What legislation should we change once we are free to make our own laws?

 

One of the attempted trick questions in the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave was about deregulation. Which regulations would you repeal, they asked  of the Leave campaign. Presumably they hoped either that the Leave campaigner would be lost for a specific example, or would offer up a popular regulation which the public would not wish to see removed. They underestimated their opponents in this as in other matters.

The truth is there are many laws and regulations that the EU has imposed on us that are either suitable for repeal or for substantial improvement. The UK could start by repealing the damaging fishing regulations which have allowed considerable environmental damage to our fishing grounds whilst also undermining some of our fishing businesses.  We could move on to removing items from VAT or choosing lower rates for others. There is no great support for 5% and 20%  VAT rates on a whole range of green products, nor for the 5% VAT levy on domestic heating fuel. The interventions in our corporate tax code that have lowered our revenues could be reversed. We could do a better job on animal welfare with our own rules.

It is a strange phenomenon that many people will stand for election to the UK Parliament with a wish to become lawmakers, only to decide once they arrive that want many of our laws to be settled in Brussels so they can claim they have no ability to amend or repeal them. The UK Parliament over our years in the EU has been craven in meekly accepting every EU law and regulation, and in avoiding proper debate about it. This has damaged our democracy and widened the gulf between Parliament and people.

The continuing EC court case over VAT on commodity derivatives is a reminder of how the  EU wishes to rewrite our rules against the interests of our businesses. The UK Parliament should decide our VAT law and it should not be subject to reversal by a European court.

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

339 Comments

  1. Mark B
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    Good morning

    Remove VAT on food. Food is not a luxury item.

    Ban pulse fish in our waters and companies offshoring their taxes e.g. Ireland.

    Repeal the Climate Change Act.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:07 am | Permalink

      We do not have VAT on most foods other than takaway hot food, cakes, confectionary, alcohol etc. do we?

      Certainly repeal the Climate Change act and withdraw from the Paris accord etc.

      • BillM
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

        Repeal the Climate Change Act? Blasphemy! Lifelogic.
        I feel very strongly about Climate Change because it is a fact but Mankind has nothing to do with it and taxpayers money is wasted on trying to prevent a natural phenomenon occurring. What’s next? Controlling the weather?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

          Exactly.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:18 am | Permalink

      Re offshoring tax – introduce a electronic trading turnover tax chargeable on turnover originating in the UK. Offset this against corporation tax paid and a start threshold of £250 million turnover.

    • Andy
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:35 am | Permalink

      From the UK government’s own website about VAT.
      “Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated.”
      Turns out the EU law you want changed is already changed to what you want.

      As for climate change – what part of your grandchildren’s generation burning to death do you find attractive?

      • mancunius
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

        “Food and drink for human consumption is usually zero-rated.”
        I’m afraid climate change appears to have fried your brain – you forgot to add how that sentence continues after the word “zero-rated”:
        “but some items are always standard-rated. These include catering, alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, hot food, sports drinks, hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water. Restaurants must always charge VAT on everything eaten either on their premises or in communal areas designated for their customers to use, such as shared tables in a shopping centre or airport food courts.
        In addition, restaurants and takeaway vendors must charge VAT on all hot takeaways and home deliveries.”

      • Edward2
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

        The average global temperature has risen by just over one degree since 1900.
        Predictions of large and rapid increases after 2000 have yet to happen, but even if they did it is unlikely your grandchildren or mine will “burn to death”
        Humans have survived on this planet for tens of thousands of years in places where the temperature rarely gets above zero and in places where the temperature rarely drops below 35 degrees.

      • graham1946
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        Wrong yet again.

        Zero Rate Applied to basic food in supermarkets etc. except for things like, crisps, cakes etc (technically still VAT rated, but just zeroed – could change any time).

        But not Zero Rated if has had a service performed on it such as heating or delivery to home and all restaurant food is Vatable. Hot takeaway food is VAT rated. Cold takeaways are zero rated. As usual, Andy, you only get part of the story.

        No-one is going to burn to death – the argument is over small temperature changes and severe weather events not what happens in Hell. Do you understand anything at all?

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        Andy, All food cooked or uncooked to be consumed on the premises, and cooked (above ambient) takeaways are charged VAT. Even some food bought at supermarkets, such as biscuits, are charged VAT too. Turns out the EU law we want changed is not already changed to what we want. Another fail for you, Andy.

        As for the climate, CAGW is a hoax. Not least because the GCMs don’t model the clouds, take no account of the Sun’s varying magnetic field, and no account of the measured “greening”. What part of restoring cave dwelling for our grandchildren’s generation do you find attractive?

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

        That’s going to happen to our grandchildren anyway. They’ll just be a lot poorer than the Chinese or Indian kids by the time it happens.

      • acorn
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        Andy, when I saw the title of JR’s blog today, I just knew the comments would be somewhat “off the wall”. Basement level devotees of neoliberal capitalism, can only think at the level of lower or no taxes; and lesser or no regulation, in their dog-eat-dog world.

        For such devotees on this site, can I refer you to Table 4.3: Current receipts, in the following OBR publication. https://obr.uk/download/march-2019-economic-and-fiscal-outlook-charts-and-tables-fiscal/

        There you will see all tax etc receipts. JR will be able to tell you which legislation will have to be repealed to get rid of your personal selections.

        Don’t forget that taxation does not pay for any government spending. Its purpose is to regulate the amount of spending power in the economy to control inflation. One day, the UK will have a government that actually understands that is what taxation is for.

        Taxation should be used to stop bad stuff – tobacco taxes; and, to divert some private sector output into the public sector, for the socio-economic welfare of the whole nation. The latter, I accept, being a complete anathema for nineteen out of twenty Redwoodian leave voters.

        • Edward2
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

          Me thinks you exaggerate acorn.
          Taxes are at a high point currently.
          So some lowering of tax would be nice.
          I’ve not seen anyone on here asking for no tax or no regulation.
          It isn’t “a complete anathema” to most of us to have a mixed economy but the debate is about what split of the GDP it should be.
          Also some reduction in wasteful spending by the State so there are more funds for deserving causes.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:23 am | Permalink

            Government is spending (and largely wasting) at least double what it should be spending. Not that far short of 50% of GDP recently which is way too high. Much of it is spent doing nothing useful or actually doing positive harm.

          • acorn
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

            “… what split [tax] of the GDP it should be” you say. For the current quarter, public sector current receipts are circa £189 billion, with a GDP of circa £514 billion; circa 36.7% tax/gdp. Where do you want it to be and how will you get to it?

          • Edward2
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

            First you claimed none on this site nor any leave supporters want any tax or any government spending.
            Now after being challenged you alter to my point about the mixed economy and the debate about what split it should be.
            I suppose I could say that was progress in the argument.

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

          Acorn, Total nonsense. Tax receipts are fed back into the economy, so cannot by themselves “regulate the amount of spending power”. Government spending is thus part of the economy, it is simply a different body that spends the money.

          The problem of course is that government spending is inefficient: from the “it’s not my money so I don’t care” syndrome, to lobbying, to corruption, to political bribery, to infantilising adults. Some government spending is necessary to transfer wealth and provide basic services, but we would be better off if it were lower than today.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 31, 2019 at 9:13 am | Permalink

          acorn

          Youre just an old throwback socialist. Free markets are NOT a dog eat dog world ( maybe thats why you get so confused over South Koreans) .

          Free markets work, they have produced the freeist , healthiest, wealthiest , most educated, longest lived global populations. Every single piece of factual data reinforces this. Government is largely unnecessary and where it is necessary it should be ring fenced and stopped from empire building and encroaching on areas that it has not right to be involved in.

          “Taxation should be used to stop bad stuff ”

          Ah that explains why income/NI/WPP tax etc is so high and why business taxes are so high. The government is trying to encourage us not to work or start businesses or produce anything. Got it now

          You dont have the faintest understanding of real world “economics”. Printed money is meaningless its just an IOU . Value is created by labour and brains. the notes and coins are just short hand ways of transferring labour, brains, goods and services effectively. The government as always happens in socialist societies always eventually loses control of money as other forms of more trustworthy exchange arise between buyers and sellers ( go take a look at M-pesa in Africa & to a lesser extent PayTM in India and of course the rise in cryptocurrencies)

          What really makes me laugh about people like you is that you complain like mad about the government and the things it does, then your answer is MORE government. You have to be seriously hard of thinking

      • agricola
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        Never mind the grandchildren, you will do for dissemating so much nonesense.

      • margaret
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

        It is probably freezing to death Andy . It becomes so warm that the ice melts , the gulf stream and its corresponding salinity becomes dilute and therefore cannot hold the heat due to lack of density. The gulf stream continues more or less in the same direction and cannot heat the land mass and starts becoming colder and colder until there is an ice age.

      • Rhoddas
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

        You’ve obviously never been to the EU vassel state of Greece where VAT on most foods was imposed at 13% and rest is 24%. Water also 10% VAT, outrageous. Just google EU VAT rates – European Commission and get your facts right.

      • Richard1
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

        The climate change act will make no difference at all to the climate – see Björn lomberg’s estimates. Fortunately however, it seems the climate models have over-estimated actual warming by 2-3x so no danger to anyone’s grandchildren. Find a sensible long term solution sure, but cut the ludicrous hysteria.

      • libertarian
        Posted July 31, 2019 at 8:59 am | Permalink

        Andy

        You know nothing about the organisation you voted for. There is vat on hot food, dining in, takeaways , biscuits, crisps, cakes etc etc

        As for global warming , no one, not a single person really believe in catastrophic global warming if they do not support the nuclear programme. Nuclear is the very best available at producing clean, green energy without any reliance on fossil fuels

    • nshgp
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Which foods have VAT on them?

      • Bernard from Bucks.
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        Chocolate Digestive Biscuits, Tea Cakes and so on…and on and on.

      • Mark B
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

        As LL says, hot foods etc. My point being, why ? If you can tell me why a hot pasty incurs VAT and a cold one dies not, I would be interested to know ?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 4:30 am | Permalink

          Well the just wanted to raise more tax (for them to waste) but they did not dare to put VAT on all foods as that was politically too difficult. Done by the economic illiterate, pension pot mugger and inheritance tax ratter George Osborne.

      • formula57
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:05 pm | Permalink

        Per VAT Notice 701/14 – Ice cream, similar products, and mixes for making them, confectionery, apart from cakes and some biscuits, alcoholic beverages, other beverages, and preparations for making them (being flavourings for milk shakes, purgative and laxative ‘teas’, such as senna, and similar medicinal teas, mineral, table and spa waters held out for sale as beverages, alcohol-free beer and wines, ginger, glucose, honey, peppermint and barley water drinks, syrups, crystals, powders and flavourings for making any standard-rated drink, carbonated drinks such as lemonade, cola and mixers such as tonic and soda, fruit cordials and squashes), potato crisps, roasted or salted nuts and some other savoury snack products, products for home brewing and wine making.

      • gregory martin
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:45 pm | Permalink


        nshgp
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

        Which foods have VAT on them?”
        For general interest, education and insomnia, start with
        https://www.gov.uk/guidance/food-products-and-vat-notice-70114
        https://www.gov.uk/guidance/animals-and-animal-food-notice-70115
        and so on.
        It makes the world of difference if you keep a spaniel who is currently unemployed, but who still barks at the postman, it seems!!

      • Lynn Atkinson
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

        All hot take way food and all food in restaurants.

    • Ian terry
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      Totally in agreement with you

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      We do have the daft sugar tax though! It does not however apply to bags of sugar or indeed to fruit which is full of sugar, or cakes, or biscuits, sweets, carbs that all turn into sugar in the body, or chocolate or even a cup of tea with fifty spoons of sugar in it.

      Just to other sugary drinks! There are few limits to the lunacies governments come out with.

    • Simeon
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      There is so much awful legislation that should go. A party that pledged to pass no new laws but instead focused its efforts on repealing existing laws would get my vote.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        I thought Cameron said he would repeal two laws for every one new law. Did he?

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:05 pm | Permalink

          Mike Wilson, Did he give a cast iron guarantee about that too?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 4:18 am | Permalink

          He gave us a Cast Iron guarantee and said he was a low tax Conservative and EU skeptic at heart too. Said he would stay on and serve the section 50 notice the next day after the referendum. Lies, lies and yet more lies from the man.

          Still he was, eventually, forced into giving us the promised referendum and he has sensibly shut up since he left office. Unlike those other failures as PMs – John Major, Gordon Brown or Tony Blair.

      • agricola
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

        They could help fuel the bonfire of quangos.

      • Gorton II
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        But you have NOT EVEN ONE law you want to repeal. For you Brexit is just anger.

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:06 pm | Permalink

          Gorton, See my list below.

        • libertarian
          Posted July 31, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

          Gorton II

          If you bothered to read the lists of awful laws that should be binned that we repeatedly post on here you might be better informed and go some way to relieving your ignorance

          GDPR
          Article 11
          Article 13
          VatMoss
          Live Animals for slaughter
          cow stabbing as a sport
          pony wresting as a sport
          VAT standard rate on energy
          CAP
          CFP

          There are another 12,500 of them

          • acorn
            Posted August 1, 2019 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

            Libby, could you give us a list of the days Matron allows you access to your Care Home computer.

  2. Dominic
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:31 am | Permalink

    Hate crime legislation is without question the most pernicious, despotic and invidious piece of legislation I have seen in my lifetime. It is itself based upon a hatred of and targeted at those British citizens that tick certain gender and sexuality criteria. It is misandrist hate. It is pure liberal left poison designed as an attack on freedom of expression

    And a Tory government, yes, a Tory government introduced it. Why? Was it May’s capitulation to vicious minority rights cackling or her obsession with purging the entire environment of the ability to openly discuss important issues that affect us all?

    This area of politics as always been Labour-Left territory and yet some of the most destructive laws passed in this area have been passed by Conservative governments. It reeks of capitulation, cowardice and a lack of moral confidence. What is perverse is that the majority of the people despise these laws

    This embrace of oppressive legislation and it is oppressive in the strictest sense of the word is utterly unacceptable in a nation like ours.

    What have we got if we haven’t got our freedoms

    It seems hate is now defined as any disagreeable opinion expressed by WHM.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:12 am | Permalink

      Indeed on “Hate Crimes”. See the recent article by Rod Liddle for some of the totally absurd things recorded by the police as Hate Crimes! The remoaners keep using the “increase” in hate crime as yet another weapon against leavers. If you cannot offend people you no longer have free speach. Some people are looking for offence in anything and everything.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        Just listened to Reflections with Peter Hennessy and Lord Patton. I rarely agree with anything the Patton says essentially another Ted Heath government knows best person. Pleasant enough but a broken compass on most things like the EU, the BBC, big government, high taxes ….

        But when asked for the one thing he would more like to change he said better Vocational Training and FE colleges.

        He is surely right on this. Far fewer lawyers, bureaucrats, HR experts, politicians, PPE graduates, duff lefty economists and the likes and far more builders, engineers, motor mechanics, electricians, plumbers, sales people, business people and more practical skills. Learning on the job plus night schools and some days/weeks at F/E colleges.

        • Jiminyjim
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

          Of course he’s right, but this was and is nothing to do with the EU, but the devastating decision by Blair to turn all our Polys into Universities – an act of complete vandalism

          • Lifelogic
            Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

            Indeed we need more polytechnics, FE collages and far fewer universities.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:27 am | Permalink

      Someone arrested at a gay pride meeting for shouting “shame on you it” it seems.

      How does one protect one persons right to express odd religious or personal views against another persons odd religious or personal views with a hate crime laws?

      If you cannot offend free speech is clearly dead.

      • Peter
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

        Was it possibly a woman dressed like a letter box?

    • Pud
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:33 am | Permalink

      I don’t understand why assaulting someone because of the colour of their football shirt is deemed to be less serious than assaulting someone because of the colour of their skin.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

        Exactly!

        Indeed and were I were called a white b****y, b****** I would not be too offended by the white bit – more the second parts! Then again I would not really be that bothered at all. The sensible black people I know are certainly not ashamed of being black they are rightly proud of it!

        Indeed if I were say Jeremy Hunt and someone told my children to “go back where they came from” I would not at all be “very upset”. I would just assume the person saying it was rather stupid or had some inferiority complex or had mental health issues and just explain this to my children.

    • BOF
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:16 am | Permalink

      Sir John is correct on all counts but I agree with you Dominic and’hate crime’is certainly the worst bit of legislation imposed on this country by the worst Prime Minister ever.

      Hate crime legislation is the embodiment of George Orwell’s ‘1984’ thought Crime.

      PM Johnson could start here. It would immediately free up hundreds of police officers (Thought police) who are trawling through the internet in search of thought crime to put back on the streets to tackle real crime.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. A huge distraction for the police from sensible police activity. Cresida Dick even had to consult her hate crime “experts” and make a speech about Boris’s post box comments. Such absurd priorities with a stabbing or shooting murder nearly every other day.

      • John C
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

        It is clearly not just zaniness. They really believe that if people are not repressed and confined in the expression of their views, there will be discontent leading to protests and insurrection.
        And they’re probably right, and it would be their fault.

    • forthurst
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      One of the most egregious pieces of ‘hate’ legislation is Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The reason the British Home Secretary was instructed to introduce the Act was to deal with the problems associated with industrial unrest such as mass picketing, flying pickets and the like. Section 5 has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the Act and has been used to shut down free speech thereby closing down legitimate criticism of rebarbative behaviour by some members of immigrant communities.

      Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

      A section 5 offence comprises two elements:

      “A person must (a) use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting; and

      The words or behaviour, or writing, sign of other visible representation must be within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

      So neither speaking the truth nor not issuing any threats or engaging in threatening behaviour is any defence against what someone might believe someone might think. Offences which cannot be defined objectively and are clearly designed to close down free speech need to be removed from the statute book.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

        Exactly right.

    • Peter
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

      This fierce opposition to political correctness is an opinion often expressed by able-bodied, heterosexual white males. Less so by anyone else. Have you ever thought about why that might be?

      • David L
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

        Yes, Peter, in my work with disabled people I have encountered negative attitudes and aggressive rudeness from members of the public towards them. Legislation against this behaviour is needed. Free speech used against the vulnerable isn’t “free speech”, it’s bullying.

      • Peter
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

        Hello, not something that I posted….

      • Dominic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        So heterosexual non-white males are victims are they?

        So all women are victims are they?

        Don’t you understand?

        The basis of hate crime legislation revolves around the idea that hate is a white, hetero-male phenomena. This is patently absurd.

        Hate is A HUMAN phenomena not an exclusively WHM phenomena

        Your bigotry is writ large as is your ignorance

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

          Dominic, Exactly right.

        • Peter
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:08 am | Permalink

          In a way, yes, I would say that all women, black people, LGBT and disabled people are victims – victims of the white male privilege that underpins our society. And I know that you will disagree with that, but that’s sadly just another symptom of your privilege. When you live with that privilege all of your life, you become blind to it. When someone sees that privilege in you, and tries to tell you about it, you argue with them because you don’t see it in yourself. Which is fair enough – I’d be disinclined to believe something that I couldn’t see for myself. But that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t keep an open mind.

          • NickC
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

            Peter, You’re just demonstrating what political colour you are. There are plenty of women, black people, LGBT and disabled conservatives who don’t agree with you. Try Candace Owens, Jerome Hudson, Peter Whittle, Gianna Jessen.

          • Peter
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 4:53 am | Permalink

            Again, not one of my posts….

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

        Yes, they are more objective perhaps.

        • Peter
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:10 am | Permalink

          Is this one of those “I’m not a racist but I believe that white men are more capable of being objective than anyone else” things? Or is there some nuance that I’m missing?

          • Peter
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 4:53 am | Permalink

            Not me posting…..

  3. stred
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    It is nor only about EU laws and regulations. Directives are a problem because our civil servants always follow and gold plate them. For instance, smart meters, which they made the most expensive and useless in Europe and the Germans decided to ignore. Other EU regulation, which I noticed apply in France are the need to have enormous bathrooms in every small flat and house for wheelchair access, when this could be added if it is needed later. The result is small living spaces. The insane road blocking to make cars stop and swerve in order to slow them and humps which damage suspension are also EU wide, but ignored in some countries. This was probably invented by some loony in Whitehall, then taken up by the Commission. This is why British civil servants love the EU- because they can make a nuisance over a larger area. TheEU regulation to ban white gloss paint with traditional oils was another pain. The new non- yellowing paint that complied cracked and peeled after 2 years on my house and others. Soon we will not be able to use effective weedkillers despite no realevidence that it is dangerous.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:14 am | Permalink

      Indeed.

    • Andy
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      This is perhaps my favourite thread of all time.

      Asked to complain about EU law we so far have someone who wanted something we already have, someone else who argued in favour of bigotry – and your main objection to the EU seems to be speed bumps, French bathrooms and the ban on cancer causing weed killers.

      I am going to be very amused today.

      • Peter
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        Meanwhile, on a less ‘nebulous topic Boris Johnson has said he will not meet EU leaders unless the backstop is removed.

        Brexiteers cannot have many complaints at the Prime Ministers initial few days.

        We wait to see how he will handle Conservative Extreme Remain, the Lib Dems and Labour.

        • Mark B
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 4:32 am | Permalink

          Assuming he is serious, if the EU were to remove the backstop that would be seen as a major concession. After which, it would be hard for them to refuse other concessions.

          Interesting move.

      • graham1946
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

        You should be in favour of bigotry – hardly any of your posts do not contain some form, mostly towards the older people who have supplied you with everything you have.

      • Karsen
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

        Ah Andy, but at least, at last, the Brexit agenda is taking detailed shape. Terrific! They’ll be complaining about garlic next, and Germans on the beach.

      • margaret howard
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

        Andy

        What a lovely evening in front of us. Beats Dad’s Army hands down.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        Well. You need cheering up.

        I’m no fan of Boris but he’s storming it.

        By legal default we leave on 31st Oct and the vast majority of voters in the EU elections settled for this – particularly the 60% who didn’t vote at all… but you claimed these loose voters for Remain anyway, didn’t you.

        I don’t blame the EU either – but I do blame our own left wing politicians who used the EU as an excuse to force political correctness, socialism and high taxes upon us (for our own good, of course.) Worst of all they went about changing the nature of the country they despised by flinging open the borders.

        There had to be consequences.

        Here they are.

        Instead of sneering at us and taking the piss out of us you should go about sweet talking us and/or disenfranchising us first.

        Instead Linekers like you’ve only made it worse.

        Soubry’s been dumped and Boris is going the way of Trump by the looks of things.

      • Fed up with the bull
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        Andy, you really do come across as a silly boy. I expect your children have more common sense than you do or else I hope they do or the money your are spending on their education is for nothing.

        I cannot believe you are a family man. Try reading some self help books on how to grow up and be a responsible person.

        • Glenn Vaughan
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

          His “family” exists in his head and they live on Fantasy Island.

      • steve
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        Andy

        “I am going to be very amused today.”

        Enjoy, while you can.

  4. /IKH
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    Hi Sir John,

    My candidate for repeal would be the Climate Change Act. Imposed by the E.U. it has cost us a budgeted £110 Billion from 2013 to 2020 in Govt expenditure and lot on our electricity bills as well. So called renewable sources are unreliable. Any Govt. support of solar energy in this country are rediculous when it is not cost effective in the Mohave desert in Southern California.

    There is no evidence that CO2 is anything more than a mild greenhouse gas and no meaningful evidence the man made CO2 is donig much more than fertilise crop production.

    /ikh

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:43 am | Permalink

      Indeed and kill all taxpayer subsidies for electric cars or renewables.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:11 am | Permalink

        Put the money into tax cuts and R&D not on to subsidised roll out of duff/premature technology.

        Better nuclear & nuclear fusion power, better batteries (in some areas) and synthetic manufactured fuels are probably the best solutions. R&D here is much needed.

      • Mike Wilson
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

        Absolutely. Some children in this country do not rely on puffers to control their asthma. I have shares in a company producing puffers. We need to burn as much oil as possible to cause as much air pollution as possible to make sure every child suffers from breathing problems. Right?

        • steve
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

          Mike Wilson

          Well I dunnno, my eldest Son who is now in his mid twenties needed a puffer when he was a boy.

          Personally I’m not convinced child breathing problems are all down to air pollution.

          I started smoking when I was about ten, and gave up after 40 years – never had any breathing problems.

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

          Mike Wilson, Only if you assume there is no pollution in the manufacture of battery cars, no pollution in making and installing “renewables”, no pollution in manufacturing and installing double capacity grid and street cabling, and no pollution in building and running the 100% or so extra electricity generating plants to provide the electricity for the cars.

    • stred
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:09 am | Permalink

      It was imposed by our own loonies. Other countries in the EU have not legislated for anything as mad.

    • glen cullen
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      Totally agree the climate change act is a folly

      Even the ex-chair of green-peace agrees its a sham

    • margaret howard
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

      /IKH

      “So called renewable sources are unreliable. Any Govt. support of solar energy in this country are rediculous”

      All in all, Europe is performing admirably in its organisation of renewables.

      In 2011, renewables created 21.7% of the EU’s power; after three years, this figure has achieved 27.5% and is expected to grow to 50% by 2030.

      The EU’s underlying endeavours in advancing the utilisation of renewables encouraged this. Proceeded by the development which brought down sustainable costs: the costs of photovoltaic modules fell by 80% between the end of 2009 and late 2015.

      Renewables have now moved toward becoming cost-focused, and even sometimes significantly less expensive than fossil fuels.
      The turnover in the renewable energy sector claimed an amount of €144 bn in 2014 and over one million jobs were created, thus it plays an important part in the European economy.

      • Edward2
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:54 am | Permalink

        The figures you quote are capacity maximum figures.
        Rarely achieved.
        There is a good website which shows the actual real time demand for UK energy and how it is generated by the different methods.
        You should have a look Margaret.

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

        Margaret Howard, Some renewables are only “less” expensive than natural fuels if you ignore the costs of the necessary natural fuel back up (usually idling CCGT plant).

  5. Nigl
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Yes. For some reason the Remainers seek leverage by suggesting that post ‘brexit’ we will start ‘sending children up chimneys’ again. What tosh. What we must do is create an enterprise environment by eliminating all those protectionist regulations that are there to cushion the EUs businesses from competition from the rest of the world.

    Cut ourselves free from state aid and procurement rules so we can support U.K. business and on November 1st look to see if corporation tax can be cut to attract more foreign business and certainly cut VAT to offset any adverse effects where WTO tariffs kick in.

    My one area of concern albeit I do not have the knowledge to be certain is farming/food and ‘No deal’ planning must have everything in place, subsidy replacement, new regs, quotas where dumping might happen etc from day 1, indeed for all industries that may be affected, to ensure their status quo is maintained at worst, at best improved.

    I do not want to have to listen to the shrill shrieks of the Andy’s of this world ‘I told you so’

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      I think the green loons and Gove types want to ban coal and woods fires and thus chimneys will not be needed. So the children will be spared! Modern chimney brushes are more effective at this than modern children I suspect anyway.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:57 am | Permalink

        May of them are too plump and a bit lazy – too many of them would get stuck I suspect.

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      Rather than attract foreign business, can we not help domestic business? Foreign investors care not at all for British jobs, just their profits, whereas UK business owners want to protect the jobs of their staff.
      Cut employer’s NI rather than corporation tax. Why should businesses be punished for the social good of employing people? A low corporation tax rate is of no benefit when a business goes through difficult times – they still have to pay NI and business rates though.

    • Andy
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

      I did tell you so. And let me be clear what I told you. I am not one of those who thinks it will be carnage on day one.

      Instead I have always believed that Brexit is long, steady and permanent decline into insignificance.

      And this is the real problem with it. Most of you will not live to see whatever change it is you think you will see – fewer foreigners in most cases I would guess (and not the white, Christian European foreigners either).

      But your children and grandchildren will be left with the long term negative impact of your vote. And I did tell you so.

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

        Andy, You’ve made a guess about the future. It is rather too early for you claim your guess is correct. Come back in another 47 years.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        You and the rest of the Linekeers helped cause Brexit.

        The outcome isn’t certain anyway.

        No-one knows how the EU is going to turn out. Hell bent on turning itself into Africa by the look of it.

      • steve
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        Andy

        “Most of you will not live to see whatever change it is you think you will see”

        You certainly won’t.

      • Jiminyjim
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

        Two really important points, Andy. First of all, the huge bulk of the Civil Service Remain crowd will admit, if you challenge them, that they’re agreed the long term effects of Brexit will be overwhelmingly positive, but they’re worried about the short term.
        The second problem is that our current Civil Service can’t even forecast to plus or minus 300% accuracy over 6 months. Three generations, Andy? Show me your sources, Andy. No………………I thought not

      • Fred H
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        Point noted Andy….. you told us, we know you told us, its documented that you told us, now give it a rest for god’s sake. I suggest your epitaph should be ‘He told us!

      • John C
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        Thank you. And may I say your modest and yet positive tone brings joy to many hearts, especially those who gain pleasure from observing the writhing of the simple mind.

  6. jerry
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    Off topic; Is anyone else becoming very worried about how DfEFRA is shaping up under Boris, looks like Boris is intent on gold plating the Climate alarmists policy wish lists – certainly if the recent appointment (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State) is anything to judge by.

    Does this mean the third runway at Heathrow is now dead?…

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink

      We need runways at Gatwick and Heathrow. We need to kill the green crony and surely corrupt green crap industries. R&D is fine but roll out only if/when it need no subsidy. Rolling out duff technology early in economic insanity. Done, one assumes, partly due to all the “consultancy” fees being paid MPs etc. who act as green crap “Consultants”.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:30 am | Permalink

        Surely declaring your income and interests in some area or other is not sufficient. It still remains a corrupt incentive to push insane legislation for crony industries through declared or not. This can clearly be seen in so much of the legislations we have to suffer, The cronies have their fingerprints all over it.

      • jerry
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        @LL; The problem with a second runway at Gatwick is the existing infrastructure beyond the airport and the ability to (realistically) improve road and rail links [1].

        Yes anything could be done -even your absurd ‘Heathwick’ rapid transit idea- but at what cost to the tax payer or end user, a second runway might well simply become even more of a white elephant than HS2 is likely to become, simply pricing its self out of the market if funded on the commercial market or become a significant millstone to successive tax payer generations if funded by HMT.

        [1] although reopening railway routes south of Erigde, to both Lewes and Eastbourne respectively, would increase capacity on the Brighton line south of London but might not do much to improve the all important access into and across London

    • Dennisa
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      Defra is run by WWF, Geenpeace and FoE. We will host the UNFCC Climate Fest next year, apparently jointly with Italy, which seems bizarre. Thousands of politicians and activists will fly combined hundred’s of thousands of miles to tell us we must stop flying to save the planet.

      Claire Perry has been put in charge of the UK effort. If Boris is still there he will be grandstanding and boasting of how the UK leads the world in reducing emissions, which are having zero effect on global temperature.

      There has been no increase in UK temperatures in the last 30 years, from Met office data, in spite of increasing CO2. China and India and the rest of Asia are still increasing coal fired power plants and laughing at our stupidity.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        Yet we’re too small and of such little influence to go it alone without the EU.

        But on climate change we must lead the World in reducing emissions.

        Andy has cognitive dissonance.

      • James Bertram
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

        Dennisa – I think you will find that there are a considerable number of people at DEFRA who have links to The Countryside Alliance, Big Farming and large landowners. Defra often bends over backwards to support these powerful interest groups – and, as such, Defra is often the main obstacle to improved animal welfare.
        This is one more reason why we need an Animal Welfare Minister at Cabinet level to drive through radical change on fisheries, farming and the natural environment.

        • jerry
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:34 am | Permalink

          @James Bertram; “DEFRA who have links to The Countryside Alliance, Big Farming and large landowners. “

          There, corrected that for you, Defra does indeed often bend over backwards to support these powerful interest groups, almost always leaving the Farmer to carry on struggling against all odds, for example who would be a Diary farmer when the biggest threat to our national milk supply has State protection.

      • hefner
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

        Dennisa, could you please point out to the MetOffice data or report(s) showing the absence of increase in UK temperatures in the last 30 years. Thanks a lot in advance.

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

          Hefner, Could you please point out a temperature data set that has not been “adjusted”, does not include heat island effects, exclusively uses thermometers accurate to 0.01degC including thermometers from 100 years ago, and covers the entire globe without missing out vast areas. Thanks a lot in advance.

        • jerry
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:45 am | Permalink

          @Hefner; “showing the absence of increase in UK temperatures in the last 30 years”

          I would be more interested in seeing the data for the last 300, better 3000, years. If that data shows what is claimed it would go a long way to silencing the AGW naysayers, 30 years is meaningless when talking about climatic changes, although it might prove something or other about the weather.

          So why is the data not more widely publicised, it’s not as if the data doesn’t exist, it must do otherwise how can the Climate scientists build accurate models…

          • hefner, Esq.
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

            Such data exist in the so-called reanalyses done by NASA, NOAA, the Japanese JMA, ECMWF in the UK. A reanalysis takes all meteorological data, from surface synoptic stations, ships, planes, satellites and enter these as initial conditions (IC) for short (twelve hour forecasts). Such a resultant 12-hour forecast can be compared to the next set of observations (measured during the corresponding 12-hour period). A mathematical method called the adjoint method (typically taking the inverse transpose of a huge matrix whose dimension is typically O(10^10) tens of billions) is then used to minimize the distance between the observations and the forecasted values, in the process producing a corrected set of ICs. Such a chain of processes can be run to provide analysis for one day, one week, one year, one century. The quality of the resulting analysis will obviously depend on the quality of the original observations and of the analysis model used to run these series of short-term (12-hour) forecasts. All the agencies running such reanalyses (NASA, NOAA, …) are also agencies providing very good weather forecasts at 3, 5 or some at 10 days.
            Some of these agencies (NASA, ECMWF) have an open policy of giving anyone access to their analyses and the corresponding meteorological data used as inputs. One just has to register. If you are interested, be prepared not to have to pay but to have to download (or get a big pile of DVDs containing) a huge amount of data.
            What I find really funny is that among the climate change deniers, practically nobody has the sufficient computational skill to handle such tasks.
            Both NASA and ECMWF have in the last years produced a 20th century reanalysis giving the state of the atmosphere from surface to 0.01 hPa every 12-hour. Products also exist as daily, weekly and monthly averages over the original size of the grid used in the reanalysis model or on a fixed grid (usually 1×1 deg^2).
            So to conclude … stop being so negative and roll your sleeves, get access to the data, do your homework … and then possibly criticize the atmospheric scientists, but this time knowing what you are talking about.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 7:25 am | Permalink

            You missed the bit how recently the positions of land based temperature recording stations have been moved and some recording stations closed altogether.
            Additionally the mix between land based and satellite derived data in the data has been changed.
            We are told this is to gain increased accuracy in global temperature data.
            It has had the other completely accidental effect of producing higher temperature readings.
            PS Jerry
            Wood for Trees website has some good raw data from hadcrut and other sites.

          • jerry
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 7:27 am | Permalink

            @hefner; So you want me to accept NASA/ECMWF etc. computer modelling as a historical record of past events – pull the other one – after all I’m sure NASA could also come up with computer model that proves the Moon is made of cheese and a little mouse is living inside [1], if much of their continued funding depended on it!

            [1] just so long as they ignore all actual gathered and collated data

            Actual written climatic/weather records, as far back as they go, seem to show something quite interesting, that temperatures are perhaps increasing due to the removal of CO2 (etc) out of the atmosphere! So at best we might simply be returning to a pre industrial revolution ‘climate norm’, and at worst the climate alarmists…sorry, ‘atmospheric scientists’ in their rush to secure existing and future research funding are allowing politicos to create (further) problems.

            I asked about ice core samples, you failed to mention them once, but such data has been gathered, could it be that real IC (ice core) data does not fit the computer modelling…

          • hefner
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

            Jerry, thanks for pointing ice cores. Unfortunately the longest reanalyses done by meteorological models now cover from 1899 to present day. So although all data related to ocean surface temperature (and salinity for some of the reanalysis efforts), sea ice extent and depth, glacier extension, state of vegetation (as far as there are existing measurements of reasonable quality) are included in this assimilation of data, ice core data, only valid for periods longer than a century, are not part of meteorological reanalyses.
            As for your point about CO2/temperature relationship, I am sure you must be aware of all the details of the present research including its role on the transition between a frozen Earth, a partially melting one, the influence of vegetation and land water cover on continents, the potential role of volcanic activity and the role of (potentially shifting?) ocean currents over the 40 something millions of years of theOrdovician period.

    • agricola
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:49 am | Permalink

      Climate change is a new religion, more pernicious and dishonest than most of the established ones. When Bill Clinton pointed out that it was the economy, I would maintain it is the Sun stupid, in the case of climate change. Trying to interfere by creating, capturing or elimenating the man in the black hat called CO2 is as beneficial as peeing into wind. The World however you look at it is not a stable place, never has been, never will be. Get used to it and adapt by protecting that worth protecting. If you want to do something really useful, a great deal of environmental cleansing would be a good move. The Greens could then worship the dustbin.

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

        Agricola, In 2009 Prince Charles declared that we had less than 100 months to save the planet from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse”. Perhaps he’s noticed that his deadline has been and gone and we’re still here, and still not frying.

        • Fed up with the bull
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:24 am | Permalink

          Nick C. Agree. In 1990 we took our daughter to Disney Land in Florida and watched a film that I think Al Gore had something to do with which said we were all doomed in 10 years time. There was a prediction that Southern areas of the UK would be so dry we would find it difficult to grow things and Spain (where we were living at the time) would be a desert. Bunkum!!

    • Simeon
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      I would anticipate laws being repealed in the event of Brexit. But there will of course be laws made too. I’d be very surprised, irrespective of Brexit, if more mad green legislation was not passed. I think the direction of travel is very clear on this; democracy demands it!

      It’s interesting that Climate Fear has been far more successful at shaping public opinion than Project Fear.

      • Anonymous
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        It also happens to be a great way to run down infrastructure and put up taxes.

    • Mitchel
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Has Boris requested a meeting with St Greta of the Apocalypse and her Children’s Crusade yet?Let’s get the priorities right!

      Out on the campaign trail,he was asked to comment on Mr Putin’s much publicized comment that liberalism was obsolete;he said he totally disagreed:” Britain was the best modern example of the triumph of liberal values”he replied.

    • Man of Kent
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      jerry,

      Absolutely , Zac Goldsmith appointed to DEFRA and Carrie moving into No 10 means he will be kept to TM’s policy of zero emissions by 2050.

      The only hope is that no money will spent , so storing up trouble for future governments . This will mean ever increasing numbers of wind turbines and solar panels neither of which is remotely justified except with ever higher electricity prices which will put a brake on our manufacturing and export industries .

      So the Chancellor will face an invidious choice : either to support Brexit or the totally unnecessary zero emissions policy .

      Every year there will be more wind turbines costing more and more until the system cannot be afforded and we will be faced with the clear up costs of all the broken eye sores littering our once beautiful countryside .

      • Turboterrier
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        MoK

        More and more until unaffordable?
        Politicians will not fight to stop these things because every bill payer is financing the communities benefits which means the local authorities do not have to spend their money. It is far worse in Scotland as the SNP use this as a way of giving out all their free bees to encourage the Scottish people to vote for independence. We the English are paying the lions share for this scam as there are more of us as energy customers. There are about 100 odd members in the Westminster who see this energy policy for what it really is. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and their banner is the Church of Saving the World. It is all about money and this country will be destroyed as an industrial engineering manufacturing base. It is time to wake up to the con and remove all subsidies and constraint payments and expose the next disaster which will be the disposal of blades, panels and batteries.

        • Fed up with the bull
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:25 am | Permalink

          Too right Turbo. Just what will happen to all the turbine blades, solar panels and car batteries? It will be just like the lunacy of plastic all over again except much worse. Do our politicians ever think outside the box?

      • Iain Moore
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        The only way to stop this madness on Climate Change make all the MPs who voted for a climate emergency to live zero carbon lives, after all they can’t complain if we force them live the emergency they voted for. I would also suggest that as the BBC is a cheerleader for this we should make them and all their staff and stars do the same, no more first class flights to Hollywood for them.

        What is the betting that if confronted with the reality of their virtue signalling they will run like good-uns , for the price of their environmental gesture was supposed to be paid by others not them.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

      Does this mean the third runway at Heathrow is now dead?…

      Not unless there is an outbreak of common sense. Unlikely in this oil burning obsessed country.

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

        Mike Wilson, It’s perfectly sensible to enjoy the benefits of burning all naturally occurring fuels, not just oil. I don’t notice you refraining from benefiting – your computer, phone or tablet for example, and the electricity to power them. When you do give them up, let us know and we’ll be sure not to join you in your cave.

  7. agricola
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    Remove legislation relating to PC, diversity, and genger. Outside the dangerous occupations of farming, fishing, and offshore oil and gas remove all the health and safety requirements that force the village fete to conduct risk surveys. Between the above you have created a vast none productive industry that is a total drag on normal human activity.
    It has also allowed crimes of sexual exploitation to run riot because those tasked with the protection of the vulnerable are too terrified to act.

    Make every organisation in contact with the public accessible via mail, email, and telephone with sufficient staff to respond at the third ring with an intelligent, articulate human being at the other end. No more computer letters, automated systems, and passsords that so many hide behind.

    New laws blocking all parliamentary lobbying beyond an A4 letter. The freedom of large organisation to subvert democracy must end.

    The above should keep you occupied for the forseable, then you can tackle the BBC, the size of parliament, and the obscenity of the size of the lords.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:19 am | Permalink

      “have created a vast none productive industry that is a total drag on normal human activity” it is indeed but that is largly what governments and red tape does. Government are in the business of regulations, fines, licencing and parasity job creation both in government, the legal profession and in the private sector in order to try to comply.

      Then the likes of Hammond complain about “poor productivity” when he and the government are the main cause of it?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:31 am | Permalink

      Fire Rudd and abolish her damaging and totally pointless department (Women and Equality) in full.

    • jerry
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink

      @agricola; But farming, fishing, and offshore oil and the gas industries are not dangerous, just so long as those employed/visiting understand the risks and have at least a smattering of common sense, so no need for H&S laws in those industries either – according to your logic…

      The problem is the pyramid building scope of HSE, along with the ‘blame culture’ that is all invasive now, not the existence of H&S laws per se.

      • Jiminyjim
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        You obviously don’t live in the country. We’re aiming at the wrong target – CO2. What we should be doing is reducing the monstrous quantity of chemicals that we’re using to poison our countryside. The worst offender is oilseed rape, which requires lots of spraying to prevent it reseeding itself, which it can do for four years. Why do we grow so much of it? Firstly, the subsidy is just over 50%. Secondly, the Germans don’t like to grow it because of the chemicals and therefore subcontract it to us, so that THEY can meet their biodiesel/CO2 targets. This must be sorted out when we get out of the CAP, please Sir John!

        • jerry
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

          @Jiminyjim; “You obviously don’t live in the country.”

          I do live in the country-side and members of my wider family have actually worked in farming and horticulture.

          Very few if any commercial farmer or grower is going to use excessive, never mind “monstrous”, quantity of chemicals.

    • Narrow Shoulders
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Scrap gender pay gap reporting legislation.

      Include as an auditing requirement checks on equal pay for men and women and different ethnicities.

      • J Bush
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        Fully agree.

        I worked in a male dominated field of high tech for more than 30 years. At one of my interviews I was advised there would be some lifting required and did I think I could manage that. My response, I am as strong as an 8 stone man. I got the job, not because of my anatomy, but because I passed the basic 3 principles.
        Can she do the job?
        Will she do the job?
        Will she fit in?
        And after the usual probationary period, was paid the same as my counterparts.

        This gender pay gap garbage is just that. Garbage.

    • Peter
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

      “New laws blocking all parliamentary lobbying beyond an A4 letter. The freedom of large organisation to subvert democracy must end.”

      Large organisation doesn’t subvert democracy, it IS democracy. The government represent the people, and if there are millions of people marching outside their front door in complaint then that might be a clue that something is amiss.

      • Peter
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

        Again, not one of my posts….

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

        Peter, But however large the crowd of people “marching outside their front door in complaint” there are vastly more who don’t. At the moment they get ignored in favour of the whingers.

        • Peter
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

          When you see 1,000,000 people on a march, you shouldn’t assume that they are the only people who hold their opinion. There will be others who wish they could be there but are unable to, either because of other commitments, or because they live too far away, or because of a disability that prevents them from being there. The marchers themselves are always just the tip of the iceberg, and will generally represent a cohort at least 10 times the size.

          • NickC
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

            Peter, And there is the vaster crowd who don’t go “marching”.

          • Peter
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 4:55 am | Permalink

            Not me….

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

      I wouldn’t remove legislation relating to ginger. It should be outlawed.

  8. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:02 am | Permalink

    The Blairite Left (May, Hammond included) like EU law because it is all Blairite Left law. For Labour supporters it is a way of getting what they want without the bother of winning a general election. They all ignore the fact that a Leftist EU is not guaranteed in perpetuity.

    EU freedom of movement laws can usefully be changed – currently they benefit and are used by only a small percentage of UK workers – disproportionately the wealthy and high-skilled – but by a large number of immigrants, disproportionately the poor and low-skilled. Overall such an unbalanced outcome is not a benefit to UK.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      “Leftist EU is not guaranteed in perpetuity” perhaps not but rather likely to persist for some considerable time yet. Give the political, anti-democratic structures that pertain.

    • nshgp
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:38 am | Permalink

      Easy to change. For economic migrants.

      1. No criminals
      2. No discrimination
      3. Net contributors only.

      As an annual test

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

        Indeed sounds rather sensible. But you need to scrap the Human Rights Act to do this. Otherwise they will have a right to a family life here regardless – with their family cat or pet spider.

      • Andy
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Can we apply this to Brexit voters too – and kick out those who fail the test?

        • NickC
          Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:52 pm | Permalink

          Andy, Why? – this is our nation. By definition migrants have left their own nation where they enjoyed their own national rights. They cannot come to our nation and expect to impose their views on us.

  9. Peter VAN LEEUWEN
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    There are about 12000 EU regulations in the UK. HAVE FUN! (for a long time:). )(

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      Just shows you what a dictatorial load of bumptious idiots are in charge of your precious EU.

    • graham1946
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

      You’ve understated that by a factor of 10. But I thought you EU lovers all said the EU doesn’t have much effect in passing our laws.

      Governments rarely repeal laws. They huff and puff in opposition, but when in power usually just add more and more. We will be stuck with what we have for generations.

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

        @graham1946: You sound very knowledgeable, give me you source for your claim of about 120000. 🙂

        • graham1946
          Posted July 31, 2019 at 10:24 am | Permalink

          According to Thomson Reuters 50,000 have been passed since 1990 alone. The rest are from 1972 -1990. Look it up. Where does your 12,000 come from?

    • oldwulf
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

      Hi Peter

      After 31 October we will have all the time we need 🙂

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

        @oldwulf: You indeed seem to take eternities for anything related to Brexit. 🙂

        • Oldwulf
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

          Peter – yep …… we did.

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      PvL

      Simple; no one will take any notice of any regulation of EU origin. So 1 or 12,000 of them won’t be a problem.

    • Jiminyjim
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

      PVL what a wonderful confirmation of everything we’ve been saying! Deliciously ironical and funny

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        @Jiminyjim: All these rules were collectively made with the British, that is how the EU operates.

    • Fred H
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

      Peter VL…..Brilliant we can all ignore all that crap soon.

    • Richard1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

      Indeed thanks for pointing it out. These days we are very largely governed by the EU, something vehemently denied by continuity Remain. Post Brexit we will have the chance to repeal or change such regs as we see fit.

    • John C
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      I see you have been converted at last to the realisation that we British have had our laws determined by foreigners.

      • Peter van Leeuwen
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        @John C: Soon you’ll be the “foreigners” 🙂

        • Narrow Shoulders
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

          Peter we always were. The EU is not a country, therefore to all other member states we may be partners but we are foreign partners.

          Long may that continue, but a supra national body should not be able to impose laws on a nation state.

          • NickC
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

            Narrow Shoulders, PvL likes living in a vassal state of the EU empire. He could be a free man in a free nation but he’s either too frightened or too hide-bound.

  10. GilesB
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Waste Transfer Notes are a complete waste of time and money.

    Other regulations covering hazardous products and anti-littering etc are sufficient

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

      Indeed.

  11. Raedwald
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Factortame Factortame Factortame Factortame

    Revise the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act to return the conditions the EU forced us to remove

    Red duster ONLY for UK ownership of 33/64ths or more of the flagged vessel

    We should not be spending UK taxes on naval protection for red ensign flagged vessels neither UK owned nor UK crewed.

    • Karsen
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

      P&O have left for Cyprus. Brexit dividend?

    • Al
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

      +1

  12. Leaver
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    I agree diversity law needs to be changed.

    The person who said ‘There is no evidence that CO2 is anything more than a mild greenhouse gas and no meaningful evidence the man made CO2 is donig much more than fertilise crop production,’ is plain ignorant.

    CO2 is monitored both through the Mauna Loa laboratory and Arctic ice cores. It has risen from approximately 200 ppm to 400ppm. It leads to the heating of the planet and clearly needs to be monitored and managed. Also, may I point out that I am merely reflecting the opinion of Margaret Thatcher (albeit with more up to date statistics), who was one of the first people to point out the importance of dealing with climate change.

    I really object to people spreading this climate change hoax pap. It does them and the Brexit cause no credit.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      He may be ignorant (in general I do not know) but on this is quite right. C02 is only one of millions of factors that affect the climate – many totally unpredictable and unknowable. The real science suggest that the world’s sensitivity to CO2 increases is not very large and really not likely to be a serious problem.

      Even Corbyn’s far brighter brother Piers is sound on this issue. As are most sensible scientists (those that are not on the alarmist, grant seeking, bean feast that is).

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

        Furthermore the renewable lunacy does not even reduce C02 to any real degree and so does nothing but harm.

        • APL
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:17 am | Permalink

          lifelogic: “Furthermore the renewable lunacy does not even reduce C02 to any real degree ”

          Nor does it do anything but severely disadvantage our industry in the face of already stiff competition from countries that care not one jot about the global warming hoax.

  13. Sea Warrior
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Good point, Sir John. Has anyone on the Conservative benches ever put forward a detailed, post-Brexit VAT rate-reduction proposal? Perhaps the ERG should, now – to help counter the constant ‘No Deal would be disaster’ mantra of the Press. We need to show people that leaving the EU has clear benefits that they can relate to.

  14. Shirley
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    The list is endless, however my first selections would be ‘hate crime’ legislation. Hurt feelings and offence taking has become the new ‘compensation culture’. Libel and slander laws should be used to refute any incorrect slurs. Get rid of ‘hate crime’ and concentrate on violent crime, theft and fraud.
    Get us out of the Migration pact and be more realistic about ‘climate change’.
    Fishing: ban pulse fishing but increase limits on trawling which damages the sea bed.
    Animal welfare: NO export for slaughter. None at all. Also (although not EU law) ban unstunned/part stunned slaughter for ALL. If anyone wants unstunned/part stunned meat badly enough, let them import it. That way the rest of us can be sure we aren’t being sold illegally produced meat if we buy British.

    • James Bertram
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink

      Fishing – and Animal Welfare.
      Well said, Shirley.

      To that I might add:
      Phase out all factory farming within 5 years (Ban the Cage campaign)
      Ban the live export of animals for slaughter and fattening.
      Ban the import of all species for game shooting.

      There are many more – but I’ll try not to bore you.

  15. Ken Smith
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:00 am | Permalink

    Rights to live, work and vote in 27 states will be “deregulated” out of existence. The rich wont care of course, theyll find a way. Brexit is all about rich people sneering at decent Brits

    • graham1946
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

      Actually we are told that Brexit is all about the un-educated, the old and confused and the just plain stupid. How are they ‘rich people’?

      Pro EU are mainly the rich (like Andy and Margaret), show business luvvies and big business. They are the rich. People will still travel the world as they have done since boats were invented. Never much trouble prior to the 1970’s.

    • NickC
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

      Ken Smith, Decent Brits went to the continent on holiday (and to work, and trade) before 1972. You may not have noticed.

    • Andy
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      Actually it’s 31 states – as free movement covers the EEA countries and Switzerland too.

      We will be the only country in Western Europe – and before long in all of Europe – to deny its citizens this right.

      • NickC
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

        Andy, We will be the only country in Western Europe – and before long in all of Europe – to give its citizens the right to democratically decide who and how many migrants to let in.

      • libertarian
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        Andy

        “We will be the only country in Western Europe – and before long in all of Europe – to deny its citizens this right.”

        You do know that Russia is in Europe right? Pop 145 million You are predicting the free movement of people from there. Oh and Kazakstan pop 20 million they will be coming too. Not to mention Bosnia, Moldova and well basically another 24 countries . You wonder why we would be better off out of this…. You are quite seriously odd

    • James1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

      “Brexit is all about rich people sneering at decent Brits”. Nonsense, if anything it’s the other way round, i.e. remainers sneering at decent Brits.

  16. Madge
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    Sir John,
    You mention removing the 5 per cent VAT on domestic fuel, but what is the effective tax rate on fuel once the green/environmental charges are included? These are largely invisible to householders but I understand they are substantial. Why not standard rate VAT on fuel but eliminate the hidden charges, so at least we know what the total tax actually is?
    Slightly off topic, I am a pentioner but why not amalgamate the Winter Fuel Allowance, the Xmas Bonus and make a government contribution to the forthcoming BBC licence fee charge for the 75s+ but make the total benefit taxable? Making a tax-free payments to the wealthier pensioners, ie standard-rate+ taxpayers is slightly dotty and amalgamation would presumably reduce overall admin costs.

  17. Ian!
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:03 am | Permalink

    Good morning Sir John

    You ask a tough question so early on a Monday morning.

    I would be more radicle some would think erring towards flippant. Just repeal everything that has been brought in, in the last 40 years. Then the first law to be introduced would be that no law or regulation can be made to apply within the UK that the People can’t have repealed or amended via their democratically elected representative.

    Then because, laws and regulations do tend to get abused, as they get used for other purposes. All laws and regulations to be reviewed after 7 years to assess if they have been used just for the intended purpose. Too often the definition of purpose gets stretched.
    As you say fishing is a good example, a regulation brought in with good intentions. However, the side effects are greater damage, greater problems then abuse. The situation today is no better than first introduced.

    On tax I am inclined to the main idea proposed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. He calculated that instead of corporation tax, if all companies paid a tax of 2% (I can’t recall the exact amount but it was very small) on sales. Every Company would then be equal in what they contributed to the local host economies and more actual tax would be collected. As it is the larger you are the less you pay as you are better equipped to employ avoidance methods. An example Starbucks a big organisation for the most part escapes large tax bills. Their UK end has to buy its supplies and services via HO in Switzerland. Meaning profits which would attract cooperation tax are next to nothing in the UK, as the profit element is all in Switzerland.

    At the moment is the smaller enterprises are subsidising the facilities afforded to the larger operations, infrastructure, educated population and so on.

    Big companies have already suggested they are against the above idea. Is it because they enjoy what essentially is freeloading?

    VAT as it stands is over complicated and messy and needs to be replaced by something simpler.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      Ian, to get rid of VAT would cost most VAT registered companies a minimum of £2000 just for new accounting software and don’t forget they have already had a cost in converting to Make Tax Digital.

      A better idea could be to increase the threshold where by companies need to register for VAT and just reduce the headline VAT rate from 20%.

      On tax I am inclined to the main idea proposed by Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. He calculated that instead of corporation tax, if all companies paid a tax of 2% (I can’t recall the exact amount but it was very small) on sales

      This is already done as the difference between incoming VAT and outgoing VAT (provided a company is making a profit on its sale price).

      With Corporation tax on top.

      May be just reduce Corporation tax to the ROI level of 12.5% – all started by Herr Juncker in Luxembourg…

  18. David Potter
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Off topic but can anyone tell me if we can apply tarrifs to appelation controlee items?
    Could we for example put tarrifs on Champagne? Or Camembert?

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

      David Potter

      We can put tariffs on anything, once we have left.

  19. Andy
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    So you continue to claim there are masses of regulations you want to scrap – and, again, you a left with VAT on tampons and something about fish as your examples. You’ve had three years and this is the best any of you can come up with.

    Meanwhile Mr Johnson used a kipper in plastic to highlight pointless EU rules. He was wrong it was in plastic because of UK rules. Did he lie or did he just not know?

    Meanwhile every company which exports to the EU will face piles of extra Brexit bureaucracy just to carry on trading on worse terms than before.

    I thought you were supposed to be cutting red tape Mr Redwood and here you all are producing tonnes of it.

    Not doing very well, are you?

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Long time EU visitor Peter van Leeuwen tells us there are 12,000 earlier in this thread.

      • graham1946
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        And he was wrong by a factor of 10. It is at least 120,000, of which about a third has been through our Parliament, the rest ‘on the nod’ as EU law is superior to UK law.

    • libertarian
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      Andy

      Thats because when repeatedly given a list of the dozens of bad regulations that should be scrapped you ran away and hid until the dust settled

      Oh and it turned out that in fact Boris WAS right after all about EU kippers

      “Meanwhile every company which exports to the EU will face piles of extra Brexit bureaucracy just to carry on trading on worse terms than before”

      Er no I won’t it is an extra 11 boxes to tick on the electronic manifest about 7 minutes extra work

    • Jiminyjim
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

      Complete tosh from dear old Andy. Does he never get tired of spouting his nonsense?

    • Fred H
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      Andy….if we are going to faces piles of extra Brexit bureaucracy I suggest we might stop trading with EU and make it or buy it elsewhere! Simple.
      Where have you found evidence of producing tonnes of red tape? Is that tonnes of paper forms, or reels of tape (red).
      You certainly have a vivid imagination.

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

      andy

      “VAT on tampons”

      Now why would that concern you, Andy ?

    • Richard1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

      Actually it turns out he was probably right – see analysis by richard north (not a Boris supporter).

    • APL
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink

      Andy: ” and, again, you a left with VAT on tampons and something about fish as your examples. ”

      Unfortunate juxtaposition of topics, but I too am tired of Redwoods pandering to the feminists.

      Women have the largest discretionary spending in the whole of the population, yet according to surveys ( grabs one from the independent ) the average woman will spend £70,000 on cosmetics in her lifetime.

      You telling me the average woman can’t be bothered to spend a couple of quid out of that for a matter of personal hygiene, but above all personal convenience?

  20. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    VAT should be scrapped in favour of a sales tax .
    Food and energy should be tax free as should insulation materials.
    Why should anyone pay 20% tax when they update their kitchen etc.
    VAT stymies economic growth.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

      Or pay VAT when they do maintenance on their car, to get to work, to pay tax.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:38 am | Permalink

      Careful Ian….Margaret Howard will down on you like a ton of EU standard bricks 🙁

      Between October 1940 and 1973 the UK had a consumption tax called Purchase Tax, which was levied at different rates depending on goods’ luxuriousness. Purchase Tax was applied to the wholesale price, initially at a rate of 33⅓ %.

      Are you sure you want to go back to that?

  21. Know-Dice
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:13 am | Permalink

    Get rid of or change power limit on vacuum cleaners.

    It should never have been about power, should be based on efficiency and never should be a ban in any case.

    Traffic light labels detailing efficiency and maybe noise for domestic appliances is all that is needed.

    Certainly stopping this “gold plating” of EU directives thus allowing our Civil Servants to hide behind the smokescreen of the EU is a good move…

    • J Bush
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

      I would like my incandescent light bulbs back. I hate that glaring cold white LED lighting.

      • Know-Dice
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:40 am | Permalink

        There is another solution…

        Led filament lights…very much like the old tungsten filament lights but “should” last longer.

  22. Ian!
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    On tax, this a bit of devilment coming out. One man’s tax break is another man’s tax burden.

    In effect if a sector of industry needs the taxpayer subsidy to survive, should they then come under some form of political control?

    There is some logic if every sector of society contributed equally to that society, the sum of the whole would be grater and every one would pay less.

    Under current arrangements every tax has a break somewhere, a let out, a rebate here a rebate there. So much so the administration and policing of the system is in all probability the greater part of what is collected.

  23. Narrow Shoulders
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:14 am | Permalink

    Remove VAT on any product involved in cleaning or repairs. These are not luxury items.

    Remove VAT on the labour costs for garage Bill’s and builders.

    Remove VAT from bills to government departments and other public services. Using taxpayers’ money to recycle tax is wasteful and reduces the spending power of those purchasers.

    Remove VAT from energy bills.

    Give us back cheap lightbulbs

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

      The light bulb problem has largely been sorted by the technology of LED lamps. These are rather cheaper over their lifetime (than incandescent, halogen or the dire (mercury full) compact fluorescents that they forced on to us (or posted to us free by the electricity companies under duress from green loons). Also far better light than the compact fluorescents too.

      • Know-Dice
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:44 am | Permalink

        LL, Compact fluorescent were a disaster.

        We have gone straight LED in our kitchen area and LED filament elsewhere – at about 4Watts per lamp rather than 40-60Watts.

        And fingers crossed should last longer and no warm-up time 🙂

  24. steadyeddie
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    It is so typical of the Leave argument that everything they disagree with is the fault of the EU when much of what is condemned here is nothing to do with EU law. Most of the decisions in the ECJ, for example, go in favour of the UK: In future we will have no opportunity to challenge these decisions because we will not have a voice. Dominic Raab this morning demonstrated his ignorance by calling the backstop”undemocratic” when NI majority are in favour of it.

  25. Dominic
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    nm

  26. Ian!
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Most of the rules and regulations that have emanated from the EU were unnecessary, first and foremost they haven’t achieved any more than was already happening through market forces.

    The main problem for industry is that the convoluted methods of implementation are disproportionately expensive.

    What I would call a home maintenance job that at todays priced would be £350.00 prior to regulation but is now £400.00 because of regulation. Same workmanship, same material finished to the same standard. Try that as a pensioner.

  27. Barbara C
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    We have Common (sense) Law, which basically means we can do anything we want unless it’s prohibited in law. On the continent, they can’t do anything unless it’s permitted in law, hence the mountain of legislation!

    From a legislative perspective, Parliament should generally strive to act as an enabler. With “Operation Fearless” in full swing our aspirations have changed, so if regulation is actively preventing us from achieving our goals we will have the power to amend or repeal the legislation to enable our future success.

    Successive governments have already permitted foreign investors to systematically asset strip our country, so I’d like to see some sort of overall policy objective that keeps at least a percentage share of our valuable assets.

    Brexit is a one-off opportunity to revitalise and recalibrate our economic model and finances and shouldn’t be wasted, so I’m particularly concerned that new projects we instigate will continue to attract a disproportionate number foreign investors. For example, our fishing sector is set to grow expotentially, but will it be EU countries (governments?) who are allowed to invest and reap the benefits, as they do with our railways? What better way to retain their long-term control over the UK sector and collect the revenues? If this should be the outcome from gaining our independence, we will play directly into Labour’s hands.

  28. Alec
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    VAT was brought in by the EEC so get rid of it completely along with a huge number of EU regulations which damage competitiveness and restrict progress. Repeal all hate speech laws which are really just ways to restrict free speech and punish dissent from the metropolitan elites view of what is correct. Restrict immigration to vital workers that provide value to us just as other, more intelligent, countries do. Do away with the ludicrous and incredibly dangerous climate legislation, trying to make the planet cooler (when it’s already giving record cold temperatures) by destroying the British economy is May’s last and worst attack on Britain. Make legislation that the armed services must protect UK waters and borders before all other considerations. This would mean that pirating foreign tankers would be more awkward but given the disastrous mess Hunt has already caused that would be a good thing.

  29. nshgp
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:37 am | Permalink

    We should add article zero to the Human Rights Act.

    Everyone has the right of informed explicit consent.

    So John, do you have something against people having the right of consent, the right to say yes, the right to say no?

    As it stands we have no rights to say no to you, to Corbyn, to any parliament that sets out to screw us.

  30. Tabulazero
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    “We could do a better job on animal welfare with our own rules.”

    Very unlikely since the UK will accept US food safety standards and production method in return for a trade deal with the US.

    • NickC
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

      Tabulazero, USA food is safer than EU food. And animal welfare is about how the animal is treated prior to slaughter.

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

      Don’t buy it until they improve it then. Better to go vegetarian. None of it is good. Even on a humane farm a sentient animal goes through unimaginable terror in its final moments. There are other sources of protein these days and our primate ancestors thrive and grow muscular on fruit and vegetables.

    • libertarian
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Tabulazero

      Well as US food safety rules are of a HIGHER standard than EU rules you better tell us what the problem with that is

    • James Bertram
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      Yes, Tabulazero – that must not be allowed to happen, If they want to do business with us then their businesses will need to match our standards.
      Clear labelling and consumer choice, although desirable, do not solve this problem. Choice is often limited by poor education and/or low income. The disadvantaged should not be taken advantage of to increase profits. If low standard goods are just not available to buy, then choice will be improved – An example closer to home: if, like me, you have a weakness for biscuits – don’t buy them and don’t have them in the house, then you don’t eat them.
      (All seems a bit puritanical.
      Now, where’s those chocolate bourbons!)

    • Richard1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      The point you miss (& I’ve seen it in many of your posts), is the way modern FTAs work is mutual recognition of standards, not harmonisation. If the UK signs an FTA with the US, the US will not start insisting US regs are applied to all UK trade, inside the UK and all over the world. It will simply say (hopefully) that if a product or service is fit for sale in one country it’s fit in the other). The EU on the other hand insists on harmonisation and integration. Because it is a political project, and is no longer principally trade focused.

      • James Bertram
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

        Thanks, Richard, but when I say ‘need to match our standards’ I am not talking about harmonisation and integration of standards. Basically I am saying they must not have lower standards. That does not exclude them from having different methods and standards; just that they must not be lower equivalent standards.
        Regarding Animal Welfare, if British standards are based on ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ then it becomes quickly obvious what importer’s ‘production method’ is of a lower equivalent standard, and not acceptable.

  31. Lynn Atkinson
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    The biggest gain of all for the U.K. will be that those who want the trappings and status of MPs but not the job will no longer seek election to that great Chamber. We will have a much higher quality individual presenting themselves whereas before those high quality people did not want to be a rubber stamp and stayed away from politics.
    I am full of hope for the first time in my life!
    Britain will be herself once again!

    • margaret howard
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      Lynn

      “Britain will be herself once again!”

      Makes you wonder why we begged to be allowed to join the EU in the first place.

      How quickly people forget.

      • J Bush
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

        We the people didn’t beg. The politicians did, well Heath to be precise and then hid the real implications for 30 years. See FCO 30/1048

        • APL
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:29 am | Permalink

          J Bush: “the people didn’t beg. The politicians did,”

          Agreed. It’s the politicians that have had a policy of ‘managed decline’ since the war. It’s the political class that has no faith in this country, and it’s true, that paedophile ( thanks for the update twenty years late, Wiltshire police ) Edward Heath, who betrayed our country and took us into the EEC on a fundamental lie.

      • Fedupsoutherner
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

        Change the record Margaret. You really are so boring.

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:41 am | Permalink

        Margaret Howard, “We” didn’t. Heath & co did. Our establishment had given away the empire and was trying to find a new role for Britain. How quickly people forget.

        • APL
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:31 am | Permalink

          Nick C: “Our establishment had given away the empire ”

          No problem with that, we just didn’t expect the empire to want to live in Birmingham.

          Nick C: “How quickly people forget.”

          How conveniently people forget.

  32. Bryan Harris
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:00 am | Permalink

    JR – You mention changes to tax rates, but I would suggest we deserve much more than fiddling at the edges of our tax system which with so many conflicting rules is very much unfit for purpose.
    Our tax system needs a total re-think because it is inappropriate in many ways – How can it be intelligent to make basic life so expensive for the low earners or those in need? They then require extra benefits just to stay alive… so let’s keep them out of the tax system, and switch more luxury items to a higher VAT rate.
    Income tax could also be made a lot simpler and less expensive to collect.
    We badly need also – to look at how we can make life more satisfying, without legislation.

    • James1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

      The tax system is absurdly complex. Even tax specialists do not understand the entire thousands of pages of the tax code. They tend to specialise in only parts of it. It is clearly crying out to be radically reformed into a flatter and much more easily understood format when average taxpayers feel they need to get assistance from accountants when filing tax returns.

  33. Ian terry
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    Sir John

    t is a strange phenomenon that many people will stand for election to the UK Parliament with a wish to become lawmakers, only to decide once they arrive that want many of our laws to be settled in Brussels

    Therein lies the crux of the problem in that we can request change and repeals of law all we like and if the members of the HoC decide not to support it , then change will not happen.

    It is the inbuilt fear factor of many politicians who want the position but do not want to be responsible or accountable. I read on line DE, how the previous PMs team realised she was not up to the job of directing and managing the country immediately after the last election she got soooooo wrong. Why did they not speak to senior members of the party? Maybe they did and no one was listening. It just proves to me that the 200 odd who voted to keep her in post were looking after themselves and not the country. They should all be deselected come the next GE. The damage and cost to the country is immense.

  34. Bob
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Remove the wattage limit on household appliances
    Remove the ban on incandescent lighting

    • Andy
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      What do we want? Inefficient and wasteful hoovers, kettles, toasters, hair dryers and lightbulbs.

      When do we want them? Now.

      Why do we want them? Erm, because the Daily Express said so and we have’t really thought it through properly.

      • Edward2
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

        If a toaster or a vacuum etc is only allowed at half the power of current offerings then might it result in them taking twice as long to complete their task?
        Thus using the same or even more electricity as a result.

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:38 am | Permalink

        Andy, You merely demonstrate your lack of scientific and technical understanding. For example the energy required to boil a pint of tap water is the same whether a kettle has a low or high power rating.

        Then CFLs are slow to light, poor spectrum, and the mercury vapour is so dangerous you are meant to evacuate the room in case of breakages, and at the end of their life must be crushed in a special machine.

        You are so ignorant about so many things I’d swear you were a 22 year old Arts drop out.

        • APL
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:41 am | Permalink

          NickC: “You are so ignorant about so many things I’d swear you were a 22 year old Arts drop out.”

          If Andy wasn’t such a troll, I’d feel sorry for him.

          But back to CFL lamps and their mercury content. The British standards authority spent years eradicating lead based paint from our houses, schools and factories, only to have the EU mandate the introduction of poisonous mercury right into our homes.

        • Bob
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 9:57 am | Permalink

          @NickC

          “the energy required to boil a pint of tap water is the same whether a kettle has a low or high power rating.”

          And the low power kettle would take longer to boil, so more time to lose energy by radiating heat before it boils.

          A UKIP activist with a physics background once asked a gaggle of Greens at an election count, hands up those of you who have a science degree. Result, not one hand raised.

  35. Bob
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Don’t allow anyone to be extradited to the EU without the case for extradition first being approved by a British court.

    • Karsen
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

      So, exactly the same as now, then

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:28 am | Permalink

        Karsen, No, entirely different. The EAW essentially involves ticking a form, no evidence is required and no judge can refuse it. Police forces love it, but it is open to abuse and miscarriages of justice.

        For example, (named person ed) was extradited to Greece (2009), spent 10 months in prison, was never charged, nor faced trial, was abused in prison and was not granted legal aid. Eventually he was released due to lack of substantiated evidence.

  36. Jim
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    Remove the ban on CCA wood treatment. It was a highly effective way of treating timber that allowed it to stay preserved in the ground for up to 30 years. It had been used in the UK for decades, and still is around the world. The EU banned it partially about 12 years ago, then fully about 6-7 years ago. Anyone who has replaced their garden fence in that time will know that you get about 5 years service now, after that the posts are rotting fast and it won’t make 10 years, due to the alternative preservative not actually doing any good at all. The ban is actually environmentally unfriendly as it causing far greater consumption of timber, as fences need replacing far more often. Great for timber suppliers, and fence erectors, not so great for the public who have to pay for it all.

  37. Everhopeful
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    Every single last one. Most EU laws are for the benefit of big business and cost us £squillions to implement ( according to Gove).
    Even our govt should be capable of making decent laws surely?
    Anyway if it gets it wrong it can always try again ( with plenty of consultation) whereas under the EU our pathetic civil servants dotted every “i”and set laws in concrete.
    It would be nice to see all laws applied in the same way across the entire population.
    One overarching law for all…no jail sentences for some and a slap on the wrist for others.
    Oh and having dropped “Positive Action” every job would be open to the best candidate…an end to discrimination!

  38. Bob
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:20 am | Permalink

    All plaques that declare that a facility was funded by the EU Regional Development Fund should be modified with the words “with money extracted from British taxpayers”.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      Good one !

  39. agricola
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I am becoming concerned that our new government are getting hooked on the backstop as if it was the only thing in the WA that was unacceptable. Very misleading, most of the WA is toxic, so the emphasis should be that it is dead. The key for progress is leaving the EU with an FTA offer plus a continuity offer. If they accept this it is a deal, if not they become responsible for us leaving on WTO terms with no deal. This means that the EU value their politics more than their industry and people who then may have much to say about it.

    This backstop is hanging about between nisi and absolute for no sensible reason. The WA is a pre-nup that never got off the ground.

  40. glen cullen
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Repeal High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 otherwise known as ”HS2”

  41. A.Sedgwick
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    There is no phenomenon.

    Many MPs in recent years have no vision, a cushy job for some who might otherwise be public employees or university lecturers. There are a minority who have passion for the role and read the EU for what it is but the greater gravy train is too alluring.

    VAT should go altogether. Imagine a few economists locked in a room for a week to devise the most unwieldy sales tax – the result could well be this very awful tax.

  42. David Cooper
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Over and above the Climate Change Act – regrettably wishful thinking for its repeal in the short term, although I understand that it could be suspended, and will stand corrected if this is not the case – I would suggest the immediate repeal of GDPR, and a long hard look at TUPE – the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, to give it the full title.

    Where is the key link? It’s the R for Regulations – it confirms that the legislation was made effective via a statutory instrument, not an Act, and was enacted to meet an EU requirement rather than through the conscious desire of Parliament.

  43. BOF
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Top of the list should be to repeal the Climate Change Act and then scrap the Net Zero Emissions target for 2050. All totally un-affordable and ruinous for the economy.

    Pigs might fly! The people inside Westminster and those law breaking climate change protesters are in reality one and the same.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

      People like you make me despair. Is that all you’ve got? Burn oil! Who cares about air quality and kids with asthma. Just burn the bloody oil. Why not have a bit of VISION? Every day enough energy from the sun hits the earth to power everything on earth – at any moment the earth receives 174,000,000,000,000,000, or 174 quadrillion watts of energy from the sun. Why not have the vision to harness that? Clean, renewable energy that will last us until the earth disappears into the sun. But, no, let’s stay in the dark ages eh? And kill our kids with a poisoned atmosphere. For the love of heaven – WHY?

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

        Mike Wilson, Why? Because using coal, oil and gas has provided mankind with the best standard of living in history, enabling ample food and medical care to extend average life-spans (where natural fuel is used).

        For your obsession Africans are deprived of cheap electricity from coal, so die young from the likes of dung fires for cooking, and lack of pumped water. Whether Remains or CAGW worshippers you demonstrate zero technical understanding. For the love of heaven – WHY?

  44. libertarian
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    GDPR

    The biggest pile of crud ever. Hasn’t reduced spam, hasn’t improved the handling of personal data. In fact government departments, quangos and banks are still the worst at mishandling customer data

    VATMOSS

    Scrap vat on domestic energy

    Ban transport of live animals for slaughter

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

      Ban the slaughter of animals.

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

        Mike Wilson, Why?

    • Al
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

      GDPR needs to be either removed, or rationalised and tightened up so it can actually catch spammers and data misuse.

      Have you ever tried to report a breach of GDPR? As I can tell you from experience, it is virtually impossible to get the groups that should be administering it to handle it, and most seem to think it should be enforced by private prosecution of the violator – something beyond the reach of most private citizens. ICO, for example, assumes a company will report its own breach, and was quite baffled when I tried to report misuse of individual data by a large firm.

    • Richard1
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

      At least GDPR has been a bonanza for the insurance industry. I shelled out another bung to our insurer in a business rather than explore every possible breach (which would never be possible). There must be 10s of thousands of other small businesses which have done the same.

  45. glen cullen
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Repeal the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 for 0.7% GNI i.e foreign aid

  46. oldtimer
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    The Climate Change Act.

  47. Iain Moore
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    Human Rights Act, lets get rid of the Napoleonic code of law that bequeaths rights on us from the great and good, which has created the victim culture and restore our Common Law.

  48. kzb
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:26 am | Permalink

    The UK wants to be a world leader in climate change and the new green industries. You are not going to change that. This is 99% home-grown problem. Likewise the “war on the motorist” is completely home-grown.
    So, other than tinkering with VAT rates, what genuine EU regulations need to be repealed or revised?

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      Yet the same people who want us to be leaders on climate change say we are too puny to exist outside the EU as we will have no influence.

    • NickC
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:09 am | Permalink

      Kzb, See my list of 11 to start with below.

  49. agricola
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Off piste but relavant to todays tanker hijacking discussions. Is the helicopter on the Montrose there for combat purposes. If so it was only 10 minutes away from the tanker when Montrose was an hour away. Does Montrose have a marine or SBS contingent aboard. What are her rules of engagement, does she
    have to wait for politicians to make up their minds.
    Apart from convoys, how about a contingent of four marines on each tanker armed with a heavy calibre machine gun and a couple of Stinger missiles for use once a rope end appears from a hostile helicopter. These Iranian pirates need to know that the UK and USA are serious even if the EU is still navel gazing.

  50. ukretired123
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    “The Private sector is controlled by the Govt and the Public sector is where no one controls” is an old saying but applies in spades to Brussels and Whitehall especially in spending and waste and Boris referred to it with McDonald’s fraudulent exaggerated spending budget before Ken Livingstone fired him for being too left wing!

    There is a need bring all public sector up to date with the best practices in the private sector and legislate accordingly. They should be professionally experienced or have demonstrated their competence interfacing with the private sector just as Boris has had to do as London’s Mayor, dealing with real world problems first hand.

    The days of just throwing money at problems are over, that why SJ is also Chancellor.

  51. JoolsB
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:39 am | Permalink

    Well apparently a lot of the powers coming back from the EU are going to be immediately repatriated to the Scots and Welsh Governments anyway, so they and they alone will have even greater powers than they have already on what they want to do with them. England and the English of course will continue to have their laws made for them by MPs from across the whole UK.

    Boris missed a trick when he appointed a new Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales & NI and did not bother to appoint one for England. We have now had three Tory PMs since devolution and not one of them has thought to do this. We see Boris is in Scotland this morning talking to the pampered Scots and telling them how much Scotland and this ‘precious’ union means to him. Pity he and all the other UK MPs squatting in English seats in the UK Parliament don’t feel the same about England.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      Hear, hear.

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

      JoolsB

      More likely that Sturgeon is threatening to stop no deal by threatening to break up the UK.

      Question is; will Boris kowtow to that nasty bigoted woman, or call her bluff ?

      • Fedupsoutherner
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

        Steve, he’ll probably bung her a few billion like Cameron did in the last independence referendum. Their hands are always held out for more please Sir.

  52. ADAMS
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Get rid of VAT and National Insurance contributions ( Job TAX) . The Carbon reduction lunacy . The Foreign aid lunacy . A bonfire of Quangos and much reduced Gov spending required . Scrap HS2 and the proposed Heathrow extension . Defund a raft of charities .
    Reduce the House of Lords and the ever enlarging Cabinet of ministers .
    Much more remains to prune .

    BOJO should have made you Chancellor John .

    • a-tracy
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:40 am | Permalink

      I don’t agree with getting rid of National Insurance Contributions, it is to pay for our beloved National Health Service and our basic contributory state pension and that is what is should be ringfenced for and the amount collected should be the amount required to fulfil the services we demand of it.

      Everyone that has paid their 39 years national insurance contributions doesn’t receive a State benefit when they claim their state pension they receive their invested pension contribution back, especially those whose employer also pays 13.8% national insurance over the lower earnings level.

      I wonder sometimes if the % should be reduced and started on every £1 everyone earns so that everyone pays for this important national service.

      There is some tax harmonisation going on by stealth, for example, the EU say that no VAT should be levied on insurance but 22 EU territories currently levy an Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) which started out low in 1994 just 2.5% and is now a stealthy 12 and 20%.

  53. rose
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    The habit of accepting EU directives without scrutinising or debating them, let alone amending them, has indeed proved damaging. One thinks immediately of the compulsory climate change cladding on skyscrapers, the compulsory regulation of window cleaning – after thousands of years of our going up ladders – of the imposition of fully trained vets on small country abattoirs, thus driving them out of business, the refusal to allow us to outlaw live animal export, and last but not least, the imposition of diesel in the name of the environment. So many chickens coming home to roost. There are nasty little measures, too, which have not been thought out: the outlawing across the continent of normal lights in bathrooms, for example, no matter how big the room or high the ceiling, which has made it extremely dangerous to change the bulbs as they are now attached to the ceiling behind heavy unwieldy barriers. The Single Market was subverted to political control through using health and safety, and many of these measures have made us less safe or healthy.

  54. Brighan
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    Get rid of the HoL

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

      Brighan

      “Get rid of the HoL”

      I agree. Anyway does it have any real Lords in it these days ?

      As far as I can see it’s all Tony’s cronies.

      To be a Lord you have to be born a Lord, not just because ‘Tony’ said you could be one.

      • Fred H
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

        steve …..plenty are failed politicians put out of harms way ( at least thats the theory). Others have oiled the way for the party who proposed them (even xx assumed he had bought an award). It really is about time the place was rented out for something worthwhile, and 50 to 100 mix of experienced business, education, legal, moral, tech, playrights/authors etc did the job of the ‘Lords’. And it would be part-time.

  55. notsosimple
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:40 am | Permalink

    One of the first things needed to go in line with the extra 20,000 police we are recruiting will be curfew laws to keep the rioting mobs off the streets at night. Things might get so bad that Parliament and democracy itself will have to be suspended for a while in favour of military control to keep order. You don’t think so? and you think that these plans have not already been drawn up- that it couldn’t happen in Britain? well just wait until food shortages in the shops? huge delays in airports with people trying to get out? and the Channel ports already closed off for Ro-Ro? Yes fully agree we are going to need new laws, but different laws

    • steve
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Notsosimple

      “You don’t think so? and you think that these plans have not already been drawn up- that it couldn’t happen in Britain?”

      Of course they have !

      Then again, I don’t think any government would dare turn the troops on the British people.

      • Notsosimple
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

        You don’t think so?

    • NickC
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 12:15 am | Permalink

      Notsosimple, I thought democracy had been suspended for the last 3 years?

  56. Rhoddas
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    Sir John, how deliciously liberating to be able to create/amend/delete our own laws after 40 years, last 10 in austerity… It can’t be beyond the wit of government to create a fantastic business growth environment and increase the prosperity [and health] of the many! I want that for the younger generation especially, they really deserve it, look at the crisis level of youth unemployment in EU esp. southern countries.

    Control of UK waters and fishing, free ports and less VAT, more contracts to UK Plc. After 10 years of austerity and stagnation in my part of N Wales, the only change of note is the construction of the largest prison in Europe, in Wrexham and even that is only partially occupied…due to lack of funds and design issues. Not even a complete dual carriageway between Shrewsbury and Chester, we are indeed one of the forgotten borderlands.

    Slightly off topic – Imagine a scenario where Mr Trump implements [proportionate] tariffs on EU cars from 1st November, whilst our UK cars THEN made outside the EU are thus unaffected, quel coincidence? No doubt PSA will use Brexit as an excuse to close Ellesmere Port, but one sincerely hopes JLR, or even Sir James Dyson will sieze the opportunity to take over the plant and skilled car manufacturing personnel at a knock down price…. and why not with electric motors from UK technology!

    I can’t wait for it all to get cracking and I might even come out of retirement to lend a hand, sensing hope after despair, but feet firmly on the ground; we have a few good elected people (esp. you and Nigel) to thank for keeping the democratic 2016 referendum result and thus our politicians honest (some of).

  57. A different Simon
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Relax restrictions on food coming in from outside the E.U. and on hanging game birds .

    Example : One cannot buy the best Abalone sauces with the highest clam content here in the U.K. . The highest mollusc content I’ve found is 19% .

    Some New Zealand and Australian Abalone sauces have a clam content of over 30% . Food hygiene standards in New Zealand and Australia are higher than those of the U.K. .

    It is not worth it to these countries producers to go through the rigmarole and expense of getting their product approved for sale in the U.K.

    Even where food standards are lower , it should be left to an informed consumer to decide for themselves .

    Not that abysmal hygiene standards seem to be an obstacle to getting a license to export to/sell in the E.U.. ; witness vast quantities of farmed freshwater prawn reared in excrement contaminated ponds imported from Thailand .

    Similarly pheasant is flavourless unless hung properly which may take 10 or more days . Apparently the law limits itto 7 days . I must find a source of unplucked birds which can hang myself .

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      Simon, shoot your own like my husband does and then give two fingers to their stupid laws.

    • Karsen
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      There are no EU laws on the hanging of pheasants

      • Fred H
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Karsen. there probably are if they are still alive.

  58. James Bertram
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    ‘We could do a better job on animal welfare with our own rules.’

    Small is beautiful. A compromise of 28 EU nations across a wide variety of habitats, and very differing attitudes towards animals and the environment, with varying implementation and enforcement, results in Animal Welfare of the lowest common denominator.
    Instead, out of the EU, the UK needs to have the best laws, and lead the world by example. Independent of the EU there is so much opportunity, and so much to be done.

    First we need to instil the radical concepts of ‘Kindness’ and ‘Compassion’ into our Animal Welfare policies. Second, we need a Cabinet Minister for Animal Welfare (Andrea Jenkyns would be good) if we are to force through a radical agenda. Out of the CFP and CAP we have a massive opportunity to dramatically re-organise our fishing, our farming, our wildlife environment, and food policy. There is much to change.

    Though not all is bad. Out of the EU we need to maintain, and improve upon, the EU Habitats and Birds Directive (1992).

    Given our population density, we should end up as a net importer of ‘calories’ – but we must make sure that all imports adhere to equivalent Animal Welfare standards (if they want to export to us, foreign businesses must meet our high criteria). We should aim towards no tariffs and taxes, and no subsidies, on food. And clear labelling of all foodstuffs.

    And as consumers, with then only high animal welfare food available in this country, we must expect to pay a fair price for high animal welfare food; or, if not, then to eat less fish/meat; and learn to cook. It is time to abandon our ‘cheap food and bad health’ policy.

    Once out of the restrictions and ‘averaged-down welfare’ of the EU, the opportunities to improve upon Animal Welfare and Environment Protection in the UK are vast.

  59. BillM
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    The Remainers continual barrage detailing the negative things that will happen to us if we leave (With or without a deal, in some cases) focus on Trade. This is because they have absolutely no counter to the real reason we voted to Leave the EU – To take back FULL control of OUR Country.
    Nothing was more important to us but these questionable British citizens always want us Brits to stay under the rule of Brussels regardless of the majority who voted to break away. Why?
    It makes no sense as no other Nation in the Rest of the World pays the EU to carry a massive Trade Deficit nor do they have to abide by Brussels Laws.
    If the Remainers believed in democracy they should have accepted that they lost the vote and moved on. Just they do in a General Election.

  60. Freeborn John
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    1. FTA with USA to come into effect very rapidly after Oct 31.
    2. Ending freedom of movement for Irish workers to GB Labour market.
    3. Replace useless GDPR.
    4. Revise entire set of EU environmental law that has been used to restrict bin collections.
    5. Keep GMT and BST which EU would otherwise replace with permanent summer time.

  61. villaking
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 11:54 am | Permalink

    It’s both amusing and disheartening how most of these suggestions relate to legislation that is already within UK control. For instance, hate crime legislation in various Acts dating back to the 80s was legislated by the UK Parliament as was the Climate Change Act. Leave has been very successful in peddling the myth that these were all “imposed” by faceless EU bureaucrats. Even where there are EU laws, these are only passed if democratically elected European MPs vote for it. It saddens me that an ill informed section of the populace has then based a voting decision on these myths and voted for an undefined concept of “leaving the EU” partly as a consequence.

  62. NickC
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    Well, here are some to start with. These should be removed totally with replacement alternatives that are fairer and simpler:

    1. All VAT – to be replaced by a retail purchase tax. Like most EU schemes VAT is unnecessarily complex.

    2. Copyright Directive – used as an EU censorship of the internet vehicle, and even opposed by EU universities.

    3. GDPR – a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

    4. EAW – the odious and sinister EAW – beloved of Theresa May – is contrary to habeas corpus and should be abolished entirely.

    5. Non-stun slaughter of animals to be illegal.

    6. Throwing dead fish back into the sea, within our EEZ (ie eliminate the CFP).

    7. The EU’s tariff schedule – inappropriate for us, to be replaced by a tariff schedule to suit the UK.

    8. No foreign migrants to the UK to receive any free benefits (NHS, schools, etc) for a minimum of 15 years (charges to be made and collected towards the capital cost of the infrastructure in addition to normal taxation for the running costs).

    9. Every jailed foreign born person to be returned to his/her country of origin.

    10. Consumer protection should be based on the sound principle that a product should be fit for purpose. That way many of the myriad of individual dirigiste EU rules can be swept away.

    11. State aid for failing business (eg steel) to be available to protect UK interests. Generally on a temporary basis (eg Rolls-Royce 1971 Ltd, some banks a decade ago), but for strategic industries up to the maximum allowed under WTO rules.

    • Mark B
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Good post.

  63. Fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Repeal the climate change act. Start deporting anyone committing a criminal offence or with a criminal record. Fisheries defo. Make it easier for companies to crack. At the moment the legislation is absurd. Bring back proper light bulbs!

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      Frack not crack. Stupid phone.

  64. Ian terry
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    Sir John

    The whole control element of the EU Parliament is solely about money. The more they control the more they can earn. But history shows that over the centuries Europe have tried and failed to implement financial controlling processes and each has failed in the short to long term.
    We know history repeats itself… and European history has a graveyard of failed monetary experiments.

    Beginning with the LMU in 1865, with France, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium.
    The ruble zone.
    The Smithsonian agreement and the currency snake.
    Deutschmark zone’
    The exchange rate mechanism.
    And now possibly the Euro too.

    No wonder they want full control of our laws and the £39bn just to keep their failing empire bouncing along the bottom trying to remain solvent

  65. Gareth Warren
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    The regulations on fishing that do not prevent stock degradation yet add cost to fishermen need to go, we can take advantage of the small UK fishing fleet to rest significant areas.

    Health and safety and free speech are also areas ripe for deregulation, why is it fine to be able to say whatever you want to in America yet it is assumed to cause a grevious problem in the UK?

    I would prefer the police were freed up from the task of thought police so they can work on solving/preventing more serious crimes.

    On the subject of remainers, after experiencing Mrs May I am convinced they need to be cast out into the political wilderness for several years to take time to rethink their politics. I cannot see any use in government for a politician who does not want to work.

  66. Kevin Lohse
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Remove VAT on women’s sanitary items. Cost to the exchequer negligible, political benefit priceless.
    Repeal the Race Relations Acts and other legislation which calls upon the defendant to prove innocence and replace with legislation that conforms with the British legal precedent of presuming innocence until proven guilty.
    Do away with set-aside and allow farmers to use all their land for crop production. Do the same with milk quotas. Make it easier for farmers to set up value-added businesses on the farm to improve returns on their investment.

    • Kevin Lohse
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

      I should have added. Set up a government-sponsored “Red Team’ of climate sceptics to present the sceptic case to Parliament and invite the warmunist lobby to defend their position before a Parliamentary committee or lose by default. Evidence to be given under oath.

      • Turboterrier
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

        Kevin Lohse

        A brilliant idea. For too long the CCC have advised on all these madcap schemes with not an ounce of responsibility and accountability. Just make sure their fees are paid in on time.

      • hefner
        Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

        Kevin, maybe you do not know that, but Owen Paterson had in his time as Secretary for Environment been invited to listen to talks by some distinguished meteorologist from a university near where Sir John is MP. He declined and instead got his information from the GWPF (a kind of Red Team of UK climate skeptics). So Mr Paterson did not get the view from ‘the other side’, it was entirely his responsibility. Similarly with Sir John going to listen to some parliamentary committee where most of the guests were climate skeptics. So your concern while very understandable is a bit misplaced considering that there have been, I think, five (maybe six) IPCC reports every five years from 1990, each of them in several volumes (the basic science, the societal impact, mitigation and adaptation), all including abridged versions/summaries for policy makers (not to tire too much their little heads).
        If you think the Government is not aware of all the aspects of the existing (or not) ‘climate problem’, I would say it is because it has never taken the question seriously enough. What do you think?

        Reply The meeting I attended was addressed by a group of Royal Society global warming experts!

        • hefner
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:21 am | Permalink

          Reply to reply: don’t be ridiculous Sir John, anybody in your constituency following your position on the climate over the years knows perfectly well how you jumped on the case of Lennart Bengtsson, former director of ECMWF, when he had had some inkling of joining the GWPF. You might have attended a meeting of RS climate change experts, but as water on duck’s feathers, it does not seem to have had much impact on your understanding of the question.

        • NickC
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

          Hefner, It’s impossible to escape the “other” – ie consensus – side, unless you live in a cave. GWPF, and ‘Watts Up With That’, are useful antidotes to your CAGW hoax.

          • hefner
            Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

            I also read those but I much prefer the one by Judy Curry, she at least being a real atmospheric scientist, she knows what she talks about and is not financed by dark money. And when asked tough questions knows how to answer with scientific arguments instead of the GWPF ad hominem and/or fluffy Heritage Foundation-type blah blah. If anything, the USA has some proper intelligent climate change skeptics people not the UK type of low caliber such as Christopher Monckton or LL’s favorite Piers Corbyn (what a laugh).

    • James Bertram
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Kevin – Marginal, unproductive, lands should not be supported by subsidies – they will then become uneconomical to run. Transition payments should be used to rewild these lands.

      Support for small farms (on good land), more natural agriculture, and much lower land prices (by ending subsidies) should improve farm-employment prospects, together with diversification of food production, and of land use. Too, the public must be persuaded to value and pay a fair price for good quality food.

      Good arable land should be fully used, but by working with natural processes, and not by subsidising large industrialised farms; and set-aside is part of this process (this is similar, in theory, to restoring our fishing grounds).

      The population should be encouraged to eat less meat (Hannah Richie 2017: Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories … As we get richer, our diets tend to diversify and per capita meat consumption rises; economic development unfortunately exerts an increasing impact on land resources. If we want per capita meat consumption to be able to rise sustainably at lower incomes, per capita meat consumption at high incomes will have to decrease.)

      • NickC
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

        James Bertram, The UK has swathes of (marginal) land unsuitable for arable farming. That’s why higher lands are used for cattle and sheep rearing already. So the continuing use of livestock for milk, butter, cheese and meat makes sense.

        • James Bertram
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

          Nick, there is no economic sense in providing subsidies to these farmers at something like 50% more than the value of their produce. It would be cheaper for the taxpayer to give them unemployment benefit.
          Moreover, over-grazing by sheep of these marginal lands creates a barren landscape for wildlife. Once rewilded, the wildlife will return – and this opens up other possibilities for employment.
          Recommended reads: ‘Feral’ b y George Monbiot and ‘Inglorious’ by Mark Avery.

  67. Freeborn John
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see the EU protectionist “geographical indicators” regime ended. Consumers should be able to buy “Champagne”, or “Melton Mobrey” pies or “Parma” ham etc. made using the same method but outside the historical region. Consumers are perfectly capable of distinguishing a quality product from a cheap knock-off as they have to that every day when buying anything on eBay do Amazon. The EU scheme has really became a protectionist racket and has no place in post-brexit Britain.

  68. Sue Doughty
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Immigration laws should no longer discriminate against people from outside Europe, ie, non whites.
    Land use regulations, the number of sheep a farmer is allowed to have, all that intrusive form filling that makes farms have a suite of fully staffed offices filling in forms and reports for Brussels.
    Get the Brussels layer of bureacracy off our backs

    • Fred H
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

      sometimes people manage and move around without passports – but in the UK sheep cannot.

  69. Edward2
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see VAT abolished and replaced with a simple sales tax similar to the USA.
    And abolish REACH, VATMOSS, COSHH,and GDPR.

    • hefner
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

      Hee hee, Ed2, you make it too easy! Which ‘simple sales tax’ similar to the USA do you want? Louisiana’s or Montana’s?

      • Edward2
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

        Well Florida and California work OK
        Choose the best alternative systems.
        Essentially its simpler than VAT which has becomes complex monster to administer.

        PS
        Why are you so sarcastic every time you post on here?
        It isn’t a good style of writing.

        • hefner, Esq.
          Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

          R2PS: For fun? To put down people who take themselves too seriously? You choose …

          • Edward2
            Posted July 31, 2019 at 7:31 am | Permalink

            I get the impression sarcasm is used by pompous individuals who overate their own IQs
            But unlike you I may be wrong.

  70. ChrisS
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Let’s explore the replacement of our current personal tax legislation with a simple flat tax on all income at a standard rate. This would also do away with CGT and many other taxes which cause so much confusion.

    Tolley’s tax guide is now up to 21,000 pages. I suspect with a flat tax it could be reduced to maybe 5,000 pages. In addition, we could probably redeploy at least half of the 300,000 accountants in the UK.

  71. Mike Wilson
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Treat the WASPI women fairly.

  72. margaret howard
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    JR

    Between October 1940 and March 1973 the UK had a consumption tax called Purchase Tax, which was levied at different rates depending on goods’ luxuriousness.

    Purchase Tax was applied to the wholesale price, introduced during World War II, initially at a rate of 33​1⁄3%. This was doubled in April 1942 to 66​2⁄3%, and further increased in April 1943 to a rate of 100%, before reverting in April 1946 to 33​1⁄3% again.

    Unlike VAT, Purchase Tax was applied at the point of manufacture and distribution, not at the point of sale. The rates of Purchase Tax at the start of 1973, when it gave way to VAT, were 13, 22, 36 and 55%.

    Is that what you want to return to?

    • Edward2
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

      No

    • graham1946
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Why are you obsessed with returning to the 70’s and earlier. Just shows a great lack of imagination that nothing better can be thought of. Don’t enroll us all into your way of thinking.

    • kzb
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      Yes basically. Purchase tax would be a lot simpler to manage. Obviously we would have to revisit what the actual rates are, but the idea of different rates according to the luxury status of the item is a good one.
      In fact, a sales tax could replace property taxes for retail premises. That would make the tax payable proportional to sales, not floor area. This would be a big help to high streets in quieter areas.

      • Edward2
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        Then you have to define what is a luxury and what isn’t .
        Purchase tax became too complex for that reason.
        Just have a low flat sales tax on everything.

  73. Dave
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Get rid of the European Arrest Warrant. It is totally inimical to the Common Law principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Ditto the ‘presumed guilt’ in historic sexual abuse cases. And leave the European Court of Human Rights for the same reason.
    UK law can be summed up as ‘Everything is permitted unless it is illegal’, while the trend in the EU is towards ‘Everything is prohibited except that which is allowed’.
    Time to walk away.

  74. Lucas
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    It’s good that Boris is not going to talk to any of the EU leaders- am fascinated by the daily reports about leaving with No Deal- and am looking forward to seeing how things will be post 31st Oct-

    Ok! we can speculate all we like about what laws we will change but nobody knows for sure how it’ll be until after we leave with No Deal

  75. Andy
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Thank you all for making my day.

    I am in absolute hysterics reading the desires of the residents of Luddite central.

    • Glenn Vaughan
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

      “I am in absolute hysterics reading the desires of the residents…..” Andy

      You appear to be in a permanent state of hysteria which explains the dire quality of your posts.

      • Fed up with the bull
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:41 am | Permalink

        Glenn, spot on!!

    • NickC
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      Andy, Perhaps you weren’t expecting our extensive list of EU controlled or influenced legislation that should be repealed, so have no answers? You never cease to disappoint.

  76. steve
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    I’d like to see legislation to either get rid of the……. SNP, or include the English in the vote.

    I suspect Ms Sturgeon might find herself done like a kipper by our response to the voting option as to whether or not WE want union with THEM !

    Personally I’m sick and tired of the same old anti – English bigotry and whinging and whining coming from that lot. The hypocrites want to part of the UK for all the perks, but don’t want to accept the result of democratic referenda when it doesn’t go their way.

    If I had my way I’d rip up the act of union tomorrow, relocate the naval bases to Wales or N.Ireland, and move HMRC and all the other utilities our side of the border……and I would see to it that Ms Sturgeon was held responsible for all the job losses.

    etc ed

  77. Devil’s Kitchen
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Apart from all the excellent suggestions above, we should abolish REACH as soon as possible: in terms of stifling innovation, to the benefit of the very largest corporates, I can’t immediately think of a more egregious EU law.

    DK

  78. upFront
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

    the stuff I would love to post- I can’t – it would scare the living daylights -and repealing EU laws has nothing to do with it – It’s for a very good reason that Boris has dubbed himself Minister for the Union – but if he persists with this line of leaving with No Deal then am afraid the Union won’t be around for very long- my guess is we can spend all the time we like post 31st Oct in legislating – but it’ll make no difference – we’ll essentially have become a backwater to the world.

    • Fred H
      Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

      upFront…..I imagine you speak as one who might feel the effect of independence from England….you say…we’ll ..become a backwater. Yep, but if you wish to sever a relationship with England you have my blessing.

      • Fed up with the bull
        Posted July 30, 2019 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        FredH. No such luck I’m afraid. I expect that Scotland, Ireland and Wales will all get a big bung courtesy of the English tax payer once again to keep them sweet.

    • kzb
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      I want to know why the BBC and C4 are not parading the Divorce Bill For Scotland at every opportunity.
      Plus a Project Fear over the loss of subsidy and dire effects on trade of a hard border.
      Scotland’s oil will have to stay in the ground, to meet its climate obligations, so no relying on oil money either.
      Let’s have an economic forecast for a Scotland in the EU but out of the UK. That would be instructive but we never see it.

    • NickC
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

      Upfront, There was already a referendum for Scottish independence whilst we were in the EU. So to claim that Brexit will cause the break-up of the UK is a lie.

  79. Antoinetta III
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    Quit enforcing sanctions against various nations, entities and individuals that are initiated by either the EU or the USA.

    Quit participating in “regime change” operations instigated by either the EU or the USA.

    Antoinetta III

  80. APL
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

    JR: “What legislation should we change once we are free to make our own laws?”

    Before you start on a new initiative, could we have an update on the last?

    http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2017/03/31/the-great-repeal-bill-the-bill-all-mps-have-to-support/

  81. James Freeman
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 9:10 pm | Permalink

    Remove powers from quangos and give responsibility for improving product standards back to chartered industry bodies and the British Standards Institute.

    Exempt small companies, clubs and societies from GDPR. Grant people ownership of their own data and re-write the data protection rules so they are understandable.

  82. margaret howard
    Posted July 29, 2019 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    The business world obviously doesn’t think much of the prime minister the establishment have foisted on us. The pound is still dropping like a stone.

    Bet all those Brexiteers will be furious when they change their currencies on their way to Benidorm.

    • Edward2
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 6:59 am | Permalink

      Well a couple of cents.
      Export boom here we come.

    • ChrisS
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      I’m off to Germany, Austria and Switzerland on Thursday and, yes, I do expect my holiday to cost a little more.

      However, that’s a small price to pay for being released from the dead hand of Brussels and the straight jacket imposed upon us by failed politicians such as Juncker and von der Leyen.

      The trouble is, we all know that the situation would only get worse going forward, what with the move to more QMV and a European Army etc. Already our net contributions would be are set to rise by at least another 20% if we were to stay in.

      So, Margaret, I’m happy to pay a little more for my holiday.

    • graham1946
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 10:32 am | Permalink

      The Foreign exchange markets are not the ‘business world’. Their whole being is to make profits on currency movements and they seize on any event to either mark currencies up or down. Stability is anathema to them. Business actually make things and provide services, currency traders do nothing of the sort.

    • Al
      Posted July 30, 2019 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      “The pound is still dropping like a stone.”

      I keep hearing this from remainers, but against the euro, the pound hasn’t even hit its 2017 low of 1.07, or its ten year low of 1.06. In fact it is currently at 0.01 lower than it was a few days ago, 1.09 vs 1.10, when you, margaret, last made this claim and I gave the Bank of England figures then which contradicted you.

  • 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