A 3 option referendum would not work

The latest call for a referendum between leave, the White Paper terms and Remain is a non starter. We made our decision in the original referendum and need to get on with implementing it.

The EU will not accept the government’s opening bid in the White Paper so it is not a real  option.

It is by no means clear we could get back into the EU on current terms once we have left in March 2019 were people and Parliament to change their minds. The EU would  probably want us to sacrifice our veto on the Euro and Schengen, and lose the contributions rebate for starters. It would need to be negotiated, with uncertain outcome, so that too is not a fixed and available option.

There is no point in voting on two options the EU does not accept. The real referendum was about two straightforward options – stay in on current terms, or leave. The EU agreed to both under their Treaty. We voted to leave. We were told  by Parliament and government voters were making the decision.

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

233 Comments

  1. Teesside Brexit
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    A 3 way referendum would probably split the pro Brexit vote and remain would end up with the largest vote of the 3 options.

    Reply She wants a transferable vote with second pref

    • Stephen Priest
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      ComRes poll for the Daily Mirror:

      39% think the Prime Minister “should accept a no deal and the UK simply leave the EU”.

      20% agree with her Chequers plans.

      • Hope
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

        Grieve today doing the rounds saying no point trying to bring May down as it won’t take us forward! The same Grieve who made veiled threats to collapse her govt! What does this say about how ultra remainers want May as PM. I still think May was acting in concert with them while Robbins writing the remain paper by different names. Clarke six weeks ago asked May in parliament if she would diverge from regulatory alignment, fudge answer. Patterson two weeks ago asked a dud question about single market and customs union providing dishonest May the ability to say we are leaving these. She failed to say but remaining under another name fixed by treaty forever. We now know it to be dishonest because Robbins must have been writing her remain paper at the time hidden from Dexu who thought they were writing the paper to leave based on her speeches and manifesto. Tell me JR if this is not dishonest?

        May even wants a non regression clause to follow other policy areas like environment and energy! How rotten is she? No our pRliament decides these policies not he EU. May has tried to make our country a vassal state. JR, etc ed

      • margaret
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

        I notice T Blair is now advocating out without a deal as there isn’t any room for soft brexit

      • mancunius
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

        Interesting that Greening made her water-muddying demand for a three-way referendum vote just after the first papers were onlined this morning… Might there be some dotted lines to join up there, I wonder?

        To my mind, the Remainer attraction for another referendum is that it can be loudly and publicly deemed (shortly in advance of the vote) ‘merely advisory, and not binding on the government’. Then the Remainers decide whether to pay any attention to it or not, depending on whether they win or lose.

        Oh but surely they would not be so duplicitous – where (as Bertie Wooster might have said) are the moral lessons they learnt lisping at mother’s knee?

    • Pud
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:38 am | Permalink

      The transferable vote suits the White Paper “Brexit in name only” option. A Remainer will vote Remain and might want to chose White Paper as their second preference. A Leaver will chose Leave but might chose the White Paper option if they don’t realise it’s not really Brexit. So both side’s second preferences go to the pretending to leave option.

    • rose
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:52 am | Permalink

      She is a typical non Conservative trying to rig the vote on Liberal lines. According to Liberal theory, everyone whould put as their second preference the PM’s Chequers proposal; yet the unacceptability of that is her stated reason for having another referendum to cancel out the first. Brilliant reasoning. Very gifted woman. Magnetic speaker. How did she ever get into the Cabinet? By ticking three or four positive discrimination boxes of course.

      • rose
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

        By the way, who decided we would elect mayors on this system? The decision was taken after we have voted to retain FPTP. Was it Nick Clegg?

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:55 am | Permalink

      They can see that the WP has gone down like a cup of cold sick and are now clutching at various straws.

      Strange when the answer is so straightforward, leave on WTO terms, sign a decent deal with the USA and others, and negotiate with the EU only as and when they wish to. I’d give them 6 months to start negotiating or sue for return of our assets held within the EU.

      That on her ballot paper would be a winner, but of course she wouldn’t agree to phrase it like that.

    • stred
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      It’s all part of the Remain plan. This includes making WTO impossible, hence all the nonsense about paperwork and deliberate delay. The customs officials have been back to the committee and said that they still have no definite instructions as to which way to go. If Chequers is accepted, they won’t need as much software. The advanced system will not be ready by March 2019 because they were not instructed to early enough. However, they can manage with the normal forms and customs at ports until the one they were planning is ready. Whether the French and Irish have theirs ready is another question. Perhaps this is why Olly and Treez the Wheeze are keen to collect their taxes for them.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply

      Remain would be virtually guaranteed to make it to the final two given the original 52 48 split. Remain would not need much of the 2nd preference voting to win.

      Clever positioning by remain but a complete non starter as you say.

      Unfortunately this constant chipping away may pay dividends for them

    • Chewy
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

      This idea of a 3 way question was proposed initially br Gina Millar, no doubt with the idea of splitting the Leave vote in a subsequent referendum in terms of funding and campaigning even if there was an alternative voting system.
      But wasn’t this idea rejected via referendum?! So how can you use AV on such an important vote.
      And as has been pointed out under what terms would we Remain? Unknown. So a second referenda on this “once in a generation” issue would have to be caveated that in the event of a Remain win a third referendum would need to be held 2-3 years later to see if we wanted to Remain under the negotiated terms or in fact Leave. Remember now we’re a democracy and must of course be allowed to change our minds as the facts emerge.

  2. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    Oh the irony – those who refuse to accept the result of the referendum want another referendum! No doubt the idea would be to so fix the referendum so as to achieve their desired result. Just what committed EU followers they are, never prepared to accept the will of the people. Your party is in terminal decline unless someone takes charge and implements what we voted for in the referendum which was to leave the EU and become an independent self-governing country once more, a scenario. which your election manifesto endorsed but some of your MPs conveniently ignore.

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      Brian Tomkinson: “Your party is in terminal decline . . .” Indeed. Theresa May authorised a parallel White Paper in secret probably months ago. Unless Olly Robbins has carried out a coup d’etat, this is not rogue Remain civil servants, it is deception from the very top. This is Mrs May’s “Dodgy Dossier” moment. That’s why the Tories are now in terminal decline.

    • jerry
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

      @Brian Tomkinson; “Oh the irony – those who refuse to accept the result of the referendum want another referendum!”

      What a load of utter twaddle! Most people who voted Remain accept the result of the referendum, what they do not accept are Brexiteers telling them why a majority voted for Brexit, when no one has ever been asked How the UK should leave.

      • libertarian
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 8:54 am | Permalink

        Jeremiah

        Remainers are going on about the “how” purely as a way to stop it. Leavers all have a definite idea of what we want. Article 50 , LEAVE … trade WTO THEN talk about options for FTA’s etc…

        NO ONE voted for half in, half out . Maybe the answer is too simple for you

        • jerry
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink

          @Libby; You must believe Norway is a member of the EU, best you tell that to the Norwegian governments!

          The UK voted to Leave the European Union, that is all, otherwise you will be able to cite the question(s) asking How the UK should exit the EU.

          On the other hand I can cite (host permitting) all 28 septate Leave groups who campaigned for Brexit, are you seriously suggesting that an even broadly capitalist group and a broadly Socialist group would be wanting the same sort of Brexit beyond the basic exit? If you do, Walter, you are in even more of a parallel universe than I ever thought.

          Would you be trolling me if Remain had won and I was telling federalist europhiles that the 2016 referendum was merely an IF question and not approval for the scrapping of our opt-outs never mind proposing the creation of the USE – no, you would be agreeing with me…

          • libertarian
            Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

            Jerry

            What are you talking about? I haven’t mentioned Norway at all in this thread?????

            Referendums NEVER ask how the decision will be implemented

            It gave two options

            Leave or Stay It was made abundantly clear what leave meant. Therefore if there was any other result you wanted other than to leave and trade under WTO you should have voted to stay. It really is that simple

            Jeremiah referendums dont work like that, the reason that the SNP lost the Scottish referendum was because they gave a How… i.e. a socialist vision of independence. If they hadn’t of done that they would have won.

            To answer your last question , i was under no illusion that if the country had voted Remain we would have signed up to everything going, including eventually the Euro. So no I wouldn’t be building an argument about the detail I would have been too busy , establishing my home and businesses in the US

          • jerry
            Posted July 19, 2018 at 8:11 am | Permalink

            @Libby; We voted to Leave, but as Norway is not in the EU we could adopt the “Norway model” and still Leave the EU, if you doubt that you are also doubting the FACT that Norway is not in the EU!

            Walter, until the people are give a direct say it will be the government and MPs who decide How we leave, that is how our model of democracy works like it or not. If that means BRINO, to bad, europhobes should have pushed for a second referendum asking the How question if they really believe the majority want something different.

            “i was under no illusion that if the country had voted Remain we would have signed up to everything going, including eventually the Euro.”

            Well perhaps would have but how many on this site would, no they would be agreeing with me, indeed they would be likely be shouting even louder, shouting about how ‘no one has been asked the How question, all we were asked was If we should remain in the EU, not if we wanted to become the USE’…

    • Dennis
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      Brian T -“Oh the irony – those who refuse to accept the result of the referendum want another referendum!”

      I want WTO but the problem stated is that two years have passed and the knowledge of the meaning of OUT has changed/increased from then for many so a 2nd one would be based on different criteria. Would the voting age be reduced before this 2nd ref and how would that change the result?

      Unfortunately I can see their point.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:41 am | Permalink

        I’ve just had my two student sons back home from uni.

        They’re still children. Incapable of pulling their weight, loading the dishwasher etc… I despair. It is exhausting being a parent of a young person.

        You’re talking about lowering the voting age ???

        • jerry
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 7:24 am | Permalink

          @Anonymous; “They’re still children. Incapable of pulling their weight, loading the dishwasher etc…”

          What has parenting skills got to do with Brexit or the voting. But then again you do always look for scapegoats for your own (and others like you) failings. Nothing lower than to scapegoat your own children though…

          I’ve known 10 year children who “load the dish washer” (indeed before dishwashers were common, 10 year children who did the washing up), make their own beds, vacuum their own rooms – in fact I know one person who at age five did some of those things due to family circumstances.

    • Hope
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      Unilateral manifesto published at last minute with Boris forbidden to campaign! skuttled off at night to make a unilateral deal with EU. DUP asked for the text the preceding week. May gave it at the last possible moment. DUP caught her out. White paper the same. Mays lack of integrity is breathtaking when she says it is what we voted for!

      May has form for this sneaky underhand behaviour with gay marriage and European Arrest Warrant. Windrush scandal. Today we read immigration at nearly three hundred thousand! Another policy deception to reduce to tens of thousands!

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Brian

      Agree.

      Can you imagine if Remain had won, would they be worried at all about satisfying the losing Leavers in any way, not a hope in Hell.

      It would simply be, Remain won, so Remain it is, no change or movement on anything.

      Yes the losers would be upset, but would we be carping about the result and trying to change it, No, we would plan to perhaps have another go in 10 years time with another Referendum, but that would be it.

      The vote was taken, and the result was what the result is.

    • Mr Ecks
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

      If both parties betray Brexit then it is a choice of two poisonous socialist tyrannies.

      Better that Corbin destroys the UK. That way socialism will get the well deserved blame. Rather than BluLabour which bangs on about free markets and democracy and freedom and in practice ignores all three.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    We voted to leave (despite the huge bias of the media & BBC, the punishment budget threats for IHT ratter Osborne, Cameron’s absurd tax payer funded leaflet and his blatant sloping of the pitch). Since then the EU have behaved even more appallingly. It is clear they want the EU to be one huge anti-democratic country which clearly will not work anyway.

    Any new vote would be far more towards leave than the last one. We certainly do not need one. We need an honest PM with some backbone who will stick to the promises made and leave cleanly as instructed by the voters in the referendum and the last election.

  4. adams
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:51 am | Permalink

    How do Europhiles like Greening get selected by the Tory constituency parties ? I find that very worrying .
    We need a PR voting system John . The Lab/Tory see-saw is no longer fit for purpose ( if it ever was ) . This can be seen very plainly now in the ridiculous quandary that May and Corbyn have generated through their ineffable incompetence .

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      At least half of Tory MPs and indeed the Cabinet are dire remainer, big state Libdims at best.

      • Mitchel
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

        David Cameron insisted that they went out to look for people from a “Labour background”as candidates……And they found them in spades!

      • Andrew S
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

        I have composed an analysis. A 5% protest swing in most vulnerable remainer tory seats would remove 29 of them. An 8% swing would take out 45 remainer Tories. Applying pain in advance to these mostly small fry would I feel be very persuasive.

      • PhilW
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        I’ve noticed that too. If you look at Soubry, Woolaston, Morgan and Rudd to name but a few they all exude a Metropolitan liberal PC elite agenda that has Liberal writ large all over it and one wonders how they wound up in the Conservative Party.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:43 am | Permalink

        Worst is George Osborn now editor of The Guardian… I mean London Evening Standard.

    • Cynic
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

      We had a referendum on P R . It seems odd to accept the result of one referendum but not that of the other.

      • Peter Parsons
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

        Cynic, no we didn’t. We’ve never had a referendum on PR. We did have a referendum on AV in 2011, but AV is not a form of PR.

        There are three forms of PR, Single Transferable Vote (used in Northern Ireland for everything except Westminster elections and in Scottish Local Government), Open List PR (used widely in Scandanavia) and Closed List PR (used in the UK’s elections to the European Parliament). None of these have ever been put to the UK electorate in a referendum.

        • Edward2
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 6:48 am | Permalink

          If you can’t even win a vote on AV, a very mild form of PR, you have no chance of winning a majority on the more extreme versions.

          • Peter Parsons
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 8:18 am | Permalink

            Edward, which part of “AV is not a form of PR” is proving a challenge for you to understand?

            AV isn’t a mild form of PR, it is not PR at all. I know people who are very pro-PR who voted against AV precisely because it is not PR.

            There’s also no such thing as extreme PR. There’s just PR. It’s fair, it’s representative.

            As an aside, are you aware that, under AV, the Conservatives would have got a larger majority than they did under FPTP? (source: The Electoral Reforn Society). If AV is is any way PR how could that happen?

          • Edward2
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 9:22 am | Permalink

            I will continue to believe that AV is a form of PR.
            If you had won the vote you would then have claimed it was a vote in favour of PR and the campaign would then have moved on to pushing a more extreme version.
            As you lost badly your policy now is that AV wasn’t PR
            It’s not what I was told during the pre vote campaign

          • Peter Parsons
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

            Edward, and I will continue to believe the moon is made of cheese. Doesn’t make it true.

            I don’t want “extreme PR”, just PR.

            AV is not PR, not mild PR, not partial PR, not PR at all.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

            Well you carry on with your opinion Peter.
            I remember the AV debate and being repeatedly told that it was a form of PR by those who campaigned for it.

          • Peter Parsons
            Posted July 18, 2018 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

            It isn’t an opinion, it’s a fact. A quick internet search for “Is AV a form of PR” makes it very clear.

            AV is not a form of PR, it’s a member of the plurality/majoritarian family of system.

          • libertarian
            Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:29 pm | Permalink

            Peter Parsons

            Absolutely no point in PR we need one person one vote , DIRECT election of the Prime Minister. All this Rotten Boroughs constituency stuff is so 20th century

            Please note if we were still in the last century and hadn’t invented the tech we have I would have been in favour of PR

      • graham1946
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

        That wasn’t proper PR. It was an offer no-one could accept, done for the purpose of gerrymandering the result.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 8:56 am | Permalink

          by the architect of it and PR cheerleader Nick Clegg !!!!

      • JoolsB
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        It wasn’t PR that we were offered to appease the Lib Dums. It was the alternative vote, something quite different.

      • forthurst
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

        We were not allowed a referendum on PR; we were allowed a referendum on AV which is not remotely equivalent to PR. PR means that first choices count and that 17.4 million people would not have been disenfranchised by liars.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

          forthurst

          You wonder why people are against PR when people like you think you could use it in a binary referendum. Lol

    • JoolsB
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

      The Conservatives and Labour have got the voting system stitched up between them. Why would they want to change that? How can we call ourselves a democracy with the current system that saw UKIP receive 4 million votes, more than the Lib Dums, SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru put together yet received not one single representative for those four million people in parliament. Disgrace. But don’t expect the two main parties to change the undemocratic system we have currently as long as it favours them both which it does.

    • Adam
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      First-Past-the-Post sets a high point, yet is probably the best system.

      Proportional Representation is the committee-type formula that is intended to select a fit horse but favours camels. PR would, however, have transformed UKIP’s earlier 3.9 million votes into a substantive presence in parliament, instead of just 1 seat. On that basis, perhaps 3.9 million voters, as well as the Lib Dems, would support PR!

  5. Dave Andrews
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    Some have called the White Paper a fudge. I wouldn’t say that. I rather like fudge – a delicious confection.
    I look at the White Paper however, and wonder what it is. Is it even edible?
    Hasn’t the PM learnt from her Conservative Manifesto experience that writing incomprehensible material in enigmatic management-speak won’t convince anyone.
    I’m sure that once the EU have woken up again, they will put it out of its misery.

  6. Andy
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    Yeah – we were also told Leave meant £350m a week for the NHS, an immigration points system, less bureaucracy, easy and immediate trade deals worth 10 times the size of what we have now and all of the (many) benefits of the EU with none of the costs. All of this we now know is completely untrue.

    If you buy a brand new new top of the range convertible Aston Martin – and the salesmen delivers you a beaten up second hand Robin Reliant – you would not be expected to keep it on the grounds that it is still a car.

    You promised us an Aston Martin Mr Redwood. Your party is delivering us Robin Reliant. I want my money back.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      Agree. The Remainers have done a truly awful job of negotiating.

      • John Booth
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:50 am | Permalink

        They haven’t tried to negotiate. May and Robbins are Remainers and it’s been the plan all along to stop Brexit. May is simply sticking to the plan.

        She is a liar and a traitor.

      • Andy
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

        Convenient excuse.

        Due to our undemocratic electoral system there is nothing to stop the Tory hard right pensioners in Parliament kicking out Mrs May and installing Mr Rees-Mogg instead.

        The public need not even have a say. The 310 of them can decide for themselves. Which is just as well for you because the electoral results of a Rees-Mogg led Tory party would be funny. Please try it.

        As you know, I am not in favour of a 3rd referendum. (1975 was the first). It would just lead to decades more Brextremist whinging.

        You lot are unappeasable – so there is no point in trying to appease you. My view is simple. We should let you get on with it, we should make sure everyone know how much worse you have made things and we should ensure that you own the blame. We are doing a good job so far.

        I am totally fine with Mr Rees-Mogg or whoever you like negotiating Brexit. Donald Duck could do it for all I care – or the Pope. Perhaps Cheryl Cole. Pick whoever makes you happy. After all there is no such thing as a good Brexit deal – there are just degrees of badness. The problem is not the people it is the policy.

        The more extreme our negotiators are – the worse Brexit will be, the quicker it will be overturned and the further the Tory hard-right pensioners will plummet in the polls. So bring it on. The harder the better.

        Of course none of you will. You don’t have the balls. You are basically hard-wired to whinge.

        • Edward2
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 6:52 am | Permalink

          May has a small majority.
          She can be outvoted by just a few of the approximately 630 MPs
          That is democracy.
          Odd that you like the pensioners in the House of Lords.

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      Andy, You have been told that the car was a Reliant Robin, not a “Robin Reliant” already. None of your other claims are true either. That you get the same facts wrong repeatedly shows your production line comments are based on no more than your emotional commitment to Remain, and a conservative resistance to change.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:46 am | Permalink

        He comments on cars he wasn’t even old enough to have experienced. Slates British manufacturers without ever mentioning Japanese Datsuns. Anyone remember those rot mobiles ???

        You’ll still see Minis and Allegros pristine and going strong at car rallies.

        Not a single Datsun though.

        • hans christian ivers
          Posted July 18, 2018 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

          most BL cars were absolutely useless

    • graham1946
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      ‘All of this we know is completetly untrue’

      No we don’t. We haven’t even been offered a deal or no deal, the EU simply refuse to do so until the last minute which apart from making member vote the ‘right way is a traditional EU stunt. We haven’t even agreed to what our government is going to do other than cave in to the money demands, so your post is a bit premature. When the final deal or no deal is in place come back and make your remarks. Until then it is all supposition or as you would say ‘lies’.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Andy “competely untrue” you claim.
      1. We can’t make any trade deals until we leave. Many nations have expressed their willingness to do a post Brexit deal with the UK
      These deals will increase trade but I’ve not heard ten times being claimed.
      It would make us as big as America.
      2 the bus….we haven’t left yet so no savings yet When we have left the billions which are our current membership costs can be spent elsewhere.
      3 immigration points system was one of several methods promoted as post Brexit systems for having an immigration policy which is fair to all nationalities and enables those we need are able to come here.
      4 less bureaucracy. ..yes if we actually leave the EU ie what you call hard Brexit then there will be a reduction in this area.
      I think you know all this but you continue to post nonsense to be provocative.

    • Paul H
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink

      We don’t know they are untrue. We haven’t left.

      • EUBanana
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

        And have a government uninterested in providing any of the above. A government happy to hand millions to the EU, to snub the Commonwealth, to agree to no borders.

        In short, a government that has no intention of implementing anything Brexit voters wanted. It’s hardly surprising that none of the happy things predicted will come about given that.

      • getahead
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        It shows just how weak the Remainer armoury is when the only ammunition they can find is a slogan on the side of a bus which they call a promise but was nothing of the sort.

    • Dennis
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

      Andy – “Yeah – we were also told Leave meant £350m a week for the NHS,…”

      It didn’t. Read the bus poster again and try to understand its meaning.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      There is no appetite for a second referendum.

      Hardly any bothered to turn out for a weekend march supporting a second referendum in the supposed Remain Capital of Britain.

      A maximum of 100,000 out of a London populace of 8 million. Pitiful. Fox hunting got 4x that (and was rightly ignored.)

      The youth support didn’t turn out either, true to previous form during the original referendum when the registration deadline was held open for them and they still didn’t get their act together or bother to get out of bed on the day.

      The mandate you seem to think you have for a second referendum exists only in your fevered imagination.

      The polls show that there is no appetite for a second referendum and the march gives us visual proof of it.

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      Andy

      Mrs May has already promised the NHS £20 billion which is about the figure you suggest.

      She said it was part of the Brexit bonus, even though we have not left yet so whats the problem.

      The promise to the NHS has been kept.

      Perhaps if we had had leavers in charge we may have done rather better with the EU

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

      Well the EU was sold as a Common Market and over 40+ year become a very expensive, anti-democratic, socialist prison and straight jacket.

    • Chewy
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

      We were also told that there would be an emergency budget, house prices would plummet and someone would squash my pet hamster (OK the last one’s incorrect but not far off par with some of the claims made by Stronger In)
      Oh and all this wasn’t going to happen after we’d actually left (because we’ve not actually left yet stupid Leaver); it was going to happen straight after the referendum. George Osborne dismissed forecasts of a slow down with the uncertainty that a Leave vote would bring and claimed there would be a recession that morphed into a possible depression.
      Michael Gove when he said on air that a Leave vote would be followed by a few bumps in the road was reposted by David Cameron who responded by bump another job gone etc …
      Need to get a better grasp on recent history methinks.

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:53 pm | Permalink

      “we were also told Leave meant £350m a week for the NHS,”
      No, you weren’t.

    • Ron Olden
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:35 am | Permalink

      Andy….Mrs May has already announced a £20 Billion a year rise in NHS spending which is more than £350 Million a week.

  7. Adam
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    Too much fake importance is attached to the worthless White Paper. It should be shredded & its main proponent dumped for recycling into something useful.

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:24 am | Permalink

      Adam, It is more than the “revolving door” Robbins WP, the crucial point is that Theresa May must have authorised its preparation in secret some months ago. And all that time she has therefore knowingly been deceiving all of us -her own MPs, her own party, and the country. It is rottenness at the highest level, and very similar to the production of Tony Blair’s “Dodgy Dossier”.

      • Mitchel
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

        Rather unimaginatively the press have begun referring to Robbins as her Rasputin.That’s her second after Nick Timothy.

        It took only one to get the entire Romanov family shot!

      • Adam
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        I agree with you NickC; their deceit is about the worst.

  8. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    On TV this morning Justine Greening contradicted the presenter when the latter questioned whether ordinary voters could be expected to settle such a complex issue, stating her belief that the electorate were very capable of making their minds up and the problem lay instead with stalemated or deadlocked politicians. She could have been a little more honest by saying that the problem lay with despicable unfit politicians like herself, anti-democratic politicians who would vote to enable the people to make a decision but then refuse to accept the answer that the people returned. In any case if politicians refuse to accept the result of a first referendum what is the point of holding a second referendum when they will only accept the result of that vote if it is the one that they want?

  9. jerry
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Nonsense, Brexiteers are just scared that voters will change their minds!

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      Not really because a Remain vote in a second referendum would be purely advisory, no ? So the Brexiters could ignore it.

      • Graham Wood
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        Very good point. Unless of course the government declared (again!) that the decision by the people would be honoured by the government.

        But that is begging the question which is was the first referendum binding on government? According to Cameron and the booklet sent to every householder it certainly was binding on government, and it said so in plain terms. It is for this reason that Brexiteers (and not a few remainers) refuse to contemplate a second referendum.
        There is no need therefore for one, given the potential it would have to further divide both country and parliament even more deeply than now

      • jerry
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

        @Roy Grainger; “[any] vote in a second referendum would be purely advisory,”

        Would it, that surely means that the first referendum was purely ‘advisory’ too – problem solved!…

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:08 am | Permalink

      Jerry, Nonsense, a “second” referendum can only be valid if the first one was valid. But the first being valid makes the second (Remain/Leave) superfluous.

      • jerry
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

        @NickC; Not if it asks a different question, or two.

        • NickC
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

          Jerry, Exactly. For a “second” referendum to be valid it cannot repeat the “first” (2016) Referendum question.

          • jerry
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

            @NickC; Thank you for agreeing with me, I’ve been saying that for the last two or three weeks (and before my recent sabbatical)!

    • Dominic Johnson
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:27 am | Permalink

      So your argument is an in out ref every three years?

      Or just vote until in then never vote again

      • jerry
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        @Dominic Johnson; No, the original vote stands (in my opinion) any second referendum needs to ask the How (the UK should leave) question. Of course -much to my dismay- the people might well choose a BRINO exit, and that’s why those who do not actually believe in direct democracy hate the idea of asking such a question.

        • NickC
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 11:01 am | Permalink

          Jerry, No, the people chose an outcome – Leave – that’s why those who do not actually believe in direct democracy hate the idea of accepting that result.

          • jerry
            Posted July 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

            @NickC; No one has ever been asked How they wish the UK to leave the EU, only If.

            The ONLY people who hate direct democracy are fundamental europhobes, such as yourself, because they know they would never get their ideals past the electorate – if I’m wrong why not hold that second referendum and put an end to the current moribund mess, after all you’ll have nothing to loose…

    • Jagman84
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

      Cruella May has just binned the idea of a further referendum and the EU is reported to have rejected her ‘surrender document’. A vote on it, in parliament, is now quite pointless, I’d imagine.

    • EUBanana
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      Because having seen what Remainers are like I fully expect to be stitched up. Recall Paddy Ashdown, when he was sure Remain was going to win.

      “I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent.

      When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t.”

      In an alternate universe where Remain won there can be no doubt whatsoever that the Brexiteers would be completely ignored even if they got 49.9% of the vote. There would be no ‘concessions’ or ‘appealing to the whole nation’.

      We know full well that Remainers don’t want to play with a straight bat. Best of three? I don’t think so.

      If there was another referendum it should be boycotted as illegitimate and an Establishment stitch up. And even if Brexit one that one it’s not like the Remainers would be silenced. They’ll never be silenced.

    • Steve
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      No, we don’t want a second referendum because the track record of Europhiles is to have another referendum until they get the result they want. This happened in Ireland with them joining the Euro.

      So no, another referendum would be an affront to democracy.

    • libertarian
      Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

      jerry

      Not much chance of remain winning a second referendum

      They have told us that referenda must have a 70% in favour vote to win

      They would have to ( using your method) list ALL the ways of joining the EU , i.e. HOW we would join

      2nd Ref Ballot

      Do we

      1) Remain outside the EU

      2) Join EEA/EFTA

      3) Join the EU with out Schengen but in euro

      4) Join the EU without Schengen & Euro

      5) Join the EU and the Euro but not schengen

      6) Join the EU, schengen and Euro

      etc etc etc

      • jerry
        Posted July 19, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

        @Libby; My original reply appears deleted, or perhaps i replied in detail in another debate to the same question. All I will say is that multi-choice referenda are used and work in Switzerland.

  10. Turboterrier.
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Remain is a non starter. We made our decision in the original referendum and need to get on with implementing it.

    Absolutely on the money John.

    When you see ministers like Gregg Clarke on the BBC this morning at the air show it just confirms what was often talked about in the workplace and especially the shop floor.

    Incompetent, insecure managers surround themselves with expendable tail gunners irrespective of their personal abilities, who sole purpose is to protect their leaders decisions at whatever cost with totally no regard to the people most affected by them

  11. Beecee
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Another referendum so the people can decide and let us know what they want – says a Remain ex Minster.

    Why would this be different from the last Referendum when both sides said ‘Brexit’ would mean leaving the Customs Union and the Single Market, and having lost, the Remainers continue to try to overturn that clear mandate?

    The hypocrisy is mind boggling!!!!

    • Timaction
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. Just in case our host hasn’t seen it. The following comment is doing the rounds. All in Parliament should note consequences of their betrayal in this unacceptable white paper, produced in secret by May’s remainiac’s, shown at the 11th hour 55th minute as a fait acompli……………..

      “”If this referendum result isn’t honoured then why should the electorate accept ANY future referendum, ballot, vote or election result ever again?”

      Agreed. Time for everyone to join UKIP. A Party that would and will deliver our referendum and democracy!

  12. Iain Gill
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Yep get on with it.

    And stop accepting unlimited immigration from none core EU countries.

    • graham1946
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      If we accept the EU Rule Book as May wants and any subsequent rules the EU may dream up, which rule do you think will be the first they will pass? Italy don’t want the immigration, neither does Greece, the Germans have toasted Merkel over it and the Hungarians have built a fence against it. Could it be that the UK will have to take it? This rule book idea is the stinkiest of all the possible combinations.

  13. Richard1
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    Well I suppose you could have a 3 option referendum with a single transferable vote so long as it’s held before March 19: – 1) WTO 2) cancel article 50 & remain, & 3) the Polished T**D. I suspect option 3) would struggle to get 20% of first choices!

  14. Mick
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:12 am | Permalink

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/16/justine-greening-backs-second-brexit-referendum-theresa-may/
    Politicians most surely think that the public are as thick as two short planks, we voted out what part don’t they understand about that, the only reason politicians are calling for another referendum is so that with the backing of big business and the Eu and a lot of lies they can try and overturn the last result, call a GE so we your boss can out all these Eu loving politicians and fill it with true believers in the UK

  15. MickN
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    What you could guarantee John is that whereas the last referendum asked do you want to remain or leave another one would be worded as to whether we wanted to accept the leave deal or remain. Mrs Sourbry said as much in a recent interview.
    In the first referendum I was young and foolish and voted to stay in the EU, a decision I deeply regretted over time. When I voted to leave in the recent one I smiled widely as I placed my ballot paper in the box such was the sense of relief that I felt at being able albeit 40 years on to correct my badly placed vote from my youth.
    I sincerely wish you and your colleagues well in the house today in getting the awful “Chequers Mess” consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

  16. Ian wragg
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:15 am | Permalink

    Project fear mark 3. Have a referendum where leaving is not an option.

    Question. Stay under Mays terms.
    Stay in the EU.
    You’ve got to admire their ingenuity.

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:28 am | Permalink

      Ian Wragg, You have summarised the self-serving Remain second referendum position perfectly.

  17. michael mcgrath
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    I listened to Justine Greening promote this nonsense this morning on the Today programme.

    She maintained that Parliament is gridlocked over this matter and that it should be sent back to the populace for a second referendum.

    She misses the point. The referendum has been completed. The decision of the nation was to leave. If Parliament cannot do the necessary, change the Parliament

    • Oggy
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      Indeed Michael, my thoughts exactly, Justine Greening completely misses the point.

      The fact is Parliament already has a mandate to Leave the EU, the problem is not with the electorate but the majority of MP’s who refuse to implement their promise to carry out whatever the electorate decided.

      They are using any tactic to delay and prevent Brexit. It is noteworthy Greening is a remainer and as per EU tactics wants to carry on having referenda until they get the ‘right’ result. So best of 3 or 5 or 7 ……………. ad infinitum.
      It wouldn’t solve anything only increase division and animosity in the country.

      I believe I read somewhere that the questions on the ballot would be
      a) clean Brexit
      b) so called ‘soft Brexit’
      c) Remain in the EU

      with a first and second choice required ! – and they would take everyone’s second choice as the result. This would virtually guarantee b to be the winner as whether you vote leave or remain that would be everyones second choice. The idea is just ludicrous.

      You couldn’t make it up.

    • Timaction
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. If May and her deceitful cohorts can’t deliver our Brexit, as instructed by the electorate, then she must call an election and we can place true Brexit candidates in every English and Welsh constituency! Then Parliament would respect the people’s wish’s. To start we could focus on every remain politico in every leave Constituency. Then look down the list as the most likely to vote to leave in marginal area’s where the public were fooled by project fear.
      The Maybot’s a National embarrassment and must go! Spoilt goods.

    • Simon Coleman
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

      We’ve already had one change of Parliament since the referendum. How has that solved anything?

  18. Peter Martin
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    There’s a growing argument that we should stay in the EU because it’s just too difficult to leave. Lots of problems with the Irish border, supply chains, customs agreements etc. I think there is probably something in this. Or at least the Leaving process does look like it’s going to be harder than many (including myself) would have expected.

    The EU as it is at present, and as we all are aware, isn’t the finished article. What the Remain side likes to call ‘Europe’ changed enormously during the time the UK was a member of firstly the Common Market, then the EEC, later the EC and now the EU.

    So what are we going to end up with? I’d say a United States of Europe. But whatever it is, suppose we don’t like it. What then?

    Are those who push this argument saying that we are always going to be attached to the same train, and of course on the same rails, so we’ll just have to accept whatever destination we do eventually arrive at?

    That’s the logical conclusion. So, hard as though it may be, I think we just have to leave now while we just about still can. We won’t get another chance. And with a real Leave too! Not just a pretend one!

  19. Richard1
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    The case of Sweden shows you don’t need an opt out to avoid the euro – the EU does not apply it’s famous rules consistently when it suits it. If WTO was chosen presumably we would need an extension in departure to prepare as it’s clear the Govt haven’t done enough, thanks to Hammond. If need be we should withdraw article 50 and re-submit it. And next time prepare seriously for WTO. Under no circs should Mrs May stay as PM under this option.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:46 am | Permalink

      There is no treaty provision for an Article 50 notice to be withdrawn.

      • rose
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

        The EU changes any rule it likes, and witholds any flexibility it likes.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 8:51 am | Permalink

          They do, and our government helps to conceal their wrongdoing.

      • Richard1
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

        There’s nothing saying it can’t be and several EU figures have already said it would be possible. We should on leave under WTO if it’s clear sufficient prep has been done. No-one has been convincing on this yet.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 9:10 am | Permalink

          No EU figure has any legal authority to say that.

          I remember Daniel Hannan writing about this kind of thing years ago: he would say to some other MEPs “Where in the treaties does it say you can do that?” and they would reply “Where does it say that we can’t do it?”

          Well, the answer to that has always been that the EU is based on the principle of conferral, now embodied in Article 5 TEU:

          http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-1-common-provisions/9-article-5.html

          “Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein.”

          And as stated there is nothing in the EU treaties to confer upon any of the EU institutions the legal power to agree to the revocation of an Article 50 notice once it has been deposited.

    • Jagman84
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      David David claims that a lot of preparation has gone into a ‘ no deal’ WTO departure. We trade under this system for non-EU nations so it is hardly unknown territory!

    • Ron Olden
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:32 am | Permalink

      There is no Treaty provision to withdraw the Article 50 notice.

      All the Treaty provides for is to postpone the departure date. But that requires the agreement of all 28 countries.

      No ‘preparation’ is required for trading under the WTO Rules. We already do so for the majority of out International Trade at the moment.

      The only serious issue is the Northern Ireland Border, and that’s mostly manufactured as well.

      In any case there’s’ already a transitional agreement in place to carry us through to the end of 2020.

  20. Andrew
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    You sound like you’re panicking

    The leader of your party says she is getting on with it. What is there to worry about? You won the referendum and we were promised easy sailing

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      The people panicking are those who fear WTO terms. John isn’t one of them.

    • Former Tory
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      I agree, andrew. Redwood sounds very rattled. Not surprisingly. He promised us the EU would fold under pressure from German carmakers and that India and the US would offer us GREAT trade deals. Not a hint of it. Not a hint. Brexit has been exposed as a fairystory

      • libertarian
        Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        Former Tory

        Oh dear another dummy

        We haven’t left yet so we can’t negotiate trade deals

        I suggest you go read some of the German press and the German Chamber of Commerce if you dont think that German manufacturers aren’t concerned about WTO trade with us post Brexit

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

      Get out of the way then.

    • Ron Olden
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:23 am | Permalink

      Who specifically promised you ‘easy sailing’?

      Leavers are not in power. Remainers are. And I don’t remember them doing so.

      As for Leavers, they aren’t in a position to deliver anything.

  21. Newmania
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    The Brexit voters were told there was no cost to leaving which was clearly untrue, they did not, for the most part, even know if the existence of the institutions that we are now told they voted to leave,the single market notably.
    We can leave the EU and stay in the EEA or ( or similar) we can leave with no deal or we can stay in. We cannot have our cake and eat it as Leave pretended
    If , as seems to be the case , you are suggest that we leave with no deal and take all the risks associate with that extreme position you must have a strong mandate for the great sacrifices loss of jobs and much else this will entail.
    If you feel ti is impossible that such a course would be supported the conclusion is clear.

    Are you a democrat or not ?

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:51 am | Permalink

      Yes we were told those things.

      The referedum campaign was long and detailed.

      Remainers know very little about the EU when you press them. Rarely do they know who their MEP is, the party they stand for or the policies of that party.

      Try it as a test.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:52 am | Permalink

        ‘Have cake and eat it’ was never mentioned in the referendum. It was glimpsed on a careless staffer’s briefing notes.

      • Newmania
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 7:44 am | Permalink

        Try asking the average leave voter what the single market is or , let us say what passporting is

        • Edward2
          Posted July 17, 2018 at 9:24 am | Permalink

          Ditto the average remain voter.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

          Newmania

          Tell you what, without googling tell me what passporting is and why its important

  22. Peter
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Bernard Jenkins pointed out on Radio 4 that this would mean an extra year before such a referendum took place. The BBC Justin Webb hardly allowed him to get a word in. His views were clearly unwelcome.

    Earlier Justine Greening had been welcomed and her ideas enthusiastically listened to.

    We all know it is just another delaying tactic with the hope of going back inside the EU.

    Surprisingly, the BBC did point out that going back into the EU might be difficult and there were no guarantees it would be on the same terms.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      Agreed, it was an example of BBC bias, Greening’s ridiculous pro EU idea gets a respectful audience from the BBC, while Bernard Jenkins could hardly get a word in edge ways.

      • Timaction
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

        Now do you wonder why the Tory’s haven’t got rid of the BBC and made it subscription………………??

      • Stephen Priest
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        On the BBC everyone politician who wants to leave is a “Hard Line Brexiteer”.

        I have never heard the BBC use the term “Hard Line Remainer”.

        I can only assume its because 99.9999% of the people they interview on the subject are “Hard Line Remainers”.

      • fedupsoutherner
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

        Iain. Agree. I wondered when the hell she was going to shut up. Can’t stand the woman. Another one that cannot understand the word leave. I think we all foresaw this scenario months ago. They make me sick. So if it comes back that we want to stay can we have another referendum because Brexiteers aren’t happy? No, thought not. The BBC will make sure the electorate are scared sh—less by their biased propaganda and ensure the public vote to stay in. We have had enough of this crap. Just get on with what the result told you.

  23. Peter D Gardner
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    I do not mean to be gratuitously rude but, really, how does someone capable of a proposal so utterly devoid of merit as this one of Justine Greening, get to be an MP?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:52 am | Permalink

      She richly deserves it and not just for this lunacy.

    • Paul H
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      She is not alone in this.

    • John E
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:21 am | Permalink

      You need to pay more attention. Justine is a long long way from being the worst MP in the House.

      • Ron Olden
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:18 am | Permalink

        I agree. The worst MP in the House is Sarah Wollaston, and considering the competition that’s some achievement,

    • Jagman84
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      How does a Lib Dem become a Tory MP? I’d assume that they lie at the candidate selection interviews.

    • Timaction
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      There’s a lot more like her with a touch of the God syndrome. The plebs won’t know what’s going on!!! We have really got analogue Mp’s in a digital age!
      The Maybot obviously thought she could wing it with her pretend leaving the EU and it’s laws white paper!

    • Stephen Priest
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

      Peter D Gardner “I do not mean to be gratuitously rude but, really, how does someone capable of a proposal so utterly devoid of merit as this one of Justine Greening, get to be an MP?”

      When she was something like Minister of State to the Treasury Andrew Neil she was asked several times to explain George Osborne’s new policy, she obviously didn’t have a clue. She kept trying to regurgitate Nick Robinson’s explanation and kept getting it wrong.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-15154515/conservative-conference-justine-greening-on-credit-easing

  24. Horatio
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    Patrick o’flynn suggests we are about to give £39bn in legally binding treaty before we even negotiate. Is this true please JR?

    Reply I trust not. HMG has always said it needs a Future Relationship Agreement at least in outline before signing off the Withdrawal Agreement. It will need Parliamentary authority to pay any money.

    • BlakeB
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      reply to reply..more fake news..the divorce settlement which includes payment of 39 billion will have to be agreed and signed off by October’s council meeting before any talks on the future can get underway

    • Dr GP
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      It will need Parliamentary authority to pay any money.

      ================

      Consent. Where is my consent for my money being handed over to fat cat Eurocrats who couldn’t run a proper pension scheme and created a massive debt.

      Why should they get a bail out for their incompetence at my expense?

    • ian wragg
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Not so sure about needing Parliamentary authority to pay. Cameron paid the extra without involving MP’s even after telling anyone listening it wouldn’t be paid. (small print, before Christmas).
      The Treasury could transfer the money as a fait accompli and MPs would be side lined.
      remember Hammond and May are rabid remainers.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:55 am | Permalink

      Will it. Alistair Darling paid money over for a rescue even after Labour had lost the election without parluament approval.

      • mancunius
        Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

        Quite – and we were told Treasury officials had ‘taken the initiative’ to hand it over before Parliament could meet.
        It’s all very well to say it will ‘need parliamentary authority’, but if the Treasury accidentally on purpose hands it over, the EU isn’t going to hand it back.

    • Dennis
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply – “I trust not” You just trust not!! You haven’t found out yet?

    • Former Tory
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

      Mr Redwood sems very confused here. The £39bn concerns existing liabilities. It has no connection whatsoever to a future trade deal. HMG agreed this last December. Mr Redwood appears not to have noticed. He is poor on detail, i feel

    • Richard
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

      NOT FOR POSTING – PLEASE PASS TO ERG – I HOPE IT HELPS
      Worryingly correct? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275923/Alistair-Darling-agrees-43bn-UK-save-Euro.html
      “But there was concern that Alastair Darling had signed Britain up to the deal – at a potential cost of £10 billion – even though he could lose his job as Chancellor in a matter of days. The bail-out could also form a dividing line between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as they attempt to form a governing coalition.”
      https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1018765065615544320
      “Back to talks this week EU has serious doubts over May’s Chequers plan but will string her along in negotiations while focusing on boxing Britain into Irish “backstop” “
      https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1018765589681262592
      “No one sees this as a real landing zone apart from the British, is the view EU priority will be Ireland and getting the withdrawal agreement over the line for this autumn”
      https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1018889682044772353
      “If UK heads towards a combined customs territory in legal GATT terms (rather than “as if” in white paper), the ERG amendments seem to me to be irrelevant”

    • Peter D Gardner
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 12:01 am | Permalink

      David Davis replied to JRM’s question in the Brexit Select Committee after the withdrawal agreement was published (I can’t remember the actual date but it was available on video, prob., Youtube) that the bulk of the £39 billion would be paid during the transition period. Since the future relationship will not be finalised until near the end of that period, the answer to your question is ‘Yes’. For all practical purposes the payments are unconditional.
      Another of the many basic lessons in negotiating Mrs May has yet to learn is that once you have agreed something it is extremely difficult to back-track.

  25. alan jutson
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    The simple, quickest, and most sensible solution is to simply leave and trade on WTO rules.

    Then we leave properly.

    Many Countries in the World are not tied to the EU or by their regulations other than when they do business with them, and that seems to work fine, so why are we trying to handcuff ourselves and limit our scope with other Countries who are outside the EU.
    Why tie ourselves to full EU regulation when 80% or more UK business is done by companies who do not export to the EU at all.

    If the EU and the UK want to co-operate on various projects then fine, co-operate, I don’t even mind a co-operated project and paying a fair share, as long as it is value for money and we pay no more than our fair share.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

      I’ve now followed about two hours of the Commons debate and so far nobody has pointed out to the demented Anna Soubry and her friends that they are constantly talking about the needs of just a few percent of UK businesses and totally ignoring the needs of the rest, the other 97% or whatever. Why is this? Is it because there is still a deeply embedded historical idea about “export or die”, and so the only companies which count are those which export, and in particular those which export to the rest of the EU?

  26. Peter
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:50 am | Permalink

    Bernard Jenkins did point out the disconnect between the views that prevail within the BBC and those of the country at large. ‘The SW1 talking shop’ as he referred to it.

    It is stalemate because politicians refuse to implement the decision of the British people. The Remain Establishment.

    The Chequers Deal is dead.

    Why does the House of Commons not implement the decision of the British people?

  27. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Not sure what the point of a second referendum would be when the leadership of both political parties have already shown they don’t respect the result of the first referendum. The Leavers have also told us that binding referendums are unconstitutional so the second one would have to be just advisory too.

  28. Doug Powell
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Well said, JR. Unfortunately not all politicians and commentators have your powers of fair play and logic. Today we have Greening calling for a second referendum and The Times saying that a second Referendum would end the uncertainty.

    This faux uncertainty only exists because of the delay purposefully put into the process by the ‘Traitor’ in downing Street to scupper the Brexit momentum. EU officials must be laughing their heads off: “Another Country conned into a second Referendum!”

    And, of course, the BBC has seized the idea with alacrity – main news item and phone-ins!

    This idea of a second referendum must be killed off. Brexiteers won – why should we surrender that victory? We need all good democrats to defend the referendum result! Brexiteers and the country have nothing to gain from another referendum, and everything to lose! If Brexit were to be defeated in a second referendum, what do we do then? Go for the best of 3, then best of 5, ad infinitum? Methinks uncertainty would be increased enormously!

    More to the point, would anyone expect the bitterness and hatred of the undemocratic remoaners in the country to go away? Quite possibly, it could escalate to proportions of civil unrest!

  29. Dr GP
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    A referendum on the deal would work.

    Do you agree to pay the EU billions of pounds and tens of billions of pounds in subsidies to low paid EU migrants?

    Or

    Do you want to keep your own money?

    There you go. A proper referendum question

    What I suggest as a sop to Greening, is that she starts a crowd funding site, where remainers like herself agree to fund EU migrants in the UK. In full.

    That’s tens of thousands of pounds a year for a family of 4, with one on min wage.

  30. alan jutson
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Please, Please, Please, can the politicians stop negotiating and arguing with themselves.

    The electorate were asked a simple question, we were told it would be final and the result would be honoured.

    The arguments were placed before us, before the referendum, and the majority voted LEAVE.

    It was not a partial leave, a pretend leave, a deferred leave, a leave you had to pay for.

    For goodness sake, we had enough threats about Jobs, trade, security, the economy, the NHS, Cancer treatment, a punishment budget, unemployment and a host of other things.

    WE VOTED LEAVE, what part of that do politicians not understand.

  31. Qubus
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    And don’t forget, there is still the question of Gibralter to look forward to.

  32. Kenneth
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    I have no problem with any referendum (apart from the cost) but we still have not satisfied the Leave result of the last referendum.

    Any referendum we DO have needs to be balanced.

    Justine Greening is suggesting choosing between 3 options:

    1. Leave
    2. Remain
    3. Remain

    That is plainly unbalanced!

  33. Qubus
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:35 am | Permalink

    In principle, WTO rules would be just fine, but the question is: what happens on day one after we have left? I haven’t seen any satisfactory answers to that.

    • NickC
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      Qubus, Remains, through ignorance or deviousness, fail to separate out the putative bi-lateral EU-UK trade deal from agreements within the remit of other international institutions such as the International Civil Aviation Organization. We are not precluded from such agreements simply because there may be no UK-EU trade deal.

      The UK and all the rest of the EU, and the EU itself, are members of the WTO. Therefore, provided our government has in place those international agreements (above), trade with the EU, in the absence of a UK-EU trade deal, will take place under WTO rules. That means on day one we will trade with the EU just as we trade now with the rest of the world, minus a few RTAs negotiated by the EU.

    • getahead
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps because it is a dumb question, Qubus.

    • Ron Olden
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:14 am | Permalink

      There’s a transitional period till the end of 2020.

  34. graham1946
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Another referendum on what? No deal or even any sign of a deal has been negotiated yet. How can a referendum be held on something even our own Parliament cannot agree on?
    This woman is an ex Cabinet Minister – no wonder we are in a state.

    This is a clear attempt at splitting the Leave vote. It is not necessary anyway and only arises because the Tory Party MP’s don’t do democracy, they think they are our masters and should be in charge. The referendum was offered because they could never agree on the EU as has been the case for over 40 years and Cameron thought it an easy way out. The people decided what the Tories could not, so get on with it. If MP’s are so set against the public they should resign. They will certainly be held to account at the next GE.

  35. Jumeirah
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:52 am | Permalink

    Well…..so what now..? According to reports Oily Robbins Plan will not get past ‘what’s his name’ over there and certainly not get through the 27 let alone scrape through easily here. Now that that ‘plan?’ is put to bed – there’s only one alternative and that’s full throttle EXIT under WTO Rules and for that the vicar’s daughter needs to be put out to pasture, Oily Robbins needs to disappear into obscurity together Foreign Office Duncan. ‘Turn at every opportunity’ Gove returned to the backbenches and Remain Ministers dismissed. All at once? Yes. What we need is Trump – hire and fire – ‘GET THE JOB DONE OR YOU’RE A GONNA’. We ain’t got him but we have got Boris. GET ON WITH IT BORIS AND GET THE JOB DONE! We are so fearful of the Corbynistas that we are now frightened of our own shadows. We need backbone or did all that go out with Thatcher and when the bus driver came to town. Meek and undecided is what we are.

  36. Paul H
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    It wouldn’t solve anything. No one likes the “deal” – which is not a deal yet anyway. If Remain won, Leavers would rightly be furious at the usual “keep asking until we get the right answer” tactic, would suspect dirty tricks swung it, and would not shut up. And if Leave won again Remainiacs would not shut up – because they pathologically can’t and won’t.

  37. Chris
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:13 am | Permalink

    Andrew Cadman writes for The Conservative Woman website today on why the Tory MPs are holding back from challenging Theresa May and it does not make good reading for those MPs. Apparently the fact that May misled MPs and was not honest is overridden by something else, or “the sordid truth” as Cadman describes the 5 reasons why Tory MPs won’t act to remove her.
    https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/fear-and-loathing-in-westminster-why-the-tories-darent-dump-may/

  38. ian wragg
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    A 3 way referendum from remainers point of view makes absolute sense.
    1. Leave on WTO terms.
    2. Leave on Mays White Paper terms
    3. Stay in the EU

    1 & 2 would probably get 60% of the votes between them and staying in the EU would get say 40%. Remainers would say that is a mandate for rejoining. They wouldn’t countenance the argument that 60% voted for leave.
    Suddenly majority rule would be enforced.

  39. John E
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    I agree with Justine on one thing. The White Paper proposals are the worst of both worlds.

  40. Chris
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    tory Brexiter MPs have got to act before yet another destruction technique takes hold. The BBC have given it so much publicity and politicians talking about it but not shooting it down is hugely worrying. This is classic Remainer saboteur tactics, and once again there is no rebuttal from Downing Street. Oh for true Brexiter MPs to be in charge and fighting to effect what we voted for i.e. fighting for democracy and the people. The “we know best” MPs/political elite are in control, Mr Redwood, and something has to be done. It is not good waiting till October. Something has to be done this week before the parliamentary recess.

  41. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:21 am | Permalink

    Somewhat off-topic, JR, I am looking at the actual text of the amendment NC1 tabled by Anna Soubry and supported by a host of other EU loyalists, including Labour MPs:

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0128/amend/taxation_daily_rep_0713.1-7.html

    and it says:

    “To move the following Clause —

    “EU Customs Union and pre-commencement requirements

    (1) It shall be a negotiating objective of Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations
    on the matters specified in subsection (2) to maintain the United Kingdom’s
    participation in the EU Customs Union … ”

    So gone is the pretence that we could not and should not stay in “the” EU customs union but instead join in “a” customs union with the EU, a different customs union to the EU Customs Union, and a customs union one which would somehow, miraculously, allow us to regain the control of our trade policy which we lost 45 years ago when we joined the EU (or more precisely then the EEC) customs union.

    Even though Turkey, which has “a” customs union with the EU rather than being part of “the” EU Customs Union, has thereby lost control of its trade policy:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/07/13/president-obama-intervened-in-a-crucial-referendum-president-trump-did-not/#comment-947161

    And even though the EU Commission has expressly stated that a common commercial policy is a “logical consequence” of a customs union:

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/06/03/trade-wars-3/#comment-938461

    What is wrong with these people? Why do they even want to be in our Parliament when they do not want it to have control of something like our trade policy?

    Is it just the money and the perks, or is it that they hate us and wish to do us down?

  42. Freeborn John
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    If Remainers are calling for a 2nd referendum why would they accept its result when they have not accepted the result of the first one? Justin Greening said the problem is that parliamentarians are blocking the implementation of the result of the first vote, but then surely the solution is to fix parliament by changing the MPs. I would suggest a better solution than a 2nd referendum is that every MP who is not prepared to implement the result of the first referendum holds a by-election to let their constituents judge.

  43. George Brooks
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    You are absolutely right the White Paper is a complete non-starter and remainers who think we can retain our present membership, rebates etc etc must by living on another planet. As I have said several times the EU would slaughter us economically which they have been wanting to do for decades.

    • mancunius
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:29 pm | Permalink

      Hear hear! What May tells calls a ‘close partnership’ the EU would treat as a form of lasting enslavement and economic exploitation: and once signed, there would be no way out.

    • Steve
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      @ George Brooks;

      Never look a gift horse in the mouth as they say……why not let May’s WP fail ? and the longer it takes the better. Then we can have hard BREXIT, which is what we voted for.

  44. Charles v
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    This is workable.

    The 3 options would be:
    1) leave on the terms the government has negotiated
    2) revoke article 50/negotiate to rejoin
    3) leave on no more than CETA and only then if no regulatory border down Irish sea unless approved by a referendum in NI.

    If 2 or 3 won then it would necessitate a general election where we would then elect a government to negotiate within the confines of the result of the referendum. With 2, it would be clear that a possible consequence of this would be we would need to join the euro (I’d suggest making it unlikely that this option would win out).

    Sorry, we are in this state solely because the leave campaign failed to have a credible plan to leave and failed to have the courage to set out a preferred option during the original referendum. This failure has made your party and the country more divided than ever.

    The fact that the tories in marginals are now running scarred because they fear a return of Farage says it all – unable and afraid to deal in the detail required to implement any sort of brexit or persuade any of the middle ground to support brexit. Instead we have populist soundbites from them – the electorate deserves better.

  45. Iain Moore
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Well there is a surprise, the electorate vote the wrong way in an EU referendum and the establishment propose they vote again. Who would have ever thought the EU supporters could be so cynical.

    I see the BBC is leaping onto this backbencher’s proposal and making it headline news, which should encourage all the other backbenchers to come up with their proposals, and also expect the BBC to make it the discussion of the day, or may be not, may be it has to fit in with the BBC’s politics.

    PS Its not just a question of if the same terms would be available, the EU is not a static organisation, ever closer union and all that, so any proposals for us to stay in/ rejoin the EU would have to sell to the people the additional obligations we would have to agree to, like the EU army.

  46. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Even more off-topic, the use of the word “common” to describe the EU rulebook on goods by which our present female Prime Minister would have us bound in perpetuity rings a small bell in my mind about our previous female Prime Minister who suggested that the EC could issue a “common” currency, which would run in parallel to national currencies, and got told that, no, it would be the “single” currency of the EC and its only legal tender.

  47. formula57
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    Surely the quislings and remoaners just seek any device that enables the Remain/Leave referendum to be overturned, the details are of no importance although if a veneer of credibility exists, so much the better.

    Recall that the UK government in its gross ineptitude has permitted the Evil Empire to press on with many matters the UK vetoed previously, in the presumption that the UK would leave. Accordingly, remaining would oblige us to now accept measures that were strenuously resisted hitherto.

  48. Pragmatist
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    We are all tired of the Remoaners. They need a kick up the backside. On the downside they would no doubt get pleasure from the pain.

  49. old salt
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Justin Greening needs to be reminded we had the referendum and it was OUT by TWO THIRDS constituencies. There is NO appetite for another. Now get on with it.

    If impossible with the present Remainer PM then there needs something to be done about that and rather urgently. There needs to be a leaver PM and cabinet. Business needs time to adjust. Already over two years have been lost. The occupying power will need determination and resolve to dislodge. Something seriously lacking in our present Government as a whole. So much for our so called representative democracy. If this falls that will be the end of democracy with no point in voting ever with any remaining confidence in the system destroyed. It is already on the way to prove we are living in an (un)elected (EU) dictatorship.

    Mrs May acquired votes from other parties under false pretences promising Brexit means Brexit etc. Even then she lost her majority in a GE she didn’t need to call with that abysmal manifesto so designed to lose.

    It has become blatantly obvious for some time we are not leaving under the present government as presently constituted.

    Just what is the point of another referendum anyway as the last one is not being respected. Sounds more like keep going until they get the right result effectively staying in with pay and obey.

  50. Mark J
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Brexit was a “golden opportunity” for the Conservatives to mop up support from the army of disgruntled Working Class Brexit Supporters. Yet again this “once in a lifetime” opportunity has been lost due to Government backtracking on Brexit promises.

    Remember in October 2017 we were told: “No deal is better than a bad deal”, so why is Theresa May so determined to press on with a bad deal, rather than no deal?

    If Brexit does not happen, there will be HUGE trouble ahead – not to mention the Conservatives out of power for a lifetime.

    The 17+ Million who voted for Brexit, are not going to take what they voted for “swept under the carpet” and written off as a “bad mistake”.

  51. Paul
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    I think Justine may have over indulged on the prosecco at the weekend.

  52. VotedOut
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    We now know that the British PM briefs the German Chancellor before briefing her cabinet, let alone her MPs or Parliament.

    So we must wait to see what the Germans want to on the referendum paper first.

    Clearly we here in the UK have very little say.

  53. cornishstu
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

    Was Justine Greening asleep, we have already had the referendum and decided on leave. The governments own statement sent out to every house hold said they would carry out our wishes we the people would decide and what the results of a leave vote would mean. It is only the establishment of who the majority are pro EU who do not wish to honour our decision as we did not vote the way they wanted causing the problems. We don’t need another referendum just government to get on and carry out the democratic will of the people and leave the EU we can talk about trade when we are out.

  54. Nig l
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    It is being suggested there might be some movement on the 4 amendments that the ERG have suggested but these still leave us tied to qualified immigration, presumably at better terms than the rest of the world, so no ‘control of our borders’, the influence of the ECJ even accepting their rules on tendering and subsidy which I assume means we still cannot just seek U.K. suppliers.

    Why not just vote it all down? I presume a game is being played expecting the EU to refuse to accept it guaranteeing No Deal.

    Still well done so far in the face of vicious threats, I understand your Chair has been threatening to cut off MPs funding support and pleading for local chairs to spread the centres propaganda.

    Will you tell these frankly stupid of another world people that the more they threaten, the more it shows they cannot counter the intellectual arguments, and the more the British people will dig their heels.

  55. John Probert
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    The white paper is damaging and not acceptable

  56. Nigel Seymour
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    On LBC the observation was made that there has been no alternative tabled by anyone. Can we look forward to a ‘whiteish paper’ or statement advocating the WTO option? DD or BJ maybe later today…

  57. Martyn G
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    And not least having to take adopt the Euro and bid farewell to any remaining shred of independence or sovereignty…..

  58. mancunius
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    I’m astonished that the suggestion of one Remainer MP should be taken at all seriously. We have already had a referendum. MPs stood up in the House one after the other and made pretty speeches in favour of triggering Art. 50 to leave the EU. I followed those sessions, and was astonished at their meekness and docility before the people’s decision, particularly with those whose entrenched europhile backgrounds I well knew. I did not realise they were then going to conspire with Brussels to thwart the people’s clear majority decision.

    Parliament is gridlocked only because May is determined not to leave the EU, and most MPs are determined not to legislate, as they have forgotten how to do it. They would all prefer it if Brussels or Berlin make all the tiresome decisions for them, so they could just sit back and take the taxpayer’s money.

    The gridlock is compounded by the determination of Hammond and the Treasury to deliberately refrain from planning for the exit from the EU that the majority voted for in 2016, in the hope that people will be afraid of the chaos will ensue.

    May has calculated that many pro-leavers will be fooled, which is why she found it essential to keep formerly pro-Leave members of the cabinet, and demonstrate that they have swallowed the kool-aid enthusiastically: Stalin would chortle with approval.

    • Andy
      Posted July 18, 2018 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      We’ve had two referenda on Europe. It is currently one all.

      But then in this country democracy works through general elections. And we had NINE consecutive votes won overwhelmingly by pro-Europe parties.

      And in the 2017 election the majority of voters backed parities which either advocated remaining in the single market and customs union or retaining the exact same benefits of them. Hard Brexit lost. What part of democracy do you not understand?

  59. agricola
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

    The problem is not that the electorate voted to leave the EU, it is that our elected representatives in Parliament, the civil service. and the unelected house of lords wish to defy the decision of the electorate whatever flatulent excuses these bodies choose to make for themselves. Their mantra “We respect the decision of the electorate” is an out and out lie, they hold the electorate in contempt.

    Mrs May has quite dishonestly tried to sell some halfway house deal that only emphasises her duplicity. Particularly galling as it goes against everything she has been saying for the past two years. For two years she has been constructively lying to us, and even shielding her intentions from her Chief Negotiator. It is most unlikely that the EU will accept her bucket of worms which makes her effort even more pathetic.

    If the EU cannot accept a free trade treaty on goods and services then the only logical outcome will be trade on WTO terms which for the UK is financially very attractive. I care not how it is done , but she has to go.

  60. Andrew S
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    It is time to vote the remainer Tory MPs out at the next election. Punish them for their Brexit betrayal come what may. Let us take the consequences and boot them out. We can deal with Labour after that. Eventually, we will get a proper Brexit though it may be some time yet.

  61. Roger Parkin
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    A second referendum is both wrong and dangerous. The referendum was sold as a ‘once in a lifetime vote’. After weeks of campaigning the options were laid bare and thousands of new voters participated. Are we really going to tell them that that vote doesn’t count any more. If so large numbers will never take the trouble to participate in the democratic process again.

  62. stred
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    The Remain plotters are busy smearing Boris, writing that he blundered by saying that Mrs Ratcliffe had been working training journalists when visiting Iran. In fact, the committee record shows that he never did say this. He referred to her previous job as a junior role working for the BBC Iran service. The facts had been reported in the Guardian the month before and would have been well known to the Revolutionary Guards, who loathe the BBC.
    If anyone is guilty, it is her ex-employer for not insisting that it would be very dangerous for BBC World Service employees to go to Iran. Why Boris does not bother to play the tape and show the reports is a mystery.

  63. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    JR, in relation to this afternoon’s Commons debate on the Customs Bill, I have just been catching up with a July 11th meeting of the Public Accounts Committee:

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-accounts-committee/customs-declaration-service-progress-review/oral/86727.html

    and without copying and pasting a large chunk of that text I was so forcibly struck by a line of questioning from Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, starting at Q67, that I had to look elsewhere to check that the total customs duties collected by HMRC really do amount to little more than £3 billion a year.

    And I find that is true, Table C here:

    http://obr.uk/box/customs-duties-assumptions-post-brexit/

    Of course at present all the duties are collected on behalf of the EU and are remitted to the EU, less the 20% retained for collection costs, but that is besides the point I wish to make that not only is £3 billion a relatively small sum in the context of UK public finances but the present cost to importers just of customs compliance will be more than half of that*, and surely nowadays there must be a cheaper and less economically damaging way for the UK state, or indeed the EU proto-state, to raise a mere £3 billion of revenue.

    * 55 million customs declarations at an average cost of £32.50 = £1.8 billion.

  64. Willb
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

    I wouldn’t mind so much if only Liam Fox could give us an indication of whàever new deals he has in mind- so far talk is only about the US but I don’t think we should rely on the americans too much as wd can see by President Trumps flip flopping

  65. Robert Pay
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 3:18 pm | Permalink

    A second referendum is what the EU always wants when a country delivers the “wrong” answer…

  66. Dontknowsquat
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    What is the difference between trump and putin?..well not much..both of them got into power following dodgy elections

  67. wireworm
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Thank you, Dr Redwood, for not being peeled off like certain ‘Brexiteer’ ministers.

  68. John Dodds
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    What a wonderful selection of female MPs;May,Rudd,Greening,Soubry,Morgan;May is what could be the Conservative answer to Labour’s Abbot with a different fixation!

  69. Caterpillar
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    It is embarrassing for Conservative, indeed all, MPs that such a suggestion would be made. 1) the vote to leave has already happened, 2) there is a minimum not maximum between the extreme ends of clean Brexit and remain, 3) we are aware of Hotelling and the median voter theorem.

    Correspondingly 1) unethical, 2) dumb, 3) condescending.

  70. Caterpillar
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    Do the ERG amendments still leave a goods over services bias and UK as rule taker? Why so little?

    • Caterpillar
      Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:43 pm | Permalink

      How can reciprocal tax collection and separate VAT system be such close votes? Don’t MPs want to leave the EU?

  71. ian
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    I was wrong, Mrs T May cave into four amendment to the white paper but still a bad bill, anything that means you have to sign a new treaty is a bad bill, especially one as long as this one which can be translated into different meanings as it goes along the process and redrafting between UK and EU.

  72. Mark B
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    I do not seem to remember Scotland being offered a second referendum. Maybe they got the right answer 😉

    The underhanded way in which the PM has conducted herself and government is deeply damaging to our so called democracy. What it has highlighted is that the EU is not the problem but a symptom of the problem. The problem being, we do not live in a democracy.

  73. Den
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

    To ever return to the EU would devastate this country.
    We would appear to be ultra-weak and at the mercy of every other member. Our current fees, net of our existing EU-controlled refund would soar to £18+ Billions because they would not provide us with this rebate upon re-application.
    We would become the EU’s purse and punch-bag all in one because that is the way they are. Vindictive to the point of dominant Dictators.
    And hasn’t Europe had enough of these types over the past centuries? Napoleon, Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, all tried to dominate Europe with guns, bombs and bullets but the EU does not have an army. Yet!!!!
    This must be a non-runner in the face of a new war!

  74. L Jones
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for stating it so clearly, Dr R. Those (such as Andy here) who are STILL banging on about that bus, really do need to widen their reading – and to reconsider their allegiances. Surely allegiance to one’s own country is preferable to that to a foreign power?

    Yes, we want to LEAVE. Surely, even hardened Remainders can see that their EU masters are out for blood.

    Twas ever thus. A few words written by the peerless Gary Sheffield in his book ”Somme” (about the state of Europe before WW1): …. ”Berlin…. planned to reduce France to a second-class power, to turn Belgium into a protectorate, and to create MITTELEUROPA, a German-dominated economic zone in the centre of Europe….”

    They’ve nearly done it. Nearly.

  75. GilesB
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    The status quo was never an option. The EU continues to evolve.

    Remain always was as uncertain as leave.

    Even if the EU let us withdraw Art 50. that does not mean we can keep the status quo. Look at Martin Selmayr’s call for a United States of Europe by 2025!

  76. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    So another referendum? What happens if the result comes back that we want to leave without a deal? Are we to go through all this again? We don’t need another one. We all had the chance to vote and it was made clear with all the warnings of dire consequences if we voted for Brexit but that is what we did. We want to make our own way in the world. We have first class products and can trade with who we want to without any interference from the Eu and that’s what we want. There would be no need for all this fuss if government had sought to leave fully in the first place but they will stop at nothing to thwart the result and get their way. This cannot be allowed to happen. It’s all because they don’t like the result. Tough.

  77. Old Albion
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    And so the backsliding government steps up a gear. Ref. 2 is coming our way. It’s the normal EU tactic.
    Get a ref. correct…………happy days
    Get a ref. wrong…………..Vote again and again until you get it right.

  78. Blue and Gold
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:16 pm | Permalink

    The referendum should have been after the debate of the last 2 years and 3 weeks, not before the debate.

    Nobody, not even those in government knew precisely how Brexit would happen, or forseen the complete shambles that the Establishment Right wingers have caused to our once great country.

    Justine Greenings 3 questions are good, but a second referendum is not needed. We must continue you to fight from within to save the UK from the hands of the Right wing, back to more reasonable politicians.

    Furthermore, we cannot have 40 Right wing Tories telling the government what to do. Mrs. May must stand firm. The Brexit side must not be allowed to dictate the outcome of this mess we are in.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Mrs May could have stood firm on what she said in her Lancaster House speech of January 17th 2017, then transposed into a White Paper:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-and-new-partnership-with-the-european-union-white-paper

      “This White Paper provides Parliament and the country with a clear vision of what we are seeking to achieve in negotiating our exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union.”

      Now because she has allowed herself to be swayed by her favourite civil service EU adviser we can no longer believe a word that she says about it.

    • David Price
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      We should have had debates over the last four decades especially before the major treaties but the establishment decided the electorate had no place in the discussions. As a result the establishment have sold out this country, it’s people and economy.

      You remainders inside and outside the establishment have suppressed our right to decide for so long and behaved with such deceit and dishonour there was really only one way the referendum would go. Your behaviour since has only served to reinforce people’s opinion of you.

      I don’t know whether to berate Cameron or congratulate him for finally being given a say.

    • graham1946
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      We cannot have 40 Right Wing Tories telling the government what to do’

      How about 17.4 million paying customers – will that do? Not according to Remainers.

      They said leave so leave it should be, not a hokey cokey leave just to satisfy you who have had your 40 plus years in the EU. As a concession you can have another referendum on membership in 2061. How about that?

      • Blue and Gold
        Posted July 17, 2018 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        Read my comment! I clearly stated a 2nd referendum is not needed.

  79. Mark Nottingham
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

    Can we assume that if we did have a second referendum remainer MPs would categorically define what we are voting for because last time it was so so confusing SARC!!!

  80. ChrisShalford
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think it’s practical, but at least Justine Greening’s suggestion would allow us eurosceptics to vote for No Deal. Compare it with the Liberal Democrats, who would allow only accepting the deal on offer or staying in the EU. They should remove the word “Democrats” from their name.

  81. Chris
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    I see that there is apparently another attempt to out-manoeuvre the Tory Brexiter MPs by sending MPs off for the recess a week early. The warning signs are being (and have been) continually have beeb posted by May, but the Leave MPs always give May the benefit of the doubt. Very foolish, in my view.

  82. Iain Gill
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

    John, I hope you are not going to support the government sending parliament on its holidays early. If anything they should be cancelling the holidays.

    Chaos absolute shambles

  83. Bob
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    So Ken Clarke approves the Chequers Plan.
    That should tell you what you need to know.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Correct, approval from an overt eurofederalist. That alone should be enough to alert anybody who values our national sovereignty and democracy.

  84. DUNCAN
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Get rid of that liar May NOW or else we will vote UKIP en masse and you will see a Corbyn government

  85. Alfred Hitchcock
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    European Statutory Instruments Committee BBC Parliament 16th July 2018

    Mrs Leadsom Leader of the House of Commons was interrupted by Speaker Bercow who asked her to stop speaking because of the immediate process of Parliament and then continue after a couple of short items.
    She did, and when rising she began by thanking Mr Bercow and then saying to him “Take Two” . I gather from the internet it is an expression from movie-making when each shot is “Take One” then Take Two” and so on. Well that is a comprehensive explanation to which we all I am sure can agree.

  86. rose
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations on some very elegant and skilful amendments. A pity you lot weren’t writing the December Report.

  87. Pravda
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

    The House BBC TV 16th July 2018 Custom Bill debate and proposed Amendments.

    In addition to numerous very almost abrupt short interventions by herself on others, Anna Soubry MP EX-Cabinet Minister, spoke for 25 minutes without repeating a single word or phrase or sentence that she has uttered since the Referendum result to LEAVE the EU two years ago.

  88. mancunius
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

    I noticed that this evening in the HoC (I was following the debate on the excellent parliament tv) Justine Greening actually limited her future referendum choices to two, either a no-deal or ‘the other option’ – the White Paper was not really an option as ‘it’s just a fudge’. What the ‘other option’ was she did not specify, but clearly from her context she meant it to be ‘staying in the EU’.
    I find this parliamentary remainer dog-whistling irritating in the extreme. Of course, if the government has been incompetent, dilatory and duplicitous, and the EU continues to be intransigent, the only possible way to leave is a no-deal. The EEA as a ‘temporary stop-gap’ is a snare and a delusion. The EU will find someway to tighten the noose on any institution it controls, and it owns the EEA, lock stock and barrel, despite any appearance to the contrary.
    Interesting was Grieve’s open acknowledgment that May’s White Paper involves ECJ control of our laws with no British input. (Though actually, the ‘British input’ to the ECJ has up to now not been noticeably ‘British’.)
    Sammy Wilson’s and Kate Hoey’s speeches on ERG NI amendment were bang on.

  89. Simon Coleman
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    The dire trouble the country is now in is a direct result of the dire nature of the referendum. In the last two years a whole lot of issues and potential outcomes have emerged that were not discussed in the referendum. Add to that the poverty of debate in general and the misrepresentation of facts. Brexit cannot work without agreement – at least in Parliament – about the terms of departure.

    But what will bring about a second referendum in a few years time is a No Deal outcome.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 17, 2018 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      We’re not in dire trouble, but whatever problems we are having as we leave the EU are largely the result of the deliberate, gross, deception of the people by the political elite over many decades, not the correct decision to leave made by the people.

  90. John Slade
    Posted July 16, 2018 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    Thank goodness for the likes of yourself. It’s frustrating that so many prominent
    Leavers have gone native with the trappings of power.

  91. Ron Olden
    Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:11 am | Permalink

    Even of it weren’t out of the question for the reasons John Redwood says, how would a 3 option referendum work?

    It would have to be conducted by some sort of Alternative Vote. A system we rejected in a Referendum in 2011.

    Surely we couldn’t have one on ‘first past the post’. The result would depend on who was willing to gamble on voting for an option which wasn’t their first choice. It would be like playing roulette.

    We’ve already voted to Leave the EU, as has Parliament when it voted to invoke Article 50 and passed the Brexit Act. The House of Commons has now also passed the Customs Bill with amendments which will make it impossible for the EU to reach any deal with us. A deal was never likely anyway.

    Any Referendum would have to be on whether or not we accept whatever deal (if any) is on offer, and the way it looks now any such deal is likely to be so terrible that we’d reject it in any Referendum anyway.

    It looks increasingly like a ‘No Deal’ Brexit.

    If these Remainers aren’t satisfied, its their own faults for voting to hold the Referendum in the first place and voting to invoke Article 50.

  92. Adam
    Posted July 17, 2018 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    A 3-option Referendum would work if the options were sensible.
    It should be open to all EU members & ask:

    1. Should the EU leave the EU?
    2. Should the EU pay £39bn to the UK to leave the EU?
    3. Should EU staff be re-employed picking fruit in Turkey & EU buildings be adapted to house rough sleeper accommodation?

  93. Helen Smith
    Posted July 17, 2018 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    1. If we had a second EU ref we would have to give Sturgeon a second Scots Indy ref.

    2. As we voted to leave Remain (rejoin) should be in any future ref until we have left and been out for several years.

    3. Soubry has been driven mad by Brexit, she is not alone, another rerun would drive many prople over the edge.

    4. If Remain won can you imagine how that would play out? Are 17.4m people really going to say ‘ah well, fair play, you win’ and leave it at that? How much damage are we going to do to the economy having referendums and arguments constantly?

    5. I would welcome a vote on the deal and I would vote WTO.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page