately. Utter rubbish.”

          There fix your typo for you @Hope…

          Otherwise please cite some proof that there was one manifesto and that it stated that the UK would leave the EU at 10:01 on the morning of 24th June 2016 if there was a majority to Leave. You can’t and never will be able to as the5re was non. What is more it tales a simple search on Google to find comments on this site, that you appear to suggest do not exist, were the “half-way house” Norway (and indeed a Flexit) opinion is debated;


          We will leave when the elected government chooses. otherwise we as a nation needs to elect a n different government, remind me how many votes UKIP got on 8th June 2017…

          • Hope
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

            No manifesto was asked for or given. Both sides advanced their views with Cameron using the civil service and govt depts to boost his wRped view. He also used heads of states as well! The apocalyptic message from remain was clear. The vote was decisive and still remainers try to use all sorts of specious lines to get a foot in the door. Utter rubbish again. Leave means a clean break from the EU. Trade was not and is not the dominant issue. This is another establishment ruse to scare us. Economics always used to manipulate votes.

            No extension asked for or required. Irish border- nothing needs to be done. If the EU wish an alternative let them. No money to be given to talk about trade. Davis has been underhand to say the U.K. Assets were included to arrive at the £40 billion sum. That is £100 billion, originally refused by May.

            Leave and any cooperation issues can be discussed after. No further chat needed or required.

          • jerry
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

            @Hope; Thank you for your ‘opinions’. The facts though are somewhat different though, thus the only person talking nonsense (as usual) is you @Hope.

          • mancunius
            Posted February 12, 2018 at 1:50 am | Permalink

            Cameron certainly promised that the procedure for leaving would be immediately initiated after a Leave vote, and this was not done.
            Cameron said clearly in the House of Commons on 22nd February 2016 (see Hansard): “If the British people vote to leave, there is only one way to bring that about, namely to trigger article 50 of the treaties and begin the process of exit, and the British people would rightly expect that to start straight away.”

            He went on to repeat (outside the Commons) that if there were a Leave vote, he would be in Brussels delivering Article 50 to the Commission on Monday 27th June at the latest.

            He failed to do so – Juncker (presumably hoping we might be brought to heel and vote again) said that they ‘couldn’t accept’ an Art. 50 application from him – and Cameron then resigned on 16th July.

          • mancunius
            Posted February 12, 2018 at 2:29 am | Permalink

            Last line should read: ‘Cameron then resigned on 24th June and went on 16th July’.

      • forthurst
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

        Jerry, you are confusing the leave literature and campaigns with the voters. How many people did the campaigns actually influence? I can assure you, having been on the front line, that most people have a very sketchy understanding of the EU and all its works for which they had a gut reaction one way or the other. For the leavers, it was to leave the EU and all its institutions (whatever they may be), ie to reinstate the status quo ante. T

        Let’s go for the basic WTO option with rules enforced by a respectable organisation. As the President of France is talking about attracting the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and the Bank of America to Paris, I say, great, let them eat mortgage ‘backed’ derivatives.

        • APL
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

          forthurst: “I can assure you, having been on the front line, that most people have a very sketchy understanding of the EU ..”

          Not surprising either, when both political parties worked to disguise the nature and reach of the clandestine Coup d’état.

          Even a well known Euroskeptic once said, there is no interest in the European Union on the doorstep.

          Which of course, was very convienient.

          • jerry
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 8:55 am | Permalink

            @APL; “Even a well known Euroskeptic once said, there is no interest in the European Union on the doorstep. Which of course, was very convienient.”

            Indeed it was for eurosceptics of a certain faction, with little interest and even less understanding the europhobes could make what ever case they liked, create what ever scapegoats then likes, blame the EU for what ever they liked -all whilst disguising the true nature and reach of their own clandestine Coup d’état.

            In the first they got their way, the UK voted to Leave, thankfully though they failed in the latter, @APL do feel free to remind us how many voted your beloved UKIP got last June…

          • APL
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

            jerry: “nature and reach of their own clandestine Coup d’état. ”

            When a parrot recites the words its owner has taught it, on the surface it appears to be a very clever parrot.

            But with the constant repetition and unmoderated volume it becomes obvious in no time, there is no comprehension, no appreciation of nuance and no intelligence behind the sounds that come out of a parrots beak. One instinctively understands, it would be futile to attempt to hold a conversation with a parrot.

          • jerry
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

            @APL: Says the person who repeats what his UKIP briefing notes tell him to post to social media etc…

      • libertarian
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:20 pm | Permalink


        How many times, its not difficult , the question put to us was shall we stay or shall we leave, there was no but , or, as well , alternatively etc. So the process is very simple. We trigger Art 50, leave within 2 years and waste 10-12 years with the normal inept EU negotiating stance AFTER that, and yes you can argue for and express an opinion on any number of future trade scenarios AFTER we’ve done what the majority vote chose to do.

        • jerry
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

          @libertarian; How many times, its not difficult… Yes we were asked IF the UK should leave, but we were never asked How nor When we should do so, which is the disagreement now.

          The biggest threat to Brexit is from hard Brexiteers trying to steal a mandate they do not own, and can never own -unless they consent to a second ref.

          • Hope
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

            There is no hard Brexit just as there is no hard Brexiteers. We voted leave and expect the govt to act and stop dragging its heels. It is not complicated. These are complexities created by the establishment to cause a delay.

            Stop creating false labels. Leavers were also called racists, little Englanders and the like. Despite May’s best efforts to delay place obstacles etc, leavers still want to leave! No extension, no one voted for it, there is no mandate for it.

      • getahead
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        Jerry EU apologist talking, if you will excuse my language, bullshit.

        • jerry
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 8:45 am | Permalink

          @getahead: Oh do try actually reading and understanding what I said, rather than just keep posting adhoc abuse.

          If you had actually read/understood what I said you would understand that I am no EU apologist but an apologist for democracy –oh hand on that’s why you are so abusive to all who suggest we follow the democratic will of the people, and in that you are not so unlike the EU yourself, deeply undemocratic, your way or no-way…

    • Richard Evans
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 12:51 am | Permalink

      No one gets anywhere being polite. Theresa the Appeaser is so soft the EU team are walking all over her. Tell her to contact Donald Trump and Nigel Farage and request they be part of the negotiation team.
      Also inform Barnier and co, WE leave on 29 March 2019. NO 40bn, OUT of the customs union, Borders closed etc. We are OFF.
      You want to talk, rationally and sensibly, then get on a plane and meet me at 10, Downing Street. No fancy breakfasts, lunches or dinners. No photo calls, No BBC.

      Your .the EU’s main concern is the LOSS of OUR revenue, so start talking sensibly or forget it.

      Following BREXIT, we, the UK population will probably have a few problems initially and it will affect everybody differently but we WILL WIN through.
      Where is the Bulldog spirit, the fight, the WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER attitude that we used to have ? Why has it all disappeared?
      Why has the UK as a nation bred a younger population who appear to be a bunch of wimps. Everything on a plate, I am not working for “that amount, I want more”, I know my rights attitude. Where did it all go wrong. Thank God I have seen better times because if we continue as is, we are FINISHED as a Nation. The “man” in the street can see this clearly but not our so called leaders. By the way, does the UK have any Leaders these days?

  3. James Snell
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Here we go again..it is not the EU that is looking for a transition..it is the UK that needs it..if we are to get some kind of a future agreement knocked together before march 2019…bur JR has been preaching this line for a long time now..i don’t understand why he just does not challenge Dr Fox about whats in the pipeline..after all he can’t be a million miles away..threatening the EU by withholding payments due is not going to work either..very childish in fact..

    • Woody
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

      Don’t see the evidence that the uk NEEDS a transition period. It would be less challenging for uk and certainly for the eu businesses, who will suffer from the loss of a very large export market. The uk has tried to be reasonable, even offering a massive sum to help the eu adjust and adapt their budgets. If they dont want our money then so be it .. we can leave tomorrow and operate with the eu as we do with the rest of the world already using WTO rules.

      • John O'Leary
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

        “…we can leave tomorrow and operate with the eu as we do with the rest of the world already using WTO rules”

        But that simply isn’t true! We trade with the rest of the world using agreements forged by the EU with the majority of what the EU term 3rd countries.

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        The reason UK asked for a transition period is because Mrs May has no idea what to do as leader of a sovereign country and therefore she is unable to unite either her cabinet or the voters. She kicked the can down the road creating an open goal to the EU which lost not a second in seizing the opportunity. This will continue until Mrs May is replaced.

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink


      Agree it was Mrs may’s idea, and stupid one it was as well,.

      Doubly stupid to even think of any sort of transition before you know what we are going to transition to.

      • John O'Leary
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        I think the idea is that we are transitioning to EU 3rd country status. What’s the alternative to accepting the Commission’s demands? If we crash out without an agreement all hell will break loose. Civil Aircraft grounded, goods destined for export to the EU refused at EU ports of entry and sterling tanking?

        • alan jutson
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:55 pm | Permalink


          The default position is WTO Rules, even the EU are members !

          The German car workers are already getting worried about their jobs, union officials are already lobbying the German Government.

          Planes will still fly, just like they did when we had the millennium bug scare !

          • John Soper
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 8:30 am | Permalink

            Alan, the millennium bug was solved because a lot of people did a lot of hard work to prepare for the problems, and to prevent them.
            Equally, a lot of people (civil servants, but also the politicians in the front line like May, Hammond, Davis) are working very hard to do the deals that are needed to stop Brexit becoming a catastrophe.
            The real problem is that dangerous irresponsibility of people saying we don’t need a deal. That will reduce our GDP by at least 10%

        • Jagman84
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

          You know that none of that is remotely likely but you still persist with such nonsense. With an £80 Billion trade surplus, a reciprocal action would occur and the EU would be the one in chaos.

        • Stephen Berry
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

          Given that the EU itself is now talking about preventing UK airlines from landing in EU countries during a ‘transition period’, we need to ask them if British ships would also be prevented from docking in EU ports. Then the EU should be gently reminded that wholesale prevention of goods from British firms arriving at their destination amounts to nothing less than an economic blockade. Then they should be reminded that under international law, economic blockade is often construed as constituting an act of war.

          The EU surely does not want appear in this light if there is a disagreement during this completely unnecessary and complex transition period.

          • John O'Leary
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

            I don’t think British shipping would be prevented from docking in EU ports, but the cargo would not be unloaded before all necessary checks are done. That would include phytosanitary and other EU regulations conformity checks, rules of origin etc. Fine provided the cargo isn’t perishable and we can stand the cost of ships being laid up in dock for extensive periods.

    • Chris S
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

      I completely agree with your position. Unfortunately Mrs May’s government have totally failed to set out the option of no deal and, as Denis has frequently stated there has been no effort at rebutting the black propaganda from Brussels, countledd remainers, Sky, Channel 4 News and the BBC.

      As a result I doubt whether any PM, let alone a shrinking violet like Mrs May, could get WTO Terms through parliament.

      She has made two catastrophic mistakes. The first was agreeing to sequencing and the second failing to explain the positive case for WTO terms.

      I have never thought it would be possible to get a deal acceptable to us through the 27 national parliaments and the European parliament. We should have been planning for No Deal more than a year ago.

      We should be be much further down the line than we are. So much so that business is starting to panic.

      • Longinus III
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

        Most UK businesses don’t trade with the EU so doubt they will be panicking. Any multinational that has not planned for every eventuality deserves to fail. There is no evidence that business is panicking, they just want clarity on the future relationship with the EU.

      • Hope
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        The other catistrophic I skate being her capitulation to phase one. We do not owe the EU £100 billion to talk about trade. The number has already been disguised and hidden by Davis who says the £40 billion is after the U.K. assets have been deducted!

    • David Cockburn
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      I’m not sure the UK does need a transition. Incumbent big business does but small business and disruptive new businesses don’t. Which group should the Tory party be backing?

    • libertarian
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      James Snell

      You are wrong I’m afraid. It IS the EU that wants a transition, they want a period during which we still pay into their club whilst we negotiate a potential trade deal. They are as always trying to have their cake and eat it. We do not need or want their transition deal.

      • acorn
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        Why would the EU with its €16,000 billion a year economy, be worried about loosing €10 billion (0.07%) a year from the its €160 billion a year (1%) operating costs?

        • Anonymous
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

          If we go bust it will also lose Trident and GCHQ and a refuge for its unemployed youth.

          There will also be the ramifications of a major global economy going bust on its doorstep.

          Has Europe learned nothing from the Treaty of Versailles ?

        • getahead
          Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

          Search me. Perhaps the Germans do not wish to take up the slack.
          EU 16 trillion economy? Where are you coming from?

    • mancunius
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

      ‘Ah, but James’: no payments are due, they’re a discretionary and conditional offer: conditional on the EU paying attention to the terms of Art. 50 – i.e. “the arrangements for [the member state’s] withdrawal” must “take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.” This is not an optional condition, it is at the heart of Art. 50, and the EU has been clearly breaching that condition since Day One.

      As the EU well knows, it has no legally enforceable right to any subscription after March 2019. That was established and stated both by the House of Lords and also at the talks by the UK negotiators.

      So we have the EU breaching the terms of a legally enforceable treaty, and demanding payments that are not legally enforceable.

      • mancunius
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

        Intended punctuation:
        Ah, but ‘James’: no payments are due: they’re etc

      • James Snell
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

        Am afraid Mancunius you are badly misinformed..what was agreed before christmas stands and is not optional..it has nothing to do with legality..it is the conditions agreed for exiting the bloc and unless these conditions are met in full..money..the border..the movement if people both EU and UK..there will be absolutely no further movement on anything..as Jr says..the answer is simple..but I don’t think so

        • mancunius
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

          “it has nothing to do with legality”
          At least you admit it.:-) The 8 December Joint Report is so far not in any way legally enforceable.

    • John C.
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      Not childish at all. It’s like not buying a ticket for a journey you don’t want to go on. Why pay for something you no longer want?

    • Tom William
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      One might have thought that the EU’s made up rule is similar to a child saying that it refuses to talk about what it wants for tea until it gets home, to which the answer is “then you won’t get any tea”.

    • acorn
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

      You just have to wonder which planet these Brexiters are on. The UK is voluntarily leaving the EU club and does not want to pay up for all the promises it made as a member of that club.

      There is nothing tangible available for a leaver under Art 50 terms, not even internation Courts arbitration. There doesn’t need to be a “withdrawal agreement” under Art 50, the EU can just let it time out.

      No withdrawal agreement means no sub agreement inside it, for a “stand-still” transition from the actual real Brexit day 29/3/19, to a virtual (delayed) Brexit day in December 2020. The UK could have asked the European Council for a extension of the two year Art 50 time out; to the same effect; but that would have been internationally embarrassing for the UK.

      New UK trade agreements with countries the EU currently imports from, will need the agreement of the exporting country; the UK AND the EU. Good luck trying to get that done in thirteen and a bit months.

      Brexiters should go back and read the advice given to MEPs by the EPRS.

      If the UK is going to jump the EU ship, do it now. Become an EU “third country” now. Then the EU will be receptive to a trade agreement and the non EU WTO members, won’t be so scared of upsetting the huge EU trade bloc.

      • getahead
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

        If you are saying let’s just leave without these futile ‘negotiations’, I am entirely in agreement with you. Bit it’s not ‘Brexiters’ you should be addressing but our Prime Minister or more importantly her Chancellor.

        • acorn
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:15 am | Permalink

          Then it’s time for the ERG Rees Moggies,to put up or shut up. The remaining forty six million voters can do nothing to change anything for another four years.

      • mancunius
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

        ‘There doesn’t need to be a “withdrawal agreement” under Art 50’

        Nonsense: Art. 50 specifically states that the terms of withdrawal have to be negotiated with the member state. And that the future relationship of that member state to the EU has also to be agreed and the withdrawal agreement will depend on that future relationship.
        “the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

        By pretending it does not have to negotiate anything, and by refusing to talk about our future trade relationship until the two-year period is up, the EU has breached the Treaty of Lisbon.

        • acorn
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:36 am | Permalink

          “Article 50 TEU does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw, rather it includes only procedural requirements.It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter’s future relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years,that state’s membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.”

          • David Price
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:56 am | Permalink

            You are incorrect. Para 2 of Article 50 states that “The Union shall negotiate and conclude and agreement with that state”

            The word “shall” means mandatory not optional (see “The Role of SHALL and SHOULD in Two International Treaties”). This suggests the EU will be in direct breach of the treaty if they do not conclude an agreement. There is no imposition in Article 50 on the leaving party to agree. The UK has met it’s obligations under Article 50 and has sought to discuss arrangements for withdrawl and future relationship, however the EU refuses to meet it’s obligations.

            It takes two parties to agree so the EU simply cannot impose it’s preference.

          • acorn
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

            David Price @9:56
            Quotes from Europarl News 17/01/18

            (1) Once triggered, article 50 allows for two years of negotiations, although this can be extended unanimously by the European Council. Although the aim is to come to a deal, it is also possible there is no agreement at all.

            (2) What happens if there is no agreement

            If there is no deal and there is no agreement on extending the deadline, then the UK automatically leaves the EU after the two-year period. In addition if no agreement is reached on trade relations, the country would have to trade with the EU under WTO rules.

            (3) Two agreements

            The EU and the UK have two years to negotiate a withdrawal agreement setting out the arrangements for how the country will leave the Union, while “taking account of the framework of the future relationship with the Union”. The arrangements setting out the framework for future relations will be part of a separate agreement, which could take considerably longer to negotiate.

            (4) If negotiations are successful, the withdrawal agreement would need to be ratified by the UK, approved by the European Parliament, as well as by at least 20 out of 27 member states represented in the Council.

            The agreement on the future framework would need to be approved by all member states and the European Parliament.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

      Dear James–You and they can keep your and their future agreement–In the short term we just want Out and in every possible way–If a future agreement makes sense (and I think it will), clear the decks and start from there after experience of which sectors need what

  4. agricola
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    Yes, said much the same yesterday.

    So far we have only heard and read the thoughts of the EU. If our government has a policy on this matter they should spell it out in public. I would also like there to be a debate in the House of Commons on the EU proposal , “Transition Arrangements in the Withdrawal Agreement.” I for one would be fascinated to hear who likes it among our Members of Parliament. A great opportunity to display unity in the UK.

    • David Price
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

      It would certainly be illuminating to hear them defend the position that the UK Parliament is “not a national parliament” and the intention behind including that paragraph in the paper.

  5. Prigger
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Several decades the government has slept heavy and deaf and blind to the ins and outs of some of the shift workers of more than one large charity.

  6. Prigger
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    “There is a simple and easy answer to the latest EU paper on Transition – No thanks.
    The UK should refuse it politely” Surely there MUST be polite way, somehow, of using a four-letter word to them??????

    • HenryS
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Prigger..whats all this nonsense about saying it politely..there’s no need to say anything politely..just say it in a business like fashion..but thats the trouble ..its not st all clear what the government wants out of all of this..A50 has been triggered thetefore we can justt leave on 30th march 2019..in fact we have to leave but we have so many red lines in place now about our future intentions that it is really impossible to get any kind od a deal going with them into the future, have you seen Barniers stairway to brexit? well accorinng to that we might just qualify for a Canada plus deal down the road..but it could take years to negotiate..

      • cornishstu
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        Henry, its clear to me what government want and that is to create the illusion we will be leaving the eu whilst keeping us tied in through the back door.

    • sm
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

      The closest I can come is:


    • DaveM
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

      Nein. They should understand that.

  7. Epikouros
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    We know the answer to EU negotiators intransigence and outrageous demands which is of course as you say to walk away without a deal. Unfortunately there are too many appeasers, EU apologists and pedantics who cannot overcome their bias and other mentally deficient attributes to see such an obvious fact and agree.

  8. Tintin
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    Christine Lagarde IMF has called on Arab countries to restrict their public spending
    “Energy subsidies are extremely expensive,” in her speech at the opening of the 3rd Arab Fiscal Forum in Dubai.
    I don’t care what Mrs May and Ms Rudd think. Sometimes certain people will not stand a bat (dam) in hell’s chance of getting a message across.

  9. Paul Cohen
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    We seem to be drifting toward a unacceptable outcome in so many matters.

    Mrs May has demonstrated she is no leader, and this seemingly casual manner we are projecting does tremendous damage. We need a voluble spokesman who will gather likeminded people together in order their voices be heard ( JR)? What on earth is Boris doing in Burma at this time of national want?

    Time to do something really positive like bringing to an end this rediculous sparring match and show some real leadership.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

      Dear Paul–At least Boris and Jacob would have a go at playing our hand–a very strong hand I still believe–and sparks would fly–whereas the present apologies for leaders just fold at every turn–impossible to imagine anybody less inspiring and that’s apart from their proven wrong (not just lack of) judgement.

    • getahead
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

      Boris is a butterfly with no political conviction. If he had he would have taken steps to remove Theresa by now. Totally unreliable.

  10. fkc
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Good morning John. I agree with you again. We do not need to drag this transition idea out any more. The eu are not interested in anything we say so we should make our arrangements very quickly. Those who wish more time should perhaps make haste or time will run out for them.

  11. stred
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    The ‘transition period’ is part of the plan hatched by the Remain deep international ‘state’to which ex commissioners, the EU pensioned and financiers who rely on regulation and monopolies have pledged loyalty. Lords and Knights, ex-ministers, bankers and over paid CEOs, quangos and charities sucking off the EU udder. The Commission has been unbending in its demands because it knows it has its friends and collaborators in the UK who will now have huge resources to explain to the dim witted British escapees that it is not in their interest because of the huge payments and impossibility of any trade at all, what with customs hols ups and huge tariffs. They need only keep repeating the lies and have their friends in the media ignore the truth.

    Meanwhile, what has the civil service done to prepare for third country access to the single market, air travel, membership of Euratom etc? They have even been told to stop work by May in case it upsets theEU. Lawyers for Britain have descibed the position exactly right. At the end of the ‘transition’ we will not have any deal worth having and then will be asked to vote again, with an election a year away. the voting will be rigged in favour of migrants with new British citizenship and yooflakes.

    Get out now or not at all. If you don’t, voting will be off and voters who have been cheated will be taking other measures. The UK will become a police state, preventing communication of anti EU opinion and with politicians and functionaries protected by a core political police force. They already have them ready and working.

    • getahead
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      Stred, point of order, ‘sucking off the EU udder.” It’s not the udder the calves suck, it’s the teet. As a farmer’s son I know these things. In Yorkshire however ‘teet’ becomes ‘tit’. Nothing rude, common agricultural parlance.
      Hammond’s international business friends want a transition/extension period. This does not help the UK voter or 90% of smaller businesses. Abandon the idea.

  12. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    JR, I’m getting very tired of all this childish nonsense which is constantly coming from our own government just as much as from the EU.

    In fact I’m so tired of it that I’ll just copy and paste what I said before Christmas:


    “I’ve been saying for more than a year now that I have no problem with appropriate transitional provisions being built into our withdrawal agreement(s).

    For example, this is from December 13th 2016:


    “Off-topic, I’m rather bemused by the fierce objections to a transitional deal when we leave the EU. After nearly 44 years of entanglement with the EEC/EC/EU project I’m perfectly prepared for it to take quite a long time to completely disentangle ourselves without causing any major disruption on the way.

    However my condition is that the transitional deal must be in the form of transitional provisions written into a withdrawal treaty which takes us out of the EU when it comes into force, but with some of the present legal and practical arrangements wound down gradually afterwards according to a pre-determined schedule, not in the form of treaty arrangements which would take us out of the EU but at the same time effectively keep us halfway in through the EEA or similar, potentially in perpetuity.”

    Well, what a fool I’ve been, I should have known that if you give the euromaniacs an inch then they will try to take a yard, it’s what they always do, and now we have all this oxymoronic nonsense about a “standstill” or “status quo” transition.”

    And while some of the euromaniacs are in the EU apparatus clearly that some of them are also in the UK apparatus. Who, which politician or civil servant or other adviser, pushed that ludicrous idea of a transition during which nothing would change?

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      Denis, I think a lot of us are getting fed up with the childish antics when this is such a serious business. The way things are going we may as well stay in because that would be a better deal than what May and co are getting us. I wonder why we all bothered to vote.

      • APL
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

        fedupsoutherner: “I wonder why we all bothered to vote.”

        Well, if you will keep voting for the party that was instrumental in keeping us in the EU for much of the 43 years. What do you expect.

        The LabCon party isn’t interested in democracy. It is interested in frustrating democracy.

        Cameron, made a mistake when he agreed to the referendum. Now they are trying to rectify that mistake.

  13. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    It’s worthwhile going back to what Theresa May said about an “implementation period” in her Lancaster House speech a year ago:


    “12. A smooth, orderly Brexit

    These are our objectives for the negotiation ahead – objectives that will help to realise our ambition of shaping that stronger, fairer, Global Britain that we want to see.

    They are the basis for a new, strong, constructive partnership with the European Union – a partnership of friends and allies, of interests and values. A partnership for a strong EU and a strong UK.

    But there is one further objective we are setting. For as I have said before – it is in no one’s interests for there to be a cliff-edge for business or a threat to stability, as we change from our existing relationship to a new partnership with the EU.

    By this, I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory. That would not be good for Britain, but nor do I believe it would be good for the EU.

    Instead, I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the 2-year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.

    This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we co-operate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.

    But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.”

    That made sense, while the idea of a “status quo” or “standstill” transition, a period of change during which nothing would actually change, is pure nonsense.

    I would like to know who suggested that, he/she should be sacked.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

      Dear Denis, aka Gunga Din–You are a better man than I am because I cannot read the boring non-event vapid platitudes that pass for Prime Ministerial speeches–International no less, with the World watching–without nodding off. The fact that you can remember what she has said I find most impressive. Unfortunately I am being serious–the very little I do remember she never seems to stick to.

  14. Richard1
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    We are very clearly now at the point where the U.K. Govt needs to assert a credible walk away option. M Barnier’s threats over punishments for the U.K. and over Ireland look like deliberate goading designed to test the U.K. govts resolve. mr Davis moaning that’s its discourteous isnt good enough – of course it’s discourteous, it’s meant to be! The reaction must be to make clear preparations for the WTO option, to robustly spell out the benefits to U.K. voters (ie no payments to the U.K., quick reductions in tariffs, immediate freedom from EU rules & regs etc). When we have clear momentum in U.K. public opinion for the WTO route, then we will be in a position to strike a sensible deal with the EU. Until then it isn’t going to happen – if the Govt caves in on The EUs latest threats the EU will simply come up with more, to further test the U.K. it’s like any negotiation and should be no surprise. The other side will go on demanding more and more until they get the answer No.

  15. Richard1
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    Off topic, Labours Marxist shadow chancellor Mr McDonnell has said they will nationalise the rail post and utility industries, but it won’t cost taxpayers anything as they will “issue Govt bonds” to pay for it. It is incredible the Mr McDonnell has so little understanding of economics and capital markets that he cannot see the exact economic equivalence of paying cash for these shares and borrowing (or taxing) the money to pay for them, and issuing bonds direct to the vendors. Perhaps he does and he’s taking the public for fools? Can we expect a robust dismissal of this ludicrous proposal From Conservative ministers, or just a wet ‘we are also regulating these sectors etc’ type response? We should also note that under Corbyn’s U-turn policy of remaining in the EU single market, such mandatory confiscation will of course be illegal.

    Note also that mandatory nationalisation of assets in return for Govt bonds was the policy used by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe in the 1980s. Didn’t turn out too well for the ‘sellers’.

  16. Bob
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    The answer to Brussels’ intransigence is to get on with a WTO plan.
    We can talk later about an FTA if and when they stop the attempts at bullying.
    If they don’t, the EU will probably disintegrate and we can deal with the 27 individually when the time comes.

  17. GregH
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    The EU hasn’t got proposals on transition..that is for the UK side to put forward..we are the ones leaving oand looking for a different way..the EU is merely responding to UK proposals.. i thought that Barnier was very cjear about that some time past

    • Woody
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

      The transition is there as much for eu benefit as for the uks. You can already see the panic among the eurocrats over how they can manage the loss of our billions when they come to budget time in 2020.

  18. Ian wragg
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Even now we have no idea what the transition period is for.
    What happens on day one. Do we take back fishing and agriculture. Does FoM continue or is it just an extension of membership plain and simple. Certainly according to Barnier it’s an extension with absolutely no change in our relationship except no representation.
    We didn’t vote for that.

  19. Denis Cooper
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink



    And our feeble government has let them get away with it – so far.

  20. NHSGP
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    So lets take Northern Ireland.

    Good Friday Agreement.

    UK is offering Eire the deal to carry on.

    Eire has a problem because the EU won’t allow it to implement because it is one for all, all for one, trade protection zone.

    It’s not the UK, its the EU that’s the issue.

    So walk away. The EU then has to tell Eire that it can’t keep to its side of the deal.

    Equally the idea of a special deal for NI different from the rest of the UK is unacceptable. We are all UK nationals and we all have equal rights. It’s not for the EU or Eire to say otherwise.

    Tell them to piss off.

    • backofanenvelope
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

      Your last sentence says all that is needed!

      • Longinus III
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        The last 2 words would be sufficient.

    • alan jutson
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 9:06 pm | Permalink


      I agree totally, the Irish Border is an EU problem them as much as ours, why do we always have to come up with a workable solution.

      No border checks at all will be a smugglers paradise, for goods, people, livestock, and a host of other problems.

      Reply The border today is a VAT, Excise, tax and currency border and works fine! No need to impose new physical barriers, even if it is also used to collect customs duties.

      • stred
        Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

        If they want a 200 mile wall and border posts, tel them to go ahead and build it and name it Emperor Barnier’s.

    • GregH
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

      NHSGP..You may be a UK national and ‘that’s it’ but according to the Good Friday agreement and other agreements I am British, Irish, Northern Irish and a EU citizen and don’t intend to lose any part of my identity. A hundred years ago Lloyd George drew a politucal border across the country – we are not now going to allow the EU or UK or anyone else draw a trade barrier across the land as well..JR says the answer is simple but I don’t think so

    • Tasman
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 8:35 am | Permalink

      Mrs May has already agreed (in December) that Northern Ireland will follow the same rules as the Republic, in perpetuity. She has also promised the DUP that the rules in NI will not be different from the rules in England. So the Uk is going to follow all the EU’s rules in perpetuity. You don’t seem to realise this has all been agreed, and currently the legal text is being finalised.

  21. Iain Gill
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Stop paying the bills, stop accepting the immigrants, tell them where to go. Exactly.

    • M. Davis
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

      Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:05 pm – … – Tell them to piss off.

      Posted February 10, 2018 at 4:41 pm –
      Your last sentence says all that is needed!

      Iain Gill
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:22 pm –
      Stop paying the bills, stop accepting the immigrants, tell them where to go. Exactly.

      What more can I say? – Except that I am sick to death of this Government pussy-footing around the EU!

  22. old salt
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    It seems to me the EU will string out the negotiations as long as possible in order to extract as much as possible from us in every way as possible unless a miracle happens along the way possibly either in May or the autumn. They desperately need our taxpayers money for their budget commitments.

  23. formula57
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    What you propose does of course presume a government with backbone – and perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised to find we have one. We might also hope for no quisling activity.

    History looks likely to conclude the UK would best have left a short while after the referendum result, likely further advantaged by recognizing that the Evil Empire is hostile.

  24. Dennis Zoff
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    An interesting take from a German perspective:


    From my own very recent experience, Germans are clearly getting a negative picture of the Brexit proceeding (UK’s fault naturally); amply indoctrinated by an extremely biased German Government controlled MSM…..

  25. The Prangwizard
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    Agree wholly with the stated view. It should be promoted and followed resolutely.

  26. Lifelogic
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    Indeed no thanks.

    As you say:- The EU should change its self imposed rule – which is not a legal requirement – that it cannot talk about trade until after we have left. We should aim to have a Free Trade Agreement ready to sign and implement on 30 March 2019.

    This rule shows clearly that the EU negotiators are not acting in the interests of the EU member states.

    They are not negotiating in good faith and acting against the interest of the citizens of the EU – the interest of the bureaucrats perhaps at best but probably not even them in the end.

  27. Lifelogic
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    I see that the pleasant (but dreadfully touchy feely & insufferably PC) presenter of Any Answers (who clearly is lefty, pro EU, climate alarmist, “BBC think” lass to her very core) made an attempt at the Churchill “rewriting of history” line on the United State of Europe today. Much loved by remainiacs.

    A lie loved by remainiacs almost as much as the x % of our trade but only y % of their’s duff argument! Or indeed “we desperately need these migrant workers” one, (no one said we should not take migrants when desperately needed did they?)

  28. Original Richard
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    I read that one of the EU’s transition demands is that the U.K. will not take “any action or initiative … likely to be prejudicial” to the bloc’s interests in any international body or forum during a Brexit transition period.

    How can our government/Parliament agree to such a demand when the promise was to “take back control” (“Brexit means Brexit”) upon leaving the EU 2 years after triggering Article 50?

    And who is going to define what is “prejudicial to the bloc’s interest” ?

  29. RupertP
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    The EU has no intention of negotiating our future relationship until after we have left and there is nothing we can do to change that. They are good at saying no to discussing anything other than what they want to discuss. The problem with your proposal is that it is not credible for us to leave in March 2019 with no deal whatsoever and there is no majority in parliament for that course of action.

    Both the UK and the EU would like to leave in an orderly fashion, but the EU wants the departure to be on its terms and is steadily wearing us down and boxing us in – We have already agreed to maintain full regulatory alignment in Northern Ireland and the EU is translating that into unambiguous legal text in the withdrawal agreement that this means Northern Ireland has to stay in the single market and customs union. Unless there is a border in the Irish sea, the rest of the UK will have to as well, which of course would be unacceptable to the DUP.

    Even assuming we get past the Northern Ireland border issue, the EU has still got the UK where it wants us by getting us into “transition”. This will last far longer than anyone can imagine at present, because the EU will just continually offer us a bad deal and the UK will keep opting to remain in transition to avoid the “cliff edge”. The EU will have no incentive to agree that the UK can leave transition as this would mean the end of payments into the EU budget, so you can be sure that the EU will ensure the UK’s transition out of the EU lasts as long as possible, if not indefinitely.

    You have to hand it to the EU on negotiations – They have played their hand very well.

  30. Rien Huizer
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    The UK should say what it wants. Apparently no one wants to make the choice explicit publicly. The tail is wagging the dog in such a way that the dog will probably die of exhaustion during his search for food.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      I think most of the UK wants precisely what Mr Redwood has written above.
      Then you need to answer, do you want a FTA or do you want us to walk away?
      It’s actually the EU’s choice

      • James Snell
        Posted February 10, 2018 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

        Sir Joe Soap..there is no decision to be made..A50 has been activated that means we leave march 2019..agreement conditions to exit were finalised before christmas..theres nothing more unless we want a future deal with them..in this case we have to come up with proposals..but the EU senses that mrs may is looking to cherry pick a deal..have our cake etc..well they are onto her and thats not going to fly..so the ball remains firmly in UKs court

    • Anonymous
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      RH – Are you having a laugh ?

      Why are you calling the referendum minority ‘the dog’ and the majority ‘the tail’ ?

      What an inversion of the truth.

  31. anon
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

    Why bother?
    Exit now unilaterally.
    Then default to WTO terms.

    Do a deal with the US and leave a space for others to join in.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      Dear anon–Couldn’t agree more–The US is on our side and will certainly help us–An English speaking people and all that–The US doesn’t have friends coming out of its ears in the World is something to remember–Forget what happened under Obama who clearly hated us and loved the EU

  32. Mick
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I couldn’t agree more with what your saying Mr Redwood but I fear that there is a few in your party who have self £££ interest to stay in the eu, it’s about time you called them out by name and shameing them, we are only going to get one shot at us leaving in this generation so stop being protective of them and call them out

  33. fedupsoutherner
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure many of us could think of a simple answer but you couldn’t print it John.

  34. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    This is so obviously what is needed.
    Can you try to explain please why your colleagues in Downing Street can’t see it?

  35. ferdinand
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

    Agree entirely but we cannot afford to leave the No Deal decision too long. Companies will need to make arrangements for WTO rules.

  36. Bert Young
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

    Switzerland enjoys a “Third World Status” with the EU so I don’t see why this classification should not apply to us , it would solve all the argy bargy over the Irish border . Certainly we do not need any , so-called , transition arrangement . The sooner we have a ” black and white” condition the better .

  37. Andy
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 7:30 pm | Permalink

    I have a solution.

    We all get a vote – a public and recorded vote – on whether or not we back no deal.

    Any economic benefits from no deal will be shared only by those who back it.

    Similarly any economic losses from no deal are to be shared only between those who backed it.

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    I have no qualms with all of you getting poorer. I have qualms that you have all voted to make my children poorer too.

    • Edward2
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      Presumably you will also agree to keeping your standard of living at 2018 levels for ever in the future after we have left.
      As even the gloomy Treasury predictions show us much better off after 15 years.
      You seem very confident in your Project Fear so take the pledge.

      • Andy
        Posted February 11, 2018 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        Alas – I’m hedging my bets and have bought a property in the EU as well as my own home here. Of course I might not be able to live in it – another right the Brexiteers have stolen from it – but I’ll be okay either way as I have a foot in both camps. But then, I’m better off than most Brexit voters.

        To be honest there is little keeping me in this increasingly nasty nationalistic country. Once my daughter has finished primary school we may well leave anyway. The UK has little to offer.

        • Edward2
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

          Another ridiculous post.
          My parents bought a property in Europe before we even joined the Common Market.
          No difficulties in living there.
          Which politicians want to stop you living in Europe?
          I haven’t heard any UK ones.
          I see the UK becoming g more open and worldly not more nationalistic.
          The EU want us to focus down on just the EU as the whole world.

          • Andy
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

            Brexit is a vote for Little Englander nationalism. If you were wearing stockings with bells on and dancing around a Maypole you could not be more inward and backward looking.

            I know the ridiculous Liam Fox likes to claim Brexit was a vote for a global Britain – but for most Brexit voters it was a vote to kick out foreigners. I know this is awkward for you but it is also a simple statement of fact.

          • Edward2
            Posted February 12, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

            Answer my question which you avoided.
            Which UK politicians are threatening to stop you living in your property in t Europe?

            And this one
            Which UK politicians are threatening to kick out people living and working here.?

            Stop the slurs andy
            Let’s have some answers from you.

        • stred
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          Enjoy fighting the Russians when your High Representative completes her plans.

    • Anonymous
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      I have children too.

      I voted Brexit. That is putting my money where my mouth is.

      • Andy
        Posted February 11, 2018 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

        No – it is putting your mouth where their money is.

        • Edward2
          Posted February 11, 2018 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

          The 15 year report tells you your children will be better off.
          Do you believe it Andy?

          • Andy
            Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

            It tells you that our children will be significantly worse off than they would be without Brexit. And that they will comparatively much worse off than their continental counterparts.

            Will they be better off than we are today? Perhaps – but when Brexit pushes us far behind most of the developed world that is no consolation. Still, I would expect nothing less from the Baby Boomers – the most selfish generation in history – to finish off the national pillaging they have started.

          • Edward2
            Posted February 12, 2018 at 8:29 am | Permalink

            So not poorer then.
            Which is what you keep saying.

  38. gregory martin
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    If ‘politely expressed’ does not convey, my research has shown that ‘Google translate’ does not have an issue with the vernacular response in all the languages spoken in 27 other member states….

  39. Mick
    Posted February 10, 2018 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Off topic
    What bloody right as this woman got to criticise what the PM is doing , it’s about time she shut it up unless she’s got something worth talking about which is nothing, if she wanted to make a difference she should have stood as a candidate in the last election, oh no she wouldn’t do that because she would have lost her deposit as well as being left with egg on her face, it’s about time these people with money saw the light that this Great country of mine is full of people with less money but full of Pride of being British , so just back off backing the eu and stand firmly behind the best country in the world GREAT BRITAIN or pack your bags and go live in your beloved eu bye bye you’ll not be missed

  40. Gerhard
    Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    ” The EU should change its self imposed rule – which is not a legal requirement – that it cannot talk about trade ….”

    This is breathtaking arrogance. Who are you tell the EU what it “should” do? You’d be the first to complain if the EU told the UK what it “should” do, but it seems that the other way round is fine. You British don’t have any gunboats anymore, Mr Redwood, and a bit more humility would be very welcome

    Reply Fine. If they don’t want to talk trade we should not pay them any money

    • Andy
      Posted February 11, 2018 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      It is like dealing with children. Massively entitled children.

  41. Juiliet
    Posted February 11, 2018 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    Totally agree the transition is a pointless waste of time and money to stall exiting the EU cleanly and timely. 2 years of accepting every insane law, continuation of freedom of movement and not being able to change anything. This defeat the purpose of the deadline date and suspect no business will step up to transition to the post Brexit status giving more excuses that they are not ready. Its ridiculous to say its a transition and nothing changes in the process. When March 2019 kicks in we should be implementing the new way of working and adapting not readying for 2 more years of this nonsense limbo phase and our standard of living deteriorating

  42. Fred
    Posted February 16, 2018 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    Reading this one would think the EU was the party that asked for a transition period.

  • 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.

  • 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