The reasons the PM gives to surrender our powers of self government again over the supply of goods

In her letter the PM says “the rules of goods are long established – the last substantial change was in 1987”. This is untrue. The EU is regularly updating and extending its rules over business. Once we have left we lose the little influence we did have whilst still a member with a vote to prevent or delay the most damaging proposals.

“Many of the rules are based on international standards set by bodies that we will have a seat on”. Fine, then there is no need to  bind us into the EU version anyway

“British businesses which export to the EU have been clear they will continue to follow the rules in order to continue selling into the European market”. Of  course if a customer wants a given specification the supplier will meet it. That does not mean we have to adopt those same standards for everything we do at home, or be bound by them if selling to third countries with their own different requirements. Exports to the EU are only 12% of our economic output. The ability to improve and change our own rules is important in a democracy, and important to be able where we wish to do trade deals.

“any changes to our rules will be subject to a Parliamentary lock” – but each time Parliament objects to EU rules or changes to EU rules we will be told we are not allowed to alter them as it would disrupt our relationship and trade with the EU.

She argues we could still do trade deals with non EU countries, though the EU control over our goods market would make this much more difficult.

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


  1. Mark B
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Good morning

    As I keep saying, the PM is aiming for EU-LITE.

    The one business case for leaving the EU is that we will have total control over our own internal market. The EU will lose the right, for example, to tell us how powerful our vacuum cleaners are to be. Yes, if we sell stuff to them we must comply, but only the stuff we sell. At home we can do what the hell we like.

    Big business uses the EU to out regulate any and all competition. UK SME’s will have a powerful advantage as they can grown in our own fertile and free market before venturing out. The UK could be a hub of innovation.

    We have little to fear business wise by leaving the EU. Only corporates who want cheap labour and MASS IMMIGRATION to puff up their failing businesses need to Remain.

    Sadly we have a government that is little more than a corporate shill.

    • Mitchel
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:53 am | Permalink

      Voltaire : “The comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor”

      • Hope
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Alistair Burt, FCO minister, pictured in Guido asking constituents if they want a second referndum. Is this contrary to govt policy? Secondly, it is direct contrast to what May said. Will a complaint be made for breach of ministerial code and party discipline procedure?

        • Hope
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

          Also will a party investigation be made of the twelve meeting to overthrow gov policy and make veiled threats to collapse the govt? If not why not?

      • Hope
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 9:17 am | Permalink

        It is clear from the papers this week the EU delayed responding to May’s White paper on the eve (5/7/2018) of her Chequers meeting as it would destroy her chance of getting it through cabinet!

        This demonstrates the main players of the EU were given a copy in advance at the very least and discussions were had about the proposal before its submission. Therefore the Chequers meeting was planned to railroad the cabinet and defeat predicted arguments against it while they had no or little preparation to respond and could not use their phones to look up any factual basis for what was being touted. May put them at a severe disadvantage and loaded the meeting with a full cabinet so remain out numbered leavers. This is a breach of her party’s discipline code in itself ie not own or transparent.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

          Thus demonstrating that Mrs May is a control freak at home and frit abroad. “Strong and craven” so to speak. For goodness sake, let’s ditch this Jonah.

    • Oxiana321
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:54 am | Permalink

      I expect those who push for EU-LITE consider it just a staging post on the road to renewed membership, when that opportunity presents itself. It is part of the long game to coerce and bind the British public back in to the future Federal State of Europe.

      • Mark B
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

        That is always the risk. But until people start voting for genuine patriotic parties and MP’s what choice do we have ?

    • getahead
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

      Mark, I had to look up shill.
      “an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.”
      Lord how accurate you are !

    • Richard
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 12:01 am | Permalink

      Good post. Single Market over-regulation inhibits nimble UKSMEs, raises all business costs & is paid for by consumers. Economists for Free Trade on page 3 estimated: “that EU regulation has reduced UK GDP by around 6% [£120Bn]; that probably about a third of this can be reversed giving us a projected gain of 2% of GDP [£40Bn], or a growth rate 0.15% per annum faster over the next 15 years”.

      The cost of EU red tape rises each year; and the EFT estimate may be cautious, in view of page 16 of this 2011 TPA report:

      Certainly far higher than the 1% benefit of the single market that Brussels claims for the UK.

    • Richard
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 12:14 am | Permalink

      The IEA have recently produced a 149 page report on the importance of domestic regulatory autonomy & mutual regulatory recognition: which Shanker Singham discusses here:

  2. TedC
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Only goes to show how much we are in the orbit of this EU..for instance if we had never joined the EEC/EU in the first place we would still today be in it’s orbit and would have had to change many things in order to trade, not alone with them, but with other third countries who also trade with them. It’s the way of the world, the huge economic blocs like the US, EU, China etc unfortunately have a disproportionate say on how things are done, just like we had in the old days of Empire.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:06 am | Permalink

      If we had never joined then it would never have grown into the monster it now is. For a start Ireland and Denmark would not have felt compelled to also join when we did, and EFTA would have remained a substantial and growing alternative.

      • Richard1
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        At the time joining the EEC meant more free trade than there otherwise would have been. It also provided an off the shelf justification for many of the essential reforms of The Thatcher Govt, in particular in cutting subsidies to basket case nationalised industries. Pre Maastricht the EC was more or less a free trade area with some other areas of cooperation. I think history will record Maastricht, and in particular the euro, as the turning point.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

          At the time of joining the EEC it meant a larger UK trade deficit than there otherwise would have been – one reason why the alleged benefit simply doesn’t show up on the UK GDP growth chart.

          How can you describe the EC pre-Maastricht as “more or less a free trade area” when right from the start it was founded on the principle of “ever closer union” and made trade liberalisation conditional upon uncontrolled and unlimited mass migration? And when the creation of a single currency had long been part of the plan? And the national veto on new laws that we were promised we would always have had already been abolished in numerous areas?

          This is a Tory myth that the original EEC was fine and it only started to go wrong at Maastricht. It’s much more the case that Maastricht loaded on more straws which finally began to break the back of an already overloaded camel.

          • Peter D Gardner
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 1:04 am | Permalink

            You need to distinguish between intent and implementation. Yes the EC was a product of the European project which has not changed either its political objectives or its modus operandi. But the EC was a genuine free trade area simply because the encroaching economic, social and political alignments had yet to be implemented. Technical alignment and VAT came first with the EEC and should have stopped there.
            The real myth is that of Remainers: that had UK voted Remain it would have preserved the status quo.

          • Mark B
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 4:53 am | Permalink


            All true.

          • Richard1
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 6:55 am | Permalink

            I do not say it was perfect I say that’s when the balance of advantage shifted.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

            Peter, the overall intent was stated in the very first line of the preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome:


            “DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”

            and I don’t see how anybody could conscientiously sign up to that unless they genuinely wanted to see the implementation, which would necessarily include the effective elimination of national borders as stated in the next line:

            “RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe”.

        • Tweeter_L
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

          Yes, Richard1
          I do agree. That was when we should have had a referendum and it was scandalous that we didn’t. It could be said that we’d been waiting ever since: successive General Elections offered no choice about the direction of travel regarding the EU.

        • Andy
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

          Tend to agree. The serious mistake was to join in the first place because it effectively destroyed EFTA, which would have been the other organisation and a very effective counterweight to the arrogant EU. But it wasn’t to be. Why do we have so many damn politicians with so little common sense ?? And when will someone get rid of this dreadful May woman. Considering she is the daughter of a Vicar I’m quite shocked at her disgraceful, dishonest and dishonourable behaviour. Away with such rubbish.

          • Peter D Gardner
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 1:09 am | Permalink

            You can’t be sure. Had UK joined EFTA it is quite likely that the technocratic supra-nationalists would have turned tat also into a political project. Another of the myths propagated by Remainers, soft Brexiteers and followers of Christopher Booker is that UK could join the EEA independently of the EU. They ignore the fact that joining EFTA requires a country to apply for access/membership of the EEA which can only eventuate by agreement with the EU.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

            Stayed in EFTA.

      • bigneil
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        If we had never joined – – -how much money would the UK have now – -or would the various govts just thrown it all away in Foreign Aid. It is clear that the trillions thrown away so far in Foreign Aid has achieved one thing only – -MASSIVE population rise in Africa – who all then need MORE cash from the nations that have to work for theirs. So long as it is not the rich people’s cash, then it will be thrown away freely to show the world how good “WE” are. The “WE” are only those doing the throwing.

        • Andy
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

          If we had never joined we would have less money now. The EU has helped generate wealth – it has made you richer than you would have been. Brexit will make you poorer than you would have been.

          As for foreign aid – a tiresome whine of the hard right. The average UK salary is just under £28k. The average income tax bill is just over £3,200. The average contribution to foreign aid among average tax payers is less than 50p a week. 7p per day.

          It goes to some of the poorest most desperate people on the planet, it saves a lot of children’s lives, it prevents disease and starvation and while money can always be better spent it is a sign of an inherent decency in modern Britain. Which is why witnessing Jacob Rees-Mogg calling for foreign aid to be scrapped was so shocking.

          A multi-millionaire – gifted every wealth and privilege you can imagine – demanding an end to us all sending a few pence to stop the world’s poorest kids from starving to death. It is so Dickensian – and not in a good way.

        • Timaction
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

          Indeed. The Governments first duty should be to protect its people. Under Theresa May she cut the police by 20,000 whilst the Tory’s increased the Foreign aid budget to 0.7% of GDP, a UN target that only our politicos honour. Now they spend (against our wishes) more on foreign aid than the police budget in England and Wales. We keep seeing the atrocities they do nothing about other than hand wringing.
          We know the Governments priorities and it is not English people!

      • margaret howard
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

        But how successful? Before we begged to be allowed to join the EU we were part and co-founders of EFTA in 1960 which was soon overtaken by the EU

        EFTA today has just 4 members, a minnow compared to the mighty EU which is the largest economy and exporter in the world

        Since 1995, only two founding members remain, namely Norway and Switzerland. The other five, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom, all joined the EU in the intervening years.

        I wonder why?

        And incidentally all four member states participate in the European Single Market and are part of the Schengen!!!

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

          The largest economies in the world are America and China
          The EU doesn’t count.
          It isn’t a nation.

          • hefner
            Posted August 19, 2018 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

            Oh Ed2, you’re so good. With your definition, the UK is not a nation either. LoL.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      A very perceptive comment!

    • Gardener
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

      @Mark B
      “The EU will lose the right, for example, to tell us how powerful our vacuum cleaners are to be. ”
      You are correct. Some would say this is relatively insignificant. But it is “little” annoyances which mount up.
      For example, the systemic weed killers I use in my garden, not cheap, have by EU regulation become weaker or chemically changed. It takes now three or four sprays to work. Weeding by hand takes hours upon hours year-long and disturbs roots or kills surrounding plants. The same with sprays for roses and other plants viruses, moulds and pest infestation. More spraying , more costs for me, much more work.

      Is the EU going to pay me for an extra 24 hours of work per year for no net reduction in pollution? There are many gardeners in the UK. The EU owes us millions. Also, it is involuntary work. How much per hour for institutional forced labour? It’s no joke for the less than physically fit.
      The EU doesn’t work even for a sporty greenfly!

      • Mark B
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 4:57 am | Permalink


        A wonderful product back in the day, now ruined.

  3. Ian wragg
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    Everything May says is a lie and was when she was Home Secretary.

    • Nig l
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:49 am | Permalink

      Peter Oborne wrote a very interesting article on the Manchester bomber rescued by the Royal Navy and brought here. A fact kept very quiet for a long time. A Q. C wrote a report but there seems more to this than is in the public domain.

      • Mitchel
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:24 am | Permalink

        Have the “White Helmets” arrived yet?If so who has vetted them?

        • Hope
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

          Peter hitchens article makes it clear they are nonfriends of ours and it is not clear who they are!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:00 am | Permalink

      Indeed she is either extremely obtuse or blatantly lying. I tend to think she is both given all her other misguired agendas such HS2, endless new daft regulations, the highest and most complex taxes for 40 years, the appalling NHS, the endless expensive green crap, police and criminal justice that have largely given up ……

      Does she really think there is any gender pay gap beyond that which result for the free work life balance and career and subject choices the genders take? She is clearly lying for misguided politics, has not looked at the research or is just too thick to understand.

    • eeyore
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:09 am | Permalink

      It would be interesting to know Mrs May’s answers to our host. She must have some. But she doesn’t do answers. She doesn’t even tell her staff to do answers for her. She must be the most uncommunicative leader ever.

      It’s hard to avoid the impression that the public are just a nuisance to her and she’d be much happier if we resigned.

      • Colin
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:56 am | Permalink

        She only wants her own dictatorship and she’s almost there.

      • Adam
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:33 am | Permalink

        The Opposition Leader is supposed to interrogate at Question Time, but Mrs May fails even to satisfy her own MP’s vital questions.

        Jeremy Corbyn is wayward too, but if a QT question is not properly answered, the Speaker should intervene, not just regard one more of the Opposition’s quota of 6 as being used up. Questions need ANSWERS, not sloppy replies.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        Most of the population of the UK would certainly be happier if she resigned and she would probably be happier too. She could spend all her time on walking holiday which she is still fit enough to do so. Hammond must go too. London house prices falling rapidly now due to his idiotic and misguided stamp duty mugging tax rates.

        May is just not up to the job of PM and is wrong headed on almost everything she does.

        • getahead
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

          May does as she is told. The question is, “who does the telling”.

          • getahead
            Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

            Answered by Stred below.

  4. Stred
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    All exports to the EU would stay the same and comply with their regulations. The UK would control regs and tariffs for our imports and their would be no need for delays or huge cost increases.

    The whole Chequers sell out is a con devised by big business, the civil service and anti-nationalist politicians and NGOs. They have been plotting it from the day they lost the referendum and the next stage is a second referendum with rigged rules. as usual, until we get it right for our unelected masters. May is their agent.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      The problem is that the EU would no longer have any legal guarantee that UK exports would comply with their regulations. At present the EU and its other member states have a sufficient legal guarantee because the UK has passed and effectively enforces domestic laws to implement the relevant EU rules. In the absence of any such legal guarantee the EU would have to reinstate routine interception and inspection of UK goods at the border, not because of any external requirement, those famous “WTO rules” which get mentioned in vague terms but never specified, but in order to protect the integrity of its Single Market. That is why I would propose to continue to save them the trouble of checking our goods exports at the border, and also at the same time save our exporters the trouble of increased delays, by offering a new legal guarantee to replace the present legal guarantee, but a legal guarantee of conformity applying only to exports to the EU rather than to all goods within the UK as now. Of course it is possible that the EU would throw the offer back in our faces, saying for example that our law to control exports to the EU would not be good enough unless its operation was controlled by their court, and perhaps even agreeing with one europhilic contributor here that the UK is just about the least reliable country in the world. However we would have done our best to help them, and if they still decided to be stupid and/or spiteful then the blame for any trade disruption could be pinned on them.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

      Let’s hope you are right. Be grateful then.

  5. Bob Dixon
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Our current Prime Minister is living in cloud cuckoo land. Time to replace her.

    • Beecee
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      She is certainly ‘away with the birds’!

    • NigelE
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink


      Come on JR, how many beans make 5 (or letters, 48)? Time to be a jumping bean not a has-been.

    • M.W.Browne
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      Time to vote for a proper right wing party.

      • JoolsB
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

        Hear hear!!

  6. Graham Wood
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    John. If I have understood this aright, and our exports to the EU only represent 12% of our total exports, it would still be the case under the Chequers proposals that the whole of our domestic economy (which has little or nothing to do with the EU) would also be bound by such EU “rules”.
    Clearly that would be both undemocratic, not being what we voted for in the referendum, but also deeply damaging to British business and counter productive.
    Why on earth should Mrs May and other “remainers” still think such restrictions are in any way in our national interest?

    • Henry Spark
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:12 am | Permalink

      No, 12% of our total output goes t0 the EU. But take out trade within the UK from the figures and concentrate only on exports, and 46% goes to the EU. The crazy Brexiters want to sacrifice that huge amount of guaranteed free trade for fantasy trade deals with Trump’s US, India, Brazil etc

      • Beecee
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

        Of your 12%, 9 is for the EU and 3 for onward shipping to the Rest of the World via Rotterdam or Antwerp.

      • Jagman84
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:41 am | Permalink

        Lies, damn lies and Henry Sparks’ statistics. Take out all non-EU exports and it becomes 100%. Mangle the figures as much as you wish but it is still only 12% of total output.

      • Ian wragg
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:07 am | Permalink

        Taking out the Rotterdam and Dublin ‘re export figures it is nearer 40% and dropping. It is also only about 8% of GDP but the other 92% are bound by EU legislation.
        Doesn’t sound so good now does it.

      • Timaction
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        £80 plus annual trade deficit. Less than 46% and shrinking when you take into account the Rotterdam effect and deep ports of Northern Ireland. What idiot would want EU rules to apply to the 88% of GDP that has nothing to do with the EU and its huge regulatory costs?
        May simply needs to go and Chequers binned.

        • Timaction
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

          £80 billion

      • Alan Jutson
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:12 am | Permalink


        Do you really think all exports to the EU will stop from the UK if we exit the EU ?

        Do you really think no imports will come into the UK from the EU if we exit the EU ?

        If you do, then your arguments are correct, if you do not then your arguments are absolute nonsense.

      • michael mcgrath
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        Please explain why my customers and suppliers in the EU will stop trading with me.
        The reason they do so is that I supply what they want, when they want it and at a price they find acceptable….and vice versa
        These doomsters who believe that all will stop because of the fatuousness of pumped up politicians make me wonder about their common sense

      • Richard1
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:19 am | Permalink

        There is no reason at all for this trade to be sacrificed. Switzerland is not in the EU, the single market or the customs union, but exports 5x more per head to the EU than the U.K. it is also -proportionally to GDP – 4x more successful at exporting eg to the US. There are arguments for EU membership (the honest ones are political) but ensuring market access for exports isn’t one of them.

      • stred
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:34 am | Permalink

        So that’s 56% of ‘fantasy’ exports to the ROW and 88% of production to follow EU rules and courts to suit the 12% and big business competition blocking? Who are you working for?

      • libertarian
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:47 am | Permalink

        Henry Spark

        That is correct less than half our exports currently go to the EU and falling whilst MORE than half go to countries outside the EU and growing.

        As you have no experience of international trade let me enlighten you . A proportion of that smaller amount of EU trade isn’t EU trade either its what is known as the Rotterdam effect . The EU themselves in their own report estimate that 90% NINTY of export growth over the next 20 years will be OUTSIDE the EU. Thats why those of us that actually trade really really want to leave and negotiate our own FTA’s. Oh and 80% of the UK economy is in SERVICES not goods

        • hans christian ivers
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:06 pm | Permalink


          More export went to the Eu in 2017 than 2016 so your facts are just basically wrong

          • Chris Maughan
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 8:36 am | Permalink

            hans christian ivers …

            The latest figures up to June 2018 on the Office of National Statistic show that you are wrong and Libertarian is correct.

            Exports to the EU are falling.

      • graham1946
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:05 am | Permalink

        You keep saying leaving the EU means an end to trade with the EU altogether. Total nonsense – the only difference if the EU insist – is to pay tariffs on our imports from the EU which on average are about 3 percent – hardly enough to stall all imports. Similar for our exports. The big difference will be on food where the tariffs may be as high as 40 percent and as most of it is imported from the EU they will be shooting their own producers in the head. We can get food elsewhere cheaper outside and our producers can send more to the home market and abroad if they want. Trade deals with the rest of the world are in addition to our EU trade, not instead of and such trade is becoming more important as the EU declines.

        • Red Miller
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

          O dear, o dear. You dont know about non tariff barriers, do you? Same as Mr Redwood, then!

          • graham1946
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 8:39 am | Permalink

            Seeing as how you know it all Red, please enlighten us as to how the EU will stop trading with the UK and why it will benefit them.

      • Edward2
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

        Why do you keep claiming all trade between the EU and UK will cease?
        I know project fear mark two is currently at fever pitch but this claim is ridiculous.

      • Andy
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

        How is it ‘free trade’ when we have to pay £10 + billion for the privilege ????

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 1:12 am | Permalink

        It is not guaranteed free trade and it is not at risk from WTO terms.

    • Peter Wood
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:52 am | Permalink

      G W,
      You have to look at it from the point of view of the EU bureaucracy, ALL members must have the same rules because they will, eventually, become one nation – that is there declared political destination. Our vote represents an existential threat to this plan. There will be no deal before we leave. We need to prepare for this properly.

      Mrs. May has no aspirations for our Nation, (which is why she is unsuited to high political office) her only objective is to get something she can call Brexit done during her tenure, so she can claim a success. From her time as home secretary, we can see this is her style.

      Brexiteer MP’s must make it clear to the PM that she will fail, in her own terms, to deliver Brexit on the Chequers Plan. Present her with a well supported FTA Agreement, as DD was intending based on CITA, and offer that. But be prepared for EU intransigence and promote WTO trade arrangements as being perfectly workable.

      • stred
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        Could David Davis and Steve baker help with the credible paper? They have all the work already done while may was deceiving them.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:58 am | Permalink

      Graham Wood,

      Total UK exports (goods and services) represent about 30% of GDP, just over 40% of this goes to EU, this is presumably the 12%.

      [GDP does not represent the total economic activity, it represents final output or value add to avoid double counting. Skousen’s Gross Output would be a better measure of total economic activity. An accurate calculation of what percentage of economic activity is independent of EU except for regulations is probably quite difficult given supply chains. Nonetheless the proxy numbers used are indicative and your and Dr Redwood’s conclusions seem reasonable.]

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      12% of GDP, involving 6% of businesses.

    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    What a sorry state British politics finds itself in at present. A PM who is palpably unfit to be a principled and honest PM and a leader of the official opposition who is quite frankly a stain on our nation and its international reputation

    What has been obvious now for some time is that there isn’t a majority of Tory MPs who are willing to do what needs to be done.

    John continues to highlight the obvious, that May’s version of Brexit translates into little more than a confirmation of the present EU-UK relationship.

    The Conservative Party is aptly named. May does indeed intend to conserve the UK’s relationship with the EU

    Of course. John appears unwilling to draw attention to the elephant in the room, the deposing of May as our party’s leader.

    If Brexit is to be secured, we must topple May as our leader and replace her with someone who is UK-centric, moral and truthful

    I see little point in debating the issue of our membership of the EU and what form Brexit will take while May is the PM. She will not deliver Brexit. She is an inveterate liar and utterly untrustworthy

    May’s aim is to deceive as many voters as is politically possible using language that conceals her true objective. It is the vile nature of contemporary politics that political leaders now use words to conceal and avoid responsibility rather than words to educate, inform and enlighten

    I want a straight taking politician to lead our party. A leader who talks like a normal person would talk. Not a political robot

    • TimetoChangeMayGoNow
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      As a life-long Tory voter, May has successfully manage to alienate me and no doubt many others. I am becoming increasingly angry with her contemptuous behaviour.

      I voted for Brexit… not hard Brexit, not soft Brexit, just taking back control of our borders, laws and taxes.

      May now seeks to sell us her ‘sow’s ear’ as a silk purse.
      She should be on a comedy show…trying to convince people that her dead parrot (the stone dead and cold Brexit)… is really alive and well.

      She never wanted Brexit…she is an incompetent and unable to deliver anything other than a her Remainers version of a non-Brexit.

      Unless May is replaced…and quickly…the Tories will be absolutely slaughtered at the polls.

      Brexit Means Brexit…May does not Mean Brexit!

    • Timaction
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:22 am | Permalink

      ……..She is an inveterate liar and utterly untrustworthy………..
      Indeed. The facts show that she created a Dept for Exiting the EU. Then she ignored that team and its negotiating position and plotted with Robbins, Merkle, the EU and others over many months to produce an alternative white paper without Mr Davis’s knowledge. The EU openly stated that Robbins was the real organ grinder and negotiator, not Davis. Then she plotted to foist this position on her cabinet at the 11th hour as a fait accompli with much bullying and threats at Chequers. The rest is history which demonstrates to the Nation that she is unfit for office and should resign. Why hasn’t the msm brought her to task or her party charged her with misconduct? May is treating our Country and her office like a third world banana republic.

    • matthu
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      “we must topple May as our leader and replace her with someone who is UK-centric, moral and truthful”

      This is not perceived to be in the interests of the Party.

      • Mitchel
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

        Exactly the reason -fear of another civil war-why Stalin was not prevented by Trotsky and others from taking over after the death of Lenin despite the latter’s expressed fears about Stalin’s suitability!

      • JoolsB
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Exactly and the interests of the party obviously come before the interests of the country. Unfortunately all those Tory MPs in their Westminster bubble unwilling to depose May don’t realise how much contempt the country will hold them in if they don’t honour their manifesto pledge and deliver a true Brexit.

      • Steve
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:43 pm | Permalink


        “This is not perceived to be in the interests of the Party.”

        Then they will be terminated as a political party at the polls, and highly likely never see electoral victory ever again. Their arrogant underestimation of the public’s anger, or perhaps sheer cowardice, will be their lot.

        Corbyn is not an option, so the probable outcome will be the rise of nationalism, as is happening across Europe now.

    • acorn
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      So who exactly are you going to replace Mrs May with? What makes you think the replacement will do any different?

      If you are thinking of replacing Mrs May with a Brexit Ultra MP, forget it. The Mogglodytes, at this stage of the game, can’t risk failing to deliver on their simplistic WTO based rhetoric.

      Nor can they build a CETA type Trade Agreement without the active cooperation of Mrs May’s Civil Service. The very people they have publicly accused of being institutionalised Remainers! Let alone have it ready for the EU to rubber stamp, at the EU’s first opportunity; 1st April 2019.

      • getahead
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

        So we are dependent upon the EU refusing Mrs May’s capitulation?

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 1:15 am | Permalink

        WTO terms do not require the EU’s agreement. “No deal is better than a bad deal” is still true.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Heres the problem as I see it. I have no evidence for this as I’m not a Tory party member and I won’t vote for them.

      There are enough MP’s who would put in letters

      However there is no agreement on who the likely successor would be , but the one the country wants is Boris

      It seems to me though that there are two groups of Tory MP’s who would stop this. The Ultra remainers (Soubry ed) , Morgan, Clarke, Grieve , ….. etc AND Gove & his supporters , he has form he already stopped it once before. Gove is an odd one, he appears to me to be a plant, he claims Brexit but keeps derailing it. I’m assuming Gove is trying to build his own coronation but doesn’t want to be seen to have rocked the boat , I’m assuming he is trying to build a consensus position for himself.

      We have the worst political landscape that has ever existed. The worst PM in history yup she managed to make Brown look good. A (far left ed) leader of the opposition, a befuddled old boy who has no idea whats going on in the 3rd party, the UKIP (negative words deleted ).

      When will someone step up to the plate and lead a breakaway. I know with our appalling undemocratic system that is much harder than in France or Italy , but basically a Brexit party drawing candidates from across the spectrum would appear to be the answer in the short term

      Reply Brexit needs votes in the Commons, not another splintering of forces

  8. Nig l
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:56 am | Permalink

    Yes any exporter has always had to meet the requirements of the particular country/bloc it exported to and most are internationally accepted standards and as they change the exported adopts them or drops out of that market.

    There is no reason to automatically accept the rules of the EU unless you are determined to stated tied legally to them. So much for Leave means Leave. I presume if parliament did refuse to accept a law change, the ECJ would become involved and they always take the EU view over the nation state.

    Treating us as gullible mugs yet again.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      Indeed. She must go the sooner the better. The Party Conference is going to be a sick joke with her and Hammond, Lewis and the rest of them No one will watch the main hall.

      • L Jones
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

        Some might, though, but more out of idle curiosity rather than in the expectation of something uplifting, inspiring and truthful from those who consider themselves ”elite”.

  9. margaret
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:29 am | Permalink

    The key word in the first quote is’ substantial.’What does she regard as substantial and more pertinent , how have the non substantial changes affected trade ; what are the consequences of the non substantial changes?

    The second quote ;_ Key word is ‘many’ . Many is not all . How important are the rules which are not part of the many?

    If in selling to the EU there isn’t a reason to want a different set of rules we may agree, however , the EU could miss out if the distribution of our goods was impeded and our said dependence on their goods was enabled by other suppliers.

    • margaret
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm | Permalink


  10. Alan Jutson
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Mrs May has come up with her farcical reasons because she believes most people are ignorant of the real facts of how international trade is conducted.

    Thus she believes if you tell a lie often enough, it will become the truth, unfortunately for her not all of us out here, or indeed within Parliament are that stupid.

    Quite why she did not use the huge talent of some of our more commercially experienced Mp’s at her disposal (I include our host as one of those people) to help draft and proposals, she chose to use a completely un elected civil servant, who has absolutely Zero commercial experience, as her right hand man and confidante.

    The one person who she did originally have in her team, who had such commercial experience (David Davis) she constantly undermined, and eventually side tracked and isolated to such a degree, he saw no point in continuing.

    Afraid Mrs May will have to sign her own resignation as the cost or risk being thrown out.

    The only real way forward now is to withdraw all offers made so far to the EU, to start again but this time with competent and knowledgeable people in charge.

    2 years absolutely wasted.

    • Hope
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      Not really Alan, originally she was not going to have a GE so her 11 hour would be about now before a GE in 2020. The last two years were always going to be used to take up time for her surprise. Her unscheduled GE threw the timing out.

  11. formula57
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    If T. May is to remain longer in office, she is going to have to say that whilst obviously present when her disgraceful letter was issued, she was not actually involved.

  12. Richard1
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Tory MPs are going to have to make a choice this autumn. Either stick with Mrs May and put up with a very unsatisfactory Brexit – probably worse than either the Norway or Switzerland models, or even than cancelling Article 50 and Remaining – and hope to improve it afterwards, ditching Mrs May in April 2019. (This seems to be the Gove strategy.) Or, if you really think there’s time to have a good crack at a Canada-style FTA, and you really feel we can credibly be ready for the WTO route by March, then you need to ditch Mrs May asap. The Canada FTA route isn’t going to happen with her. Apart from anything else the EU simply won’t believe she will contemplate WTO,and so will call her bluff in negotiations. For a comprehensive FTA She is no longer credible on the walk away option, so must be taken out of the negotiating room.

    • Richard1
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:54 am | Permalink

      Certainly worse than the Norway or Switzerland models I should have said. If we could get the Switzerland model I think that would be a good outcome.

      • Andy
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Switzerland is in Schengen and accepts the free movement of people (though not goods and services). That is the exact opposite of what many Brexit voters voted for.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

          Switzerland is currently heading for a referendum on stopping free movement.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:12 am | Permalink

      If article 50 was cancelled and I’m not sure it could be.
      1. There would be civil disobedience on a grand.
      2. Any politicians who voted for it would be fair game.

      • Steve
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        @Ian Wragg

        “If article 50 was cancelled and I’m not sure it could be.
        1. There would be civil disobedience on a grand [scale]
        2. Any politicians who voted for it would be fair game.”

        To my understanding article 50 cannot be nullified

        Your point 1: yes all hell will break loose.

        Your point 2: true, I don’t think these goons actually realise that when the lid blows off they’ll have to run for their lives. Especially if nationalism grabs power. They’ll be hunted down.

        I say let’s have it, clear out the rot once and for all.

  13. Peter
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    May is flogging a dead horse.

    She knows it. We know it. She knows we know it.

    • bigneil
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

      From your comment I imagined her in her castle top lab, dressed appropriately, saying . . ” step up the reactor power three more points!”

  14. Helena
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    As ever with you and youir fellow Brexiteers, lots of wailing about what you don’t want, but no attempt to offer anything constructive.

    • Richard1
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:21 am | Permalink

      I think JR & others of his view have been quite clear that what they want is a Canada-style FTA with the EU. We have yet to hear any argument from Continuity Remain as to why this would not be an attractive option.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

        But you have heard an argument from me that compared to the baseline of the already existing and already in force WTO treaties a Canada-style FTA would be of minimal additional economic value to the UK – and also to the EU, for that matter – and it would simply not be worth the time and bother of getting it negotiated and ratified with the risk that the EU would demand and Theresa May would grant numerous concessions:

        “Supposing that we got the same 0.4% of GDP that Canada is projected to get from CETA that would correspond to the natural growth of the UK economy over just 2 months at the long term trend growth rate of 2.5% a year; even if it was claimed that the average growth rate is now permanently lower than that post-war trend it would still be only a matter of months.”

      • Red Miller
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

        Because it doesnt cover services, and doesnt solve the irish border

      • acorn
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

        When Greenland, a country with a population smaller than that of Uxbridge and an economy based essentially on a single industry (fishing), withdrew from the EU in 1985, it took three years to negotiate its future relationship with the bloc.

        CETA, the EU-Canada deal, took seven years to negotiate and was about 22 years in the making. CETA is a relatively simple trade agreement that does not include (a) services provisions and (b) deals on non-tariff barriers.

        As Britain is a big exporter of professional services, the CETA model for an FTA with the EU, ain’t worth much.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

          Yet Greenland carried on trading and succeeding during the time these bureaucrats sat and pondered.

          • hans christian ivers
            Posted August 16, 2018 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

            Edward 2

            Greenland did not continue trading but signed an association agreement and sold a fish license to the EU, negotiated by Danish bureaucrats. But I wold not expect you to know that either.

          • Edward2
            Posted August 18, 2018 at 12:04 am | Permalink

            Thanks hefner good to have you clever remainers educating the rest of us.
            The point you have missed is that life carried on in Greenland quite normally whilst bureaucrats chatted away for a few years.
            Greenland continued trading.
            Standards of living carried on as if nothing happened.

    • L Jones
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      There are plenty of attempts here to offer constructive alternatives, Helena. Perhaps you should read things other than Facebook to inform yourself.

      • hefner
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

        The only thing possibly constructive (if not pleasing to most people) will come from the ERG at the time of the CP conference, and I doubt it will account for many of “the constructive alternatives” offered on this blog, as most of them have a value close to zero.
        Get out of your own preferred websites and read a bit about economic policies, trade, geopolitics, and history. You might in fact learn quite a bit.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

          You assume those who post on here do not.
          Usual pompous superior attitude of remain supporters.

    • Adam
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Untrue, Helena. JR has proposed many high-quality solutions.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink


      You have been told so MANY times what we want. Because YOU dont want it , you ignore it and post the same drivel over and over again

      The Ultra remainers, the whole Labour party and most of the Tory party has proved beyond doubt they dont have the first clue about business, trade , exporting and the UK economy .

    • graham1946
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

      Just wait a few days. The ERG group are to present a full alternative to the Chequers mess. Lets see how much of it makes the MSM. It’s the first salvo in getting rid of May and her crew and I would suggest should have been the plan the government sent to the EU 2 years ago, but were too determined to thwart Brexit, so May (not even her Cabinet were involved) cobbled together the mess she is trying to promote.

    • Edward2
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:20 am | Permalink

      It is simple Helena.
      We trade with European countries the same way all non EU nations trade with Europe.
      For example, do you notice any shortages of goods from Korea Japan India America or China in UK and Europe?

  15. Sir Joe Soap
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    “any changes to our rules will be subject to a Parliamentary lock”
    The most weasel-like phrase of all.
    The implication of the phrase “our rules” is that they are rules which we have made.
    The “lock” clearly then means they are our rules to follow, not our rules to make or to change.

  16. Andy
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    Everyone who knows anything about trade says you are wrong.

    Why are you persisting in a policy which you have been told, beyond any reasonable doubt, will make the vast majority of your constituents poorer?

    Tell us please, also, a specific ECJ ruling against the UK which you find so objectionable?

    • Richard1
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      2 recent ones: the anti-Dyson vacuum cleaner labelling ruling & the unscientific and protectionist anti-GM crops ruling.

      Could you set out your objections to a Canada-style FTA?

      • Andy
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

        A Canada style deals requires a hard border. That would risk violence in Northern Ireland, and would probably lead to an increase in Republicanism and, ultimately, the break up of the United Kingdom.

        A Canada type-deal would also require customs checks at Dover and other ports, create additional bureaucracy (going against Vote Leave’s mandate to cut red tape) and would add delay and expense into trade. It would also be less comprehensive than the deal we already have. So, in short, Canada is worse than what we have in everyway and goes against one of the key promises made by Vote Leave.

        I also asked for examples of ECJ cases the UK had lost which you find offensive. You came up with examples involving private companies. In the GM case not even British private companies. And while I feel sympathy for Mr Dyson perhaps he should just concentrate on making better products?

    • libertarian
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:56 am | Permalink


      Unlike you I and others on this site really do know a lot about trade , because its what we do every day

      Its so wrong that more than 90% of world trade operates that way already . Your ignorance is palpable

      Anyhow I’m concerned for you and your multimillion pound profit business Andy, how’s it going? Have you had to shut it down yet?

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

        you are getting personal and your knowledge of the statistics on our exports is not up to scratch and you should know better

    • Edward2
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      It is not about trade Andy.
      It is about who governs us in the future.

      • hefner
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

        What a delusion. Sovereignty will not feed you, nor educate your children, nor care for you later in life. A richer country thanks to a thriving trade is a necessary (but possibly not sufficient) condition to allow all these services to be running properly for the benefit of all.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

          Over 160 nations carry on without being tied to the EU
          Many growing faster than the EU
          With lower unemployment too.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 9:14 am | Permalink

          Richer by about 1% of GDP thanks to the EU Single Market, less the costs of said Single Market which are maybe 3% of GDP …

      • Andy
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

        I know it’s not about trade. Thank you for admitting it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the frictionless trade we have with the EU right now. But Brexiteers have got themselves in an almighty pickle – and it is all of you proposing to make trade worse, not me.

        Also, if you were honest, you’d admit that for most Brexit voters it wasn’t about sovereignty or governance either. Brexit is mostly about immigration. (And for many it is not even about immigration of white Europeans). When you all finally admit it perhaps we can start solving the problems you have created?

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

          Being a free independent nation is the most important matter.
          Trade goes on.
          If you want to be a citizen of a vessel state then fine.
          But I want to be a citizen of a nation that is not rules by another political entity.
          It feels worse to me than if we were invaded and conquered by another nation.
          Can you imagine Canada allowing America to make its laws ?
          Immigration, ie control of our borders and having a policy which treats all wishing to come here equally, is important but not a primary reason.
          I thought the Common Market was a good idea.
          Had they stopped at the EEC I would still have been content.
          But a United States of Europe?

    • getahead
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

      I think the most objectionable ECJ ruling is that the UK is required to pay the EU £12 billion or more per annum to fund a trade deficit.
      Apart from that, we have our own government, I see no need for the UK to be governed by a foreign entity.

  17. JoolsB
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    John, you don’t have to convince us, you are talking to the converted. We totally agree with you. May has lied and betrayed us all and yet still she is your leader taking the country to disaster and your party with it – why is she still in post????? When are you, JRM, Boris etc. going to get rid of this useless duplicitous PM?

  18. Know-Dice
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    I don’t have the words to display my outrage at the incompetence of Mrs May, her government and the traitorous Civil Service.

    To tie ourselves to the EU in this manner is ridiculous why does Weak & Wobbly not understand this, how can she be this naive?

    We export to all parts of the world, and whilst the basic specification for our equipment remains the same we have different versions to satisfy the specific standards requirements of different markets.

    All exporters already understand and already do this, the end results of additionally tying ourselves to specific EU specifications and standards will mean our products will not be cost effective in the rest of the world, with the resultant loss of important export sales.

    Please please make sure that Mrs May is deposed asap….

  19. agricola
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    It is a sad reflection on politics that we still have a PM who has constructively lied to us over the past two years. It has not been down to the interpretation of what she has said because that was all too clear until the bombshell of Chequers. Complicit in this is undoubtedly Robbins, further degrading the civil service in the eyes of the public. I have little doubt that the lobbying of such as the CBI are also involved. She must be replaced by the tory party conference at the latest. Such radical surgery is essential if the Conservative Party is to survive.

    • Chris
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      I honestly think it is a game for some of these civil servants over how to outwit “the people”, in the style of Sir Humphrey.

  20. Old Albion
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    A new Prime minister would seem to be the answer…………

    Anyone seen Boris ? ……………………………………………………..

    • bigneil
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      Isn’t there’s a song in there?
      Anyone here seen Boris . . B . . O . .R . I . S.
      Anyone here seen Boris . . Boris could be our man.

  21. Iain Gill
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Hand your letter in asking for her to go

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Quite, the era of “men in grey suits” “advising” the leader to step down have gone, a no confidence vote with letters to the 1922 committee chairman is the route. How she got the job is a quirk of fate and now she has a taste for it her removal is looking difficult with so many Remain MPs. DD is reported as a replacement and if he wants the job, which he didn’t seem to after Cameron, he looks a good compromise.

  22. matthu
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    “any changes to our rules will be subject to a Parliamentary lock”?

    If I am correct, government has a history of being able to circumvent parliamentary locks as desired. I seem to recall a certain Home Sec. who transferred various powers back to the EU without triggering the referendum lock.

    • Timaction
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:30 am | Permalink

      Indeed. European Arrest warrant which she still wants to keep so we can be carted off without legal scrutiny in the UK to some godforsaken hole in the back of beyond in outer EU whose criminal justice system and its enforcers come out of the ark!

  23. MikeP
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    You say, “In her letter……”.
    Which letter is this ?

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:29 am | Permalink


      “What letter”

      Mrs May’s letter to all Party Members.

      It can be viewed on Conservative Home (link is on Johns web site)

      Go to top bar, Click on MP’s ETC, then click on Charm offensive.

      • Timaction
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

        Sent my letter from my wife and I yesterday to Conservative Campaign HQ to let Ms May know what we think of her Chequers capitulation!

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      @MikeP. Yes, I was going to ask this too. There seems little to be gained in debating Brexit any more. We have gone over the whole scenario God knows how many times and still there is no satisfactory outcome. Until this useless PM and chancellor are gone the UK is up the creek without a paddle. Unless some Tory MP’s can find enough courage to dispose of May I’m afraid nothing will change. It is obvious from just reading this diary that there is hardly anyone that supports May and I hope to God the Conservative conference is one big flop. Will she get the message? Probably not. She obviously thinks God is on her side. Silly woman. And to think, all this came about because Leadsome had the temerity to speak the truth (much like Boris) when she said she would do a better job for families because she had children. Dithering Doris took offence at that even though it is obvious to all it is the case. You couldn’t make it up.

      • Andy
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps there is no satisfactory outcome because it is not possible to get a satisfactory outcome? It is not our fault that you believed the incoherent and undeliverable promises of the Brexiteers. Rather than accusing virtually everyone else of bad faith perhaps you should all look a little closer to home when assigning blame?

        • Fedupsoutherner
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 5:27 am | Permalink

          Andy what I’d like to reply to you can’t be printed here.

  24. Dave Andrews
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    I have more faith in Michel Barnier to deliver the Brexit we want, rather than Theresa May. So long as the EU sticks to its line of “no cherry-picking”, “you can’t have your cake and eat it”, “there will be a big bill” and “there will be consequences”, the prospects for an exit with no deal are all the greater.
    When it comes to a vote in Parliament, I expect the disciple of Benn will be true to his Eurosceptic core and direct his party not to save the PMs’ skin.
    A shame really, because an FTA would be better for everyone.

    • Andy
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      We have a FTA with the EU. It’s called the single market. Margaret Thatcher came up with it and it is, by far, the best and most comprehensive trade arrangement in the world. Nothing else comes close.

      And you all want out of it because **insert spurious, ill considered reasons which have nothing to do with trade here **

      • Sir Joe Soap
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

        It sounds as though you feel pretty pleased with yourself about propping up dodgy EU infrastructure projects while denying us the chance to help third-world agriculture by buying their stuff.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        Pity about that inseparable fourth freedom … I’m coming up to needing a new pair of shoes, I must remember to invite all the staff in the shoe shop to come and live with me as an essential part of our trading relationship …

      • Dave Andrews
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

        Yes, that bit of the EU I like as well – isn’t that the Common Market we all thought the EU was supposed to be? Unfortunately, now it also comes with a Customs Union which means we can’t set our own tariffs, even when they are only in place to protect other country’s industry. Plus, we have to accept freedom of movement rules, regardless of whether the local services can cope (Yes I know, the Government is totally inept when it comes to implementing their manifesto on non-EU immigration figures). Then, we also are a net contributor to the EU, paying for our trade deficit, so other countries in the EU can be subsidised to further undercut our industries in addition to exploiting their lower wages.

      • Edward2
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

        It is a protectionist bloc
        Costing consumers with its CAP and tariffs on imports.
        World trade goes on without it.
        The EU share of world trade is falling.
        The original idea of the SM was good but EU technocrats have hijacked it.
        Lady Thatcher would hate what it has been turned into.

      • Jagman84
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

        A ‘free’ trade agreement that costs us circa £19bn a year for the huge benefit of a £80bn trade deficit. You can keep you business advice to yourself. Apart from the bill for the free trade, the large deficit will likely remain for many years but we will be free to explore other avenues of trade worldwide. However, we will return to being a sovereign nation, which is the whole raison d’être of leaving the EU. A subject that you have no rebuttal for, only agest and racist slurs.

      • Richard1
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

        **it also has unlimited and ever increasing obligations to accept supra-national Govt**

      • libertarian
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:51 pm | Permalink


        Wrong we DO NOT have a free trade agreement with the EU. For a start the single market doesn’t include services and its not free we have to pay for it and its a protectionist customs union.

        No wonder you’re so gullible

        • hans christian ivers
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

          Actually there are provisions for some services with the Eu as well, but as you have had no success with services in the Eu in the past you are not aware of what it is intails

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

            “No success with services”…..hilarious comment.

      • Anonymous
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

        Indeed it what Thatcher’s idea but she did not forsee it becoming a political entity. She saw the single market as “an overriding positive goal” but later admitted: “The trouble was… that the new powers the commission received only seemed to whet its appetite.”

  25. robert lewy
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:50 am | Permalink

    The EU rule book is superficially for the benefit of EU consumers.
    In practice, it is as stated on EU web-site , rules advanced by EU business to suit
    their own interests. Far from being a research based institution like BSI which includes contributions from a wide range of sources academic, consumer groups regulatory as well
    as industrial interests, the EU standards body is nothing more than a mouthpiece for EU business interests.

    This is highlighted by the recent EU court decision that Genetic Engineering, in parlicular the use of CRISPR/Cas9 is to be consigned to the dustbin of GM crops. The UK cannot possibly allow itself to be constrained by such legal decisions that serve to protect business interests and impede technological advance.

    • Norman
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      Just for the record, as it’s come up a couple of times in this thread, I believe the ban on GM is correct. This is an ethical matter, not technological. I lived through BSE and a number of other aberrations. Science said it was OK to make clean animals eat garbage, but it proved disastrously wrong. I will say no more!

  26. Al
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    “the rules of goods are long established – the last substantial change was in 1987” Has she missed the changes to the seed trade the EU tried to make in 2013 (finally dropped after the farmers fought it), the distance VAT regulations for digital goods in 2015, etc… Her comment may be true for a very narrow definition of goods, but the general ongoing harmonisation of the EU’s laws on goods effectively requires that these laws change near constantly as new goods and products are invented.

    If it is a matter of handling the agreed world-wide standards, handling those standards directly in a way that matches the British market makes more sense than taking them after they’ve been filtered through another layer of administration.

  27. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    The delusional and/or deceitful “parliamentary lock” idea is doubly self-contradictory nonsense coming from somebody who said before the referendum that we should stay in the EU and instead leave the ECHR, but has now quietly promised that we will stay in the ECHR after we have left the EU.

    This is what she said in April 2016:

    “The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.”

    Now if she had her way we could neither decide to leave the ECHR, nor make use of the “parliamentary lock” to disapply an unacceptable EU law, without potentially having to renegotiate our treaties, including our trade treaties, with the EU, and as the Swiss have found that is not at all a happy position to be in.

  28. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    More evidence of Mrs May’s specialities – duplicity and mendacity. She has lost all credibility, except it would seem with Chris Grayling, who on the Radio 4 Today programme was nauseatingly obsequious in supporting Mrs May and her discredited Chequers agreement. He also rubbished the idea of leaving on WTO rules (he called it no deal). The stench of sellout is becoming stronger. The future of your party and democratic politics in this country is under great threat.

  29. Mike Stallard
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    Yup, the international bodies set the standards. Yup, the EU just passes them down to us where our ministers rubber stamp them with statutory instruments. Yup, when we leave the EU on 30/3/19 we will be able to sit in on standards bodies as an independent nation.

    All trade with the EU will cease.
    All arrangements made on our behalf by the EU over the last 40 years or so will be put at risk.
    Everyone who deals with the EU will have to have an accredited person in the EU to vouch for them. And that will take time.

    But – hey! that’s not Advice to Stakeholders – that’s project fear! (If only!)
    We shall see on 29-30/3/19 at midnight European time.

    Reply Trade will not cease!

    • Alan Jutson
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:25 am | Permalink


      Come on Mike, “all trade with the EU will cease”

      You are more intelligent than to really believe that !

    • Richard1
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      A very silly post. Lots of countries not in the EU trade with the EU.

    • Andy
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Indeed – Mr Redwood is right. Trade will not cease.

      But your Brexit will create additional (and completely pointless) trade barriers.

      This will make trade slower and more expensive – but it is what you all voted for.

      The question, therefore, is not whether or not Brexit will make you poorer but how much poorer Brexit will make you?

      But at least Mr Redwood and his Parliamentary chums will have complete control over lightbulb regulations.

      • Edward2
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

        Who is creating additional barriers to trade?
        Not the UK
        Why more expensive?
        The UK wants tariff free trade.
        Why slower?
        Imports from non EU nations arrive here without delays.

    • NigelE
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:49 am | Permalink

      That’s 11:00pm 29/03/2019 UK time (or even Greenwich Mean Time in the old days). You reveal your prejudices.

      And as our host says, trade will not cease. Probably will be delays as the French inspect every hair on every leg of lamb, for instance, but they’ll get over it.

    • libertarian
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

      Mike Stallard

      Blimey mate step away from the keyboard

      “All trade with the EU will cease”

      Blimey 27 countries will stop buying mobile phones, coldplay albums, drinking scotch whisky, never buy another cancer scanner or jet aircraft engine. They will immediately cease selling BMW’s french wine ….. Oh I can’t be bothered. This level of stupidity is truly worrying

      • ian wragg
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        and Mike purports to be a teacher. I worry for the pupils.

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:13 pm | Permalink

        Edaward ”

        We cannot afford totally free trade with China, but you unfortunately have not looked into that either

        • Edward2
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 11:15 am | Permalink

          No delays currently from non EU goods arriving into Europe and UK.
          The UK can offer free and open trade where it wants to when we are a free nation.

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Permalink


        Personalised attacks again, you really have to improve the level of arguments, it is getting rather embarrassing. But do you know better?

    • Chris
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      Your first problem listed is nonsense, Mike. You lose credibility with making a statement like that.

    • Al
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      “Everyone who deals with the EU will have to have an accredited person in the EU to vouch for them. And that will take time.”

      Please explain this further. In business, my company currently deals with many countries which are not in the EU, e.g. Japan, the USA, Australia, and in none of them do we need an “accredited person” to vouch for us. Why do you believe this will be different for the EU?

  30. Rien Huizer
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    Not having seen the letter one must rely on what you and others write about it. It is clear, however that there is no way the future relationship between UK and EU that would give 1 country veto powers over what the Union regulates. That privilege is only available to members and only in cases where unanimity applies. It is of course posible that the EU would consult with the UK (even to the extent that the future relationship might entail a best effort clause to that effect, but internal rules of a club cannot be subject to the political process of a non-member. I guess that a situation where the UK would make an (equally soft) commitment to stay aligned but if there would be new rules, it might not adopt those, is not credible and will not satisfy international investors. On the other hand, suggesting that this is in fact a way towards “enslavement” (someone must have read Hayek’s pamphlet and then decided that the study of economics was redundant) is nonsense. It is probably a step towards a Norway style agreement, imo the optimum result that Britain could achieve, and for the EU also acceptable exactly because that would keep a useful trade and investment partner but not as a member participating in setting the rules.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      Rubbish. Norway has to accept Freedom of movement and contributions to the EU budget and enact much EU legislation.
      Canada doesn’t have to do any of them.

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted August 19, 2018 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        Canada does not have the same access.

    • stred
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      The UK is not asking for powers over the EU. All external countries have to export to the EU complying with EU rules. We just don’t wish to have the whole UK economy permanently compliant with EU rules and courts just for the sake of a small proportion. How can EU loving theorists become so confused?

    • Edward2
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:26 am | Permalink

      How do over 150 nations manage to trade with European nations whilst not being members of the EU?

      • hefner
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

        A reasonable theoretical point, but you should avoid repeating this till you have no breath, as actually it practically is only 20-25 such countries out of the EU. Obviously except if you so are interested in what is produced in Tuvalu, Bhutan, Comores, and the likes.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

          Well yes.
          But many nations trade with the EU as you have now stated.
          Without being members.
          So how do they do that?
          Remain supporters tell me it cannot happen and that the UK will cease trading with the EU after we leave.
          Some answers would be nice.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        Well, exporters from countries which are not members of the EEA rely on the authorities of the EEA countries to operate checks at the points of entry to make sure as far as may be feasible that their exports comply with all EU requirements, and importers of their goods also pay EU tariffs, albeit now at generally much reduced rates compared to say sixty years ago.

        All of which tends to impede, rather than stop, their export trade; but then those trade barriers usually work both ways, also impeding EEA exports to those countries, and so the overall effects on the national economies of the trading partners are both moderated and partly or largely balanced.

        This is why, to repeat myself again, the projected benefits of a trade deal like CETA are so slight, and hardly worth the trouble of getting the deal:

        For the UK and other EU countries, on the EU’s numbers the collective GDP enhancement might be only 0.03%, while on the UK government’s numbers it would be a 0.07% gain in our GDP; on the other side – which is where we would be after leaving the EU – according to the EU Canada is estimated to see increases ranging from 0.18% to 0.36%, while a Canadian source says that it may be worth a one-off 0.4% boost to Canada’s GDP.

      • Rien Huizer
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        Good question. But an easy answer. (1) by having FTAs with the EU. (2) by conforming to EU regulations where applicable (exports to the EU) (3) by absorbing tariffs where applicable (ie paying a tax, import duty) to the EU state where import takes place. Buying stuff from the EU is pretty easy, except where export licenses are required , anyone can buy stuff from the EU, maybe his own country will levy taxes or impose additional requirements. Of course, all of this requires more red tape than within the EU single market.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

          So Rien there are many ways trade can carry on between the UK and European nations.
          Seems countries such as India China Korea and America manage OK because I see lots of their products for sale from these nations in the UK
          So perhaps the UK can too.

    • mancunius
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

      When the PM is reduced to telling party members lies that are as blatant as they are deliberately deceptive, there is only one possible course of action – replace her, and those who echo and support her lies.
      Britain will flourish as the multilateral, independent nation it always was – it does not need to tie itself to the EU. Unfortunately May, like many Remainers – indeed, like the totalitarian EU itself – cannot grasp the concept of freedom.
      We can now see that her ‘spontaneous’ decision to call a General Election was intended to exploit the Fixed-Terms Parliament Act and guarantee herself a majority for her intended U-turn.
      Replace her.

      • mancunius
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        [Intended as a standalone comment]

      • Timaction
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

        Remainers have Stockholm syndrome and no courage!

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:21 pm | Permalink


        You are getting carried way again in your own fake news about freedom

  31. BOF
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    I have written my letter to Mrs May. I hope many more will be doing the same.

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      BOF. I’ve written to my MP and heard zilch. Just as I expected.

  32. Adam
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:21 am | Permalink

    Mrs May’s attitude is illogical & averse to our nation’s needs. We await a better leader, who is fit for purpose, within time to remedy what is presently drifting into worthlessness.

  33. Edwardm
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Mrs May is being disingenuous. We have had a referendum that says we want to be free of the EU, that means being sovereign and no EU rules, no ECJ, no EU mission creep and no restrictions on dealings with other free countries.

  34. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    A month ago I sent the following email to a Tory MP, copied to Dominic Raab:

    “I watched the Commons debate this afternoon and I was staggered by your contribution:

    “… There is a complete understanding that if we want to keep an open border with Ireland, we must have common standards on goods and that if we want to keep the UK united, we need that to apply to all the UK …”

    In my view that is in fact a complete misunderstanding; and here I will point out that in paragraph 11 of the White Paper it says the UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook for goods, but covering only those rules

    “necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border”,

    and that is getting close to the suggestion that EU rules should apply only to UK goods which are being exported to the EU, while still managing to miss the point that all other goods in the UK need not, and should not, be subject to EU rules.

    Obviously only those goods which are going to cross, or attempt to cross, a border can possibly have the capacity to cause friction at that border; other goods which are only circulating within a country can have no effect at the border because they never go there.”

    Unsurprisingly I haven’t had a response from either person.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

      Equally, and perhaps more importantly, we must have the right to set our own rules for EU products imported here.
      The established German car makers are undoubtedly worried that Anglosphere technology will come forth with next generation cars which are lighter, stronger and more fuel efficient. At some stage the German *fuel-guzzlers* could be restricted from US roads and die a death.
      Will we have the same right to stop polluting ourselves, or will we still be subject to EU rules which demand that these cars remain on sale in the UK and that driverless, fuel efficient cars are restricted?

  35. DUNCAN
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:16 am | Permalink

    What’s the difference between ‘this is untrue’ and ‘this is a lie’? The former suggests an absence of intent to deceive while the latter suggests a malicious and deliberate intent to deceive with the aim of gaining an advantage

    Which is it?

    Most apolitical, objective observers of this PM would conclude that her actions fall into the arena of subterfuge.

    Only Tory MPs have it in their power to change the course of British history. It is my firm belief that they will a steer a course of caution and gutlessness.

    Abdication of principle and morality as been the hallmark of the Tory party since 1990.

    We are a dead and soulless party without direction

    • Timaction
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

      In the main with a few notable exceptions. That’s why I and millions of others stopped voting for them after Cameron’s anointment. A political pygmy trying to look statesman like. Not fit to polish Sir Nigels boots!

  36. Anton
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    Liam Fox promised that the Free Trade Agreement with the EU will be the easiest done in human history..but i don’t see it myself

    IDS said that the german car workers would come onside and then M Gove predicted that the French wine producers would be on the streets- hasn’t happened either.

    In fact very little of what we were promised by the brexiteer elite in the run up to the referendum and shortly afterwards hasn’t happened so why should we pay heed to what back benchers including our host have to say. It is clear that the only one with influence in any of this is the PM herself and the top civil servants that surround her.. the rest is only window dressing..British political window box dressing with as much value as ‘whistling’ or ‘letter boxing’..and other such nonsense- like taking back control

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

      But WHY hasn’t this happened?

      Did you see Junker jump over to see Trump in the White House the minute increased tariffs were mentioned by Trump, whereas our May bloom goes begging to Junker?

      She has been and is totally useless.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Liam Fox said “should”, not “will” or “would” or anything other than “should”.

  37. iain
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    It seems obvious to me that Mrs May having got her “Chequers statement ” signed off by Germany prior to presenting it to Cabinet it will not be amended in any way. As long as she stays as PM we may as well all save our breath as NOTHING will change her set course.

    • Chris
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      The Dublin agreement in December was the “embryo” for the Chequers agreement. Dublin was when the “complete capitulation” (Charles Moore D Tel article) took place. That is when Tory Brexiter MPs should have acted to destroy the betrayal in its infancy. Instead, by not challenging it, they let it take a firm root. Of course May is not going to change anything. She is still the leader of the Party and the PM and apparently no one is prepared to challenge her effectively. The only chance of stopping the Chequers betrayal is by removing May from power. It may already be too late.

  38. Fishknife
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    I have moved from being a borderline Brexit supporter at the referendum to being a full blown Canada +er.
    I support Mrs. May in her efforts to keep everyone aboard until the 27 fully appreciate the economic consequences of the decision the EU Federalists have forced upon us.
    Our Common Law is an Englishman’s right, it must not be bargained away for a handful of chocolate shekels.
    Sadly Facebook hasn’t taught the young the value of freedom.
    It isn’t anonymous tweets.

    If Mrs. May can get us past the witching hour with an honourable settlement, functioning WTO trade and no EJC up our jacksie –
    I say ‘keep kicking that can, Mrs. May’, and more power to your elbow.

    Once we have our MP’s back where we need them to be – responsible to us – we can start to sort out the unholy mess our ‘someone else will pay’ attitude since the war (1945) has engendered.

    • hefner
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for that, a much more reasonable (and workable) contribution than the usual verbiage prevalent on this blog.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      The problem is that the 27 know she will cave in, so you won’t reach the state you want until she’s gone. Which could be too late.

    • Backtoback
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

      Fishknife- we are not going to get Canada+er or anything like it for a while..these things have to be negotiated..we will leave to WTO rules and see our way from there. The EU federalists as you call them are thoroughly fed up with the antics of the British government side that they have already cleared the ground for 29 march and a sharp departure. They are not prepared to put up any more with insults or bad attitude from the UKIP and Tory right wing MEPs in the EU parliament..Verhofstadt and Junker will have a lot to do with this.

      How you talk about an Englishman’s right to common law as if other people have no rights or laws..the EU is an economic club first of all, it has political sides to it but it won’t matter to us in a short while because we’ll be on the outside..on the outside looking in..there is no chance now of the deal you’re looking for..not in the short term..maybe after a few years

    • Mark B
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 5:11 am | Permalink

      To a large extent I agree with you.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 8:26 am | Permalink

      Can Weak & Wobbly get us past the “witching hour” with a solution that works for the UK?

      Chequers shows that this is unlikely…

      Should we wait till the 11th hour to only find that our worst fears about her were justified?

      I don’t share your confidence 🙁

  39. Tad Davison
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    I’d say you had some very fundamental issues with the Prime Minister John. Join the club!

    Makes me wonder how anyone in her position can get things so wrong, unless it’s deliberate obfuscation. That then poses another question, is she really suitable to lead us out of the EU?

    Oh what a sorry mess from something that is essentially so simple. She was just the same at the Home Office. The Do-gooder in chief, listening to all the looney liberal penal reformers, paying little or no heed to what the voters actually wanted, and just look at what’s happening on our streets as a consequence!

    We evidently need a complete reversal of May’s light touch, out-of-touch position on both counts – the EU and Law and Order.

    Tad Davison


    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      It’s interesting to speculate what she’d have done in Gordon Brown’s position under a Blair favouring us joining the Euro. I suspect somehow caught between her being incompetent at introducing a change on the one hand, and being asked to do so by Blair on the other hand, nothing would have happened.
      Which sums her up really. Mrs Nothing.

  40. Priggers
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    “…PM gives to surrender our powers …”
    Not when you think the EU is us. Most of her thinking life she has been a citizen of something other than the UK. We should love her. Respect her. She is fighting to the death for her country.
    But we Brexiteers fight for ours.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      Well I do wonder where her beliefs come from. But whatever they are, they don’t achieve anything through her actions.

    • Richard
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      And, logically, that would make Mrs May the provincial governor of the British province of the EU Empire.

  41. Den
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    Another fudge then. I cannot decide whether Mrs May is not ‘with it’ or she is so ‘out of it’ that she relies on her Aides And SPADS to formulate this outrageous plan, based on incorrect data.
    Is she incompetent? Ignorant of the facts? Or just a die-hard Remainer?
    Whichever, she does not have the Country behind her. Not even those that voted to leave the Brussels cabal and that is very bad for Britain. She must change or step down before she is put down.

  42. DUNCAN
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    Is this acceptable John?

    ‘This seems to have gone unnoticed: Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt is running a survey on his website asking his constituents if they want a second referendum.

    He writes that constituents have emailed him who are “angry and concerned about how [the Brexit] process is progressing”.

    Entertaining the idea of a second referendum is clearly a major breach of government policy. What is Burt playing at?’

    • Backtoback
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

      DUNCAN- as I have said above you can rest easy from my reading of it- there will be no second referendum-it’s much too late for that now. In fact we could have a general election instead but that would not change anything either because we will certainly leave to WTO rules in March next. Somebody might ask me to explain WHY? well because the UK government first of all hasn’t a clue about what it wants or where it want’s to go and if this is the case with A50 already activated there can be only one outcome

    • Fiona in Matlock
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      If it was right to ask the people in 2016, why is it not right to ask them in 2018?

      • Edward2
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

        Best of 3?
        Or perhaps best of 5?

    • L Jones
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      To advocate a second referendum just because people are ‘angry and concerned about how the process is progressing’ is utterly outrageous. What has a second referendum got to do with putting things right that are going wrong because of Mrs M and her team of dissidents?
      It isn’t acceptable, is it?

    • Andy
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Entertaining the idea of democracy is against party policy? Really?

      • Edward2
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

        Really, yes Andy.
        The PM said before the referendum, you decide, we will implement your decision.
        A referendum is different to party politics.

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

      This has incensed me to write to the guy:

      Dear Mr Burt

      I read with interest your canvassing of your constituents as to their ideas for a second (and perhaps third or even fourth?) EU referendum.

      You were a government minister under Mr Cameron as PM when he proposed and agreed an in/out referendum, in which he stated that “out means out”. You stood on a manifesto platform last year of leaving the European Union, and were elected and appointed to be a minister in a government which has promised to implement that policy. So why ON EARTH are you now seeking your constituents’ views on whether or not they agree with the democratic result reached in June 2016? What do you propose to do if 100% of your respondents now say that they want a second or third referendum? Tell the electorate they got it wrong the first time and perhaps they should try again? Or tell them that despite a 100% response that they want a second referendum, telling them “tough luck, because we’re doing what we promised to do?”

      etc ed

  43. hans christian ivers
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:54 am | Permalink


    Germany exports five times as many goods to China than we do and have been subject to the EU rules for even longer then we have and this has not hindered continued growth in their exports to China or other countries outside the EU.

    So I am afraid you last paragraph does not stick up to the actual facts or trading outside the EU and still being a member.

    • Stred
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      Does Germany accept Chinese laws and pay 45bn Eurosto sell in to China?

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        What ahs that got to do with my reply nothing, stay with the facts not your emotions

        • Edward2
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 11:25 am | Permalink

          Im surprised you fail to see the connection hans.
          You tell us that Germany has a huge trade relationship with China.
          Yet there is no EU type arrangement between both nations.
          No open borders
          No free movement of goods capital nor people.
          No common law making
          No supremacy of one another’s courts
          It is remarkable how such trade carries on.

    • Longinus
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Some facts: Germany sets the rules to destroy its competitors and has rigged the Euro exchange rate to its currency.

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        I am not sure most of northern and eastern Europe who supply to German industry would share that sentiment actually I know they don’t

      • margaret howard
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 12:04 am | Permalink

        Absolute poppycock! It makes things people want to buy and rewards its skilled workforce rather than pay outrageous salaries to often inferior management that happens in Britain. The ‘old boy’ network is still alive and thriving here.

        • Edward2
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 11:29 am | Permalink

          The value of the Euro gives Germany an advantage of about 25% on its export values.
          If Germany had its own currency which floated just on just its own reputation then that advantage would end.

  44. Pat it
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    I suspect that businesses exporting to the EU are all used to employing lobbyists to secure favourable regulations and head off unfavourable ones.
    I further suspect that such lobbying will soon become ineffective, if it hasn’t already. With EU regulations increasingly disfavouring UK suppliers British exports to the EU will decline further, and the CBI will be forced to lobby Parliament for less restrictive regulation, which would involve a clear break from the single market.
    It appears at the moment that the lobbyists are sore at the prospect of losing their commissions and are lobbying to keep as much of their jobs as possible.
    As above I doubt it will do them much good in the long run- but it does make the process of leaving longer and more painful than necessary.

  45. Edward2
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    The last paragraph was talking about the UK’s inability to sign trade agreements whilst in the EU.
    That is correct.
    The fact that Germany sells more stuff to China than us is irrelevant.

    • hans christian ivers
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      Edward 2,

      It is actually very relevant but maybe you missed it.

      We can even sell more to China whilst being in the EU so do we need does additional trade agreements probably not

      • Edward2
        Posted August 16, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        Yet you tell us that trade will cease when we leave the EU
        Then you give us an example of China not in the EU and Germany trading successfully.

        • hans christian ivers
          Posted August 16, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink


          you are mixing me up with somebody else

          • Edward2
            Posted August 18, 2018 at 12:06 am | Permalink

            Well you remainers do seem very similar.

  46. L Jones
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

    We all know you’re not a ‘yes man’, Dr R. But you now seem to be as disenchanted as the rest of us here, with the way the PM is going. We just have to sit by and seethe, it seems, apart from sending nugatory, usually unacknowledged angry letters to our MPs, and letting off steam on your blog.

    Fortunately, you’re in the position, with like-minded colleagues, to do something about it.

  47. Nigel Seymour
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Keeping things simple I await future comments/observations from DD, SB, BJ, JRM etc. October is looming they say and will be our day of destiny!! – NO our day of destiny will be 29th March 2019 when Art50 is extended indefinitely and when so called remainers will then have ‘truly’ won the day and quite possibly the battle…

  48. Simon Coleman
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    More than 100,000 UK businesses EXPORT to the EU. That’s a number you ought to be thinking about – and not simply the 12% you keep trotting out. All your predictions have been wrong so far. The economy has slowed down this year; exports (whatever happened to them – supposedly in ideal situations with the fall in the pound) have dived; inflation remains too high after you said it was no longer an issue; the pound has fallen again because of uncertainty; No Deal was going to be a viable option – well, who believes that any more except your fanatical grey-haired followers!….and you told us Theresa May was a strong PM who would deliver a real Brexit. Well not even you believe that one any more!

    • Edward2
      Posted August 15, 2018 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

      The economy has continued to grow and you predicted a big recession.
      Exports have not dived.
      Inflation us only a tiny bit above target and the action of the Bank of England will reduce it.
      The pound trades close to it’s longer term average.
      Unemployment at a record low.
      Economic growth continues and real earnings are rising after the Great Recession.
      You say 100,000 businesses trade into Europe, yes I know.
      Why should that stop?

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 12:20 am | Permalink

      The only serious threat to our economy in the event of a rapid No Deal exit will arise from non-tariff barriers imposed on our exports by the European Commission, out of spite and for no other reason. Mrs May should be saying – and meaning – that in the event of non-tariff barriers being imposed, we will deduct the costs to our economy from the exit fee provisionally negotiated. However, she won’t. She’s frit and she’s got to go.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      So, Simon, in your view the government should only think about the 6% of UK businesses which export to the EU, the other 94% can like it or lump it.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted August 16, 2018 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      “The economy has slowed down this year”

      No it hasn’t, that is a straight lie. UK GDP has grown by over 3.6% since we voted to leave the EU when your lot predicted a recession, with a drop of up to 6%.

  49. Ed Mahony
    Posted August 15, 2018 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood,
    Just writing to say I really like / admire you. I think you have a tonne of common sense, calm (in a political way) and not a schmoozer, in an age when there’s so much schmoozing. I don’t agree with you about everything. And I don’t think Brexit is done and dusted, although it could be, and will certainly be a marathon not a sprint. This time, I’m done commenting (I want to leave Brexiters to get on with it). Thank you. And I will keep you in my prayers, along with friends + family list.
    God bless you, sir.

  50. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted August 16, 2018 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    It is clear that we will need to unseat Mrs May in order to restore sanity. I have resolved that all pro-EU Tory Wets will have to be expelled from the Party.

    Step 1 is to write a Brexiteers’ Manifesto that can be signed up to Conservative Eurosceptics, the DUP, Kate Hoey and her merry band, and UKIP. It will be hard on Brexit and on national issues, but there will be compromises on economics and social issues. Brexiteers will a broad church but a different one from the current Conservative Party.

    If we can get this right, most of the 52% who voted leave will vote for Brexiteers.

    Then the pro-European Tory Wets will compete for the same pool of votes as the Liberal Democrats, and they will no longer punch above their weight.

  51. isp001
    Posted August 16, 2018 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    If you really want to make people angry tell them an obvious lie. 1. You have lied to them. 2. You make it clear you think they are stupid and might believe the lie.

    Mrs May also fails to realise the objective is not for her to stay as PM for as many weeks as possible. If she by hook and crook forces through her stupid chequers plan then the UK will have years of stories of how dumb the plan is, and on the problems it both creates and make insoluble. This is the legacy she is fighting to create?

  52. Denis Cooper
    Posted August 16, 2018 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

    At times they do, and then they don’t.

  • 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