This is based on the Hansard version of my speech in Grand Committee on the issues of Northern Ireland and the EU re set. As always I spoke without notes or text. I have changed the punctuation and shortened some of the sentences from the Hansard version to turn it into written prose.
My Lords, I intervene in this debate not as a Northern Ireland specialist or representative, which I am clearly not, but as someone who has taken a strong special interest over many years in the economy and economic growth, and in the trading patterns of our great United Kingdom. I am not surprised that much of the debate so far has been about these economic issues. We have heard eloquent testimony to the barriers and difficulties that small businesses in particular but also some big businesses are experiencing as a result of the dreadful settlement of the so-called Northern Ireland problem, embedded first in the protocol and subsequently in the Windsor Framework.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Lilley said and will explain to the Committee that my noble friend and I, and other Conservative MPs and Peers, held regular meetings over the Brexit years to discuss how our country can get the most out of the freedoms we can enjoy . We set out how we could develop now that we have left the European Union, and how the £17 billion we are now saving in annual contributions can be best spent to our wider benefit and related issues. We have often, as a result, had joint meetings or exchanges of MPs and Peers with our Unionist colleagues here today.
In our meetings, we took on board that Northern Ireland had a particularly bad deal out of the form of Brexit entry that the EU cajoled or persuaded successive British Governments into accepting. There is no doubt that absorbing so much European Union law into Northern Ireland is a constraint on growth, on small businesses and on trade. I urge the Government to think carefully about this, because they wish to align the whole United Kingdom with more of these laws, charges and impositions. Yet it is the case that where it is being tried in Northern Ireland, far from being a golden scenario, as some suggested, it is clearly a negative that is causing trouble.
In a previous speech in the Chamber of the House of Lords, I set out my own research findings for the period 1952 to 2020—from 20 years before we entered the EEC, from the 20 years in the EEC customs union from 1972 to 1992, and from the 28 years in the single market from 1992. The data is overwhelmingly convincing that the closer the alignment—the more European law, costs and taxes we absorbed—the slower we grew.
I fully accept that there were other factors affecting our growth rates over those long periods, but you cannot reach a conclusion from the data that there was ever a time when aligning more closely helped and gave us a boost. There was no boost when we joined the customs union. On the contrary, because a lot of our industry was not fully competitive and was being protected by tariffs, when the tariffs came off, the Labour Government had to face big problems. We saw mass closures and destruction of large parts of our industry because Italian, German and French textile companies, steel mills, engineering works and vehicle makers were so much more efficient than our own. The shock was too much.
There was also no visible extra growth—indeed, quite a lot to the contrary—after 1992, when the EU had completed its so-called single market. This was actually a major power grab and a whole series of laws that were often negative to the conduct of business. Again, there was no sudden improvement or growth in our economy. In many ways, the problems got worse after the single market had been completed. Of course, it was completely misleading to say that the single market was completed in 1992 because, for the following 28 years of our membership, there were ever more laws, ever more rules, ever more charges and ever more taxes, which had a direct impact on British businesses and clearly did no good.
Northern Ireland is right to say that there are two problems with the settlement we have been persuaded or forced into by the European Union. There is the problem of economic growth, prosperity, and business and trade success, but there is also the fundamental democratic accountability problem, which is a direct result of the EU’s chosen solution of putting Northern Ireland under European Union rules.
The report is wonderfully written. When I first came to it, I found it quite heavy going, complicated and difficult. Then I realised that, in a way, that was a wonderful parody of the issues that the report had to deal with. The authors of the report clearly understood it perfectly well and were showing, by the way they described it, what a dreadful mess there was: just how many contradictions and complexities were built into it, all to the advantage of the EU and not to the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. I pay great tribute to the committee and to the work done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out the wonderful organogram, which was meant to be a simplification so that those of us who found it hard going could see a picture. It tells you all you need to know. The thing is quite unworkable, completely incomprehensible and, by any external judgment, completely mad. No sensible country would ever behave like that or have accepted it, yet this is where we have got to by having all these agents and institutions involved in negotiating.
The solution offered by my noble friend Lord Lilley was hammered out as it was with a lot of colleagues. We had the benefit of two expert lawyers in this field, who very kindly worked pro bono for us because they felt, as we did, that things needed to change in a radical direction for the benefit of Northern Ireland. This proposal would,of course, resolve the issue of democratic accountability. If, either by agreement or unilaterally, we no longer have to impose European Union laws on Northern Ireland, then the democratic accountability problem vanishes.
However, we are rightly told in the report that an attempt to resolve the problem was the partial solution of saying that, if a law is really so bad that Northern Ireland cannot put up with it, then Northern Ireland should have the right, through the Stormont procedure, to say that it will not apply in Northern Ireland—an override. That does not get you around the table to influence and vote on all the other laws that you can put up with—so it is not a full answer to democratic accountability. It is a very good partial answer, because not only would you be able to strike out anything that was really bad but the fact that you had that power would start to influence European Union opinion and attitudes, so that when representations were made on other matters, the European Union would have to bear in mind that you could just decide that it was all too much.
This takes me back down memory lane, which I am normally reluctant about, but on this occasion it is relevant. I remember, as a very young man, that when the 1975 referendum occurred and the British people voted to stay in the European Economic Community, we were assured by the then Labour Government and by the Conservative and Lib Dem opposition parties that our sovereignty would not be taken away or damaged in any way. We were joining a trading arrangement; it was a free trade area, and they called it the common market—they would not even call it the EEC. I made the mistake of reading the treaties and felt that this was an unlikely explanation of what was going on. (meaning I voted against staying in)
When I found myself, some years later, as Single Market Minister, I remembered that we had been told that no sovereignty had been lost. My job was a visible demonstration that a huge amount of sovereignty had been lost, because I had to spend all my time trying to construct alliances with member states to stop a law being imposed on our country that did not make any sense or could even be positively damaging. I remembered that, over the years, in an attempt to persuade us that we had not been cheated over sovereignty, something had been developed called an emergency brake—language rather similar to the Stormont brake.
Faced with this avalanche of draft laws that I did not want or wanted to change dramatically, and recognising how much work it was to construct an alliance of member states sufficient to dilute or delay in each case, I decided on one—I cannot remember which I chose now—and let it be known that I was going to use the emergency brake. This was just to show Brussels that this was all getting out of hand and that I was prepared to take action to stop its extreme legislative ideas. As soon as I mentioned this within the privacy of government, I could feel the quiver of fear and annoyance that this idea created. The great British governing establishment—the civil servants and quite a few of the Ministers—were so pro the EU having its way on everything that they thought a Minister going maverick, as they saw it, and trying to negotiate from a position of strength was a very bad idea. It was, of course, vetoed before anyone outside government ever knew about it. I conspired with the rest to make sure nobody knew about it, because I did not think it would reflect well on me that I had lost the argument to use the emergency brake, or reflect well on the Government, because they were clearly throwing away a very powerful negotiating tool that could have got us an answer that was a lot better. (The emergency brake was never used and melted away ed)
I give this as a salutary tale. I know that Northern Ireland bravely got a bit further than I did and once suggested that it was going to use the emergency Stormont brake. Once again, the great governing establishment knew better and decided that it was not going to be allowed to. I do not think that the Stormont brake will be used. The European Union does not think it is going to be used, which does not give you any negotiating heft as it tries to put more laws upon you.
My conclusions are this. This is advice to the Government that is heartfelt and well meant, and that would actually help the Government. I fully support the Government’s aims to have a growth strategy for the whole United Kingdom that levels up those parts that need levelling up, and is driven by more trade, industrial activity and small business developments. The Government will not get that in Northern Ireland unless they address this issue. The way to address it is to take up my noble friend’s suggestion: this is a bogus problem; there does not need to be a hard border. In the past, the big trade flows have always been east-west, or GB to Northern Ireland, not north-south, or Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. The big trade flows are being damaged. This has to be lifted and we have to put it to the EU. If the EU is a friendly and sensible neighbour, it will see that it makes sense. If it is not, we should do it unilaterally.
(The Lilley/Redwood/ERG idea was set out on this website at the time of the negotiations. It is mutual enforcement of each other’s trade rules, so anything going from GB to NI can go without new controls and do not need to follow EU rules. Anything exported from NI to Ireland will have to comply with EU rules and the UK will enforce that to avoid the need for border checks into Ireland)
April 3, 2026
This “dreadful” agreement, as you rightly call it, exists only because YOU and every other Conservative MP voted for it in the House of Commons in January 2020.
Reply I voted against the Windsor framework and did not vote for the 2020 Agreement because of the Protocol and fish.So apologise.
April 3, 2026
The more important question here is why didn’t more MP’s realise the EU deals are all dreadful and why.
There is one piece in Lord J’s speech that stands out to me; ‘..and trying to negotiate from a position of strength was a very bad idea.’ If governments of all shades don’t like to negotiate from a position of strength, I humbly suggest they should not be in a position of authority at all. This is why we have such bad arrangements with the EU and no doubt others too. NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE.
April 3, 2026
@Peter Wood – there actions since says the did realise but didn’t want to be the ones doing the managing, wanted to stay just being rule takers. It is the UK Parliament, its MPs that is not fit forpurpose.
April 3, 2026
To reply:- Indeed and well said both JR and the sensible Peter Lilly (economics at Clare) who have both been consistently right on almost all topics for 40 years+. Alas the 14 years of fake Conservative electorate betrayals and lies meant that they gifted a huge majority to this appalling government of pro EU, net zero, open borders, crime augmenting, doom-loop, economic vandals.
Sunak (pathetically) even abandoned the bridge 6 months early!
Well said Marks & Spencer who has hit out at the appalling Sir Sadiq Khan for failing to get a grip on crime, warning that lawlessness is putting the public at risk.
Failing to get a grip is understating his appalling leadership I lived in London for 30 years until about 16 years back, my son does now and I still go back regularly Kahn’s appalling regime and his do nothing against real criminals two tier police has turned London in to a dangerous crime hell hole. It is now hard to spend more than a day there with seeing a phone snatched or a brazen shoplifting or worse!
April 3, 2026
I am only in London about 20 days each year now and judging by my observations of shoplifting and phone snatching there such crimes seem to be up by about 50 times from 16+ years back when I lived there full time. On just one day recently I saw three serious mass grab shopliftings.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which designated the theft of goods valued at £200 or less as a “low-value” summary offence, which led to a widespread public perception that these thefts would not be proactively investigated or prosecuted. And in general they were not. The police even advertised this so as to further augment such crimes I assume. Net Zero, anti-Brexit, the nasty party May was the dire Home Sec. at the time.
April 3, 2026
Peter Lilley switched to economics from Nat Sci. Perhaps why he is sound on Energy and is a Climate Realist too. One who like JR did not vote for Ed’s insane Climate Change Act 2008 – unlike 90+% of our moronic Tory, LibDim and Labour MPs! They did this without even having a proper costing of the insane policy!
April 3, 2026
Keir Starmer is plotting ‘new Brexit betrayal’ on the tenth anniversary of Britain’s historic vote to leave the EU, can he take us back in without putting it to the people if the answer is yes I’m sure that there are people plotting some sort of marches and demonstrations against liebour never seen since the poll tax riots
April 3, 2026
Starmer and Labour will do it (in all but name) and he will I suspect get away with it. I blame the many huge & serial betrayals of Cameron, May, Boris and Sunak for gifting the dire two Tier Kier his large majority.
April 3, 2026
@Mick – of course he can, in his mind we never left. In Parliaments minds we never left. All agreements, if you can call them that, have kept the EU in control of everything Parliament does to smooth the path of Parliament acknowledging they are still a ‘local council’ and what the boss (the EU) says is still the Law. Why else would the UK taxpayer keep being forced to send the EU money, pay to educate EU students and give control to UK resources(fish, agriculture) to the EU
April 3, 2026
It is a dreadful agreement and we should never have let the Irish/EU/Sin Fean tail wag the British Brexit dog. But our establishment fought tooth and nail against implementing any meaningful Brexit, as we all know.
I’m hoping the EU falls apart during my lifetime, as that’s the only way we will escape it. A Reform government may emerge at the next election, but that doesn’t change our virulently pro-EU establishment. It needs an almighty economic/social upheaval on the continent to slay the EU dragon and free us from its tyranny.
April 3, 2026
Agreed.
April 3, 2026
Nonsense. You got your Brexit, negotiated by Boris and David Frost. It ‘s rubbish but you werre warned all along it would be. Stop blaming the inaginary establishment and start blaming the Brexiters who sold you a pup
April 3, 2026
Even the dire deal we have (due to abandon ship Cameron, remoaner Starmer, May, Boris and the dire Windsor Accord Sunak is far better than being in!
April 3, 2026
@Gonie – the vote was to stay or leave, we voted leave, May, Boris, Sunak and Parliament refused. The UK Parliament doesn’t do democracy
April 3, 2026
Indeed an agreement made with both hands tied behind our back and our feet chained together – courtesy of Parliament and the abhorrent Supreme Court.
But let’s not acknowledge these dire facts.
April 3, 2026
The heroic efforts of the Spartans are legendary. We must never allow their efforts to be cast aside.
Indeed we need to implement much more of the plan for the Free U.K.
This is really becoming a serious breaking point between the People and the feral political class which refuses to take the explicit instruction. We have other issues with them too.
If they don’t bow to us and comply, I’m afraid things will quickly become very nasty indeed.
April 3, 2026
They have no intention of doing anything like acting for the people quite the reverse. A scorched earth policy of economic vandalism and dynamic alignment with lock-ins seems to be the agenda.
April 3, 2026
“Feral political class” – wonderful description. Nailed it.
I have greater confidence in the British Public than I do in the politicians we have to choose from – some notable exceptions.
More direct democracy would be good. Voting on our fish for instance.
April 3, 2026
@Lynn Atkinson +1
To live in a democracy would be great. To have MPs even with alternative views represent the people would be great.
Having a Parliament that demonstrates daily it is not fit for purpose, that fights the people, the nation and democracy, demonstrates they see them selves a class still believing in the Norman Conquest have them as rulers and everyone else their surfs/slaves. Is not what civilised nations & people view democracy to be
April 3, 2026
The EU is a political project, not an economic one. But it has always been advanced, certainly in the UK, by economic arguments because the Establishment knew the political one (a United States of Europe) would be rejected. As it eventually was.
Two-Tier, on behalf of the pro-EU Establishment, is doing exactly the same thing: using an economic argument to justify a political objective. The Establishment wants us to be an Associate Member of the EU, in a two-tier structure – Eurozone and Non-Eurozone.
The Not-a-Conservative-Government/Party was given a clear instruction by the British people to LEAVE the EU. It refused to do so. We haven’t LEFT; at best we are semi-detached and Two-Tier is reattaching the chains as quickly as he possibly can whilst at the same time deliberately alienating us from the USA.
He (or whoever replaces him) intends to turn the next General Election into a re-run of the Referendum: hoping to create an alliance of pro-rejoin parties v Reform. Under our corrupted electoral system it will be so much easier to win a General Election fought on a variety of issues (cost of living; NHS etc) and then claim a mandate to rejoin the EU, than to hold another Referendum.
April 3, 2026
@Donna +1, as always well said
April 3, 2026
Yes, I think that will probably be the way of it Donna. What a pity we have to wait so long to see – but then so much can (and will) happen in that time.
We are spending Easter here with our family and I am under very strict instructions NOT to discuss “money or politics” with my sons during it. I do worry about what the future holds for our Grandchildren but will enjoy having them around for a few days.
April 3, 2026
The Artemis mission requires immense energy, powered by over 700,000 gallons (2.6 million liters) of super-cold liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, producing 8.8 million pounds of thrust to launch. The SLS rocket burns 6 tonnes of propellant per second during launch, with solar arrays providing electrical power to the Orion capsule. Why would anyone choose to sit there cramped up with three others for 10 days doing nothing of any value and going from A to A at the vast cost of £60 bn or so.
I assume they did not use Green Hydrogen (so liked by the green Miliband nutters as a way to store unwanted wind or solar electrical energy) as it is so very much more expensive circa 40p per KWH stored plus other large storage costs and dangers.
April 3, 2026
You would be better informed if you had read NASA’s explanation of the Artemis programme. But never mind, it has nothing to do with Lord Redwood’s speech.
April 3, 2026
Thanks to you and your colleagues for putting in so much time and effort on developing and debating material and rational arguments.
But you are up against religious dogma and “opinions” rather than rational people.
Clearly the establishment needs a thorough scourge.
April 3, 2026
Northern Ireland is regarded by the EU as a Trojan Horse. They very quickly realised they could use the recent troubled past as a powerful tool to claim every divergence from EU preferred action was a threat of return to sectarian violence and a threat to the Northern Ireland Peace accord. That threat was rolled out every time any resistance to the direction of EU policy was encountered and is still the go to method to stop Northern Ireland realigning with the wider UK.
The EU is a mess. Those who wish to re-join the mess are either ignorant or paid advocates for the EU’s ever closer integration.
Starmer is determined to close down the UKs independence and return us to the ever tightening controls of the EU. Why he favours that straight jacket is anybody’s guess but it will not solve the deep and deepening issues we have ahead of us.
A good speech to the HoL John, let us see if it has any impact.
April 3, 2026
Blair explained to the EU how NI and the Good Friday Agreement could be weaponised to prevent the UK from LEAVING the EU. Treason May then did the EU’s dirty work for them and Sunak made it worse.
April 3, 2026
At the time of the Brexit debate there was a school of thought, propounded even by that arch European Guy Verhofstadt that Britain should become independent before concluding a deal with the EU. Clearly the terms of leaving and of a new trading relationship are not entirely separate. They are intertwined. But Verhofstadt’s point, and it was a point not fully grasped by those in Westminster was that the UK’s strongest hand it could play was as an independent country and its weakest hand was while negotiating still as a member bound by the totality of EU regulation. The WA encompassed far to much of the future relationship, constraining it unreasonably. It sj\hould have been a minimal settlement of loose ends and done no more than leave the way open for subsequent negotiations on a trade deal. The final betrayal was the Benn Act which tied the hands of Britain’s negotiators so they had to accept what the EU was prepared to offer. No political party – other than Reform, of course! – came out of that period without the stain of betrayal of the British people. The Tories, whom one would have expected to be securely and strongly on the side of independence, was in government and campaigned from that position of strength for remaining in the EU. Even after Boris became leader and PM, the Remainer strand maintained strong influence. Then Sunak’s Windsor Framework cemented EU rule and ECJ jurisdiction in Northern Ireland permanently and required all of UK to maintain close regulatory alignment with the EU.
In essence the Tories gave up on British sovereign independence because they did not value it and preferred to walk the European stage with fellow politicians rather than stand alone for Britain and be fully accountable to the ordinary people of Britain.
The Tories will never be forgiven for that betrayal and cowardice.
While in memory lane, subsequent release of cabinet papers showed that Heath knew very well that sovereignty would be lost. He lied openly to the British people. The sad truth is that the Tories have let Britain down very badly for decades.
Despite all that, what Lord Redwood now recommends is dead right. The EU can be very open and give preferential gereatment when it wants to – but only when others show strength and will. So the first step is to strengthen Britain and find the will to be ruly independent. This latter will never come fromStarmner’s Gang which is always and permanently collaborationist – riddled with Fabians, what else could it be.
April 3, 2026
Brexit was never going to be easy, not after 40 years of EU membership, we were so deeply buried in their mire. However, the way negotiations were handled was deeply disappointing and the point at which my long loyalty to the Conservative Party started to really waver.
Yesterday, Reform made a serious mistake with their committment to the Triple Lock. It is neither affordable nor fair. Much courage will be needed to govern after this cabal of idiots is kicked out and hard decisions required. If this was Jenricks bright idea, then Farage had chosen the wrong man for the job.
Sir JRM points out elsewhere the ponzi scheme that is the unfunded civil service (and other) pension schemes. Again, an open secret but just a £1.5 trillion one, give or take the odd £100B. A Black Hole of epic proportions that simply dwarfs any petty cash issues like the £20B that worried Labour so much. So real mountains to climb for whoever follows this bunch – and true courage will be required to do so. Reform has chosen the easy way – will Mrs Badenoch have the nerve to do what is required? I hope so, as someone has to, for all our sakes.
April 3, 2026
Just as scrapping the winter fuel allowance was a very bad idea politically, so would scrapping the triple lock when the cost of energy/living is going through the roof thanks to the Iran War, the Net Zero insanity and Labour’s ruinous policies.
The difference will be that Labour had no intention of tackling the out-of-control welfare state or the Net Zero Insanity, and Reform does.
April 3, 2026
Excellent Lord-R, my I also wish you a happy good friday
April 3, 2026
A sad and sorry tale.
As someone once said, “If the EU was the answer, the question must have been misunderstood”
For Britain the EU has always been something of a disaster. The EU never treated the UK honestly, always looking for some way to milk us, and our politicians were not up to the task of using any emergency brake or even persuasion to counter the combined power of the EU.
April 3, 2026
An excellent speech, but the powers that be will ignore you. I am impressed that you put in so much time and effort for so little reward. As comments on this site show the majority agree with you, but this Labour Government will ignore the democratic decision to leave the EU. Starmer has already shown he wants to rejoin at any cost, and sod what UK voters think. Likewise, sod what it costs to our already seriously indebted nation!
When leaders lie to you, it is not surprising that trust in the Government and MPs is so low. From Heath onwards, we have been consistently lied to by our PMs and MPs. Apart from Thatcher, who has stood up for the UK?
The UK is not just going nowhere, it is going backwards.
April 3, 2026
Lord Redwood, a great preces of the flaws that in essence highlights Parliaments not wishing to govern and manage this UK and its Peoples. To even contemplate the mostly unelected, unaccountable having more say than the people of the UK on how the Country is managed suggests a Parliament, its MPs as not being fit for purpose.
For the EU to believe they could re-interpret, override the Belfast/Good Friday agreement shows how perverse they are when it comes to their own rules-based system of rule. Demonstrates they wanted control out of ‘spite’
Look at it another way Australia has just concluded a ‘free-trade’ arrangement that in trade terms is equal to what the UK has. Yet Australia continues to govern itself, it isn’t forced to be part of the ECHR. What happens within Australia is still controlled by the democratically elected representatives in Australia.
As one of the EU’s negotiating team said at the conclusion of the WA agreement, the UK is our Colony Now. The UK Parliament has fought to keep it that way, seemingly so they can sit on their hands take the money and pontificate on how to get back in under the full ‘yoke’
If the UK Parliament had spent half the time the spend on finding ways to subject themselves to external control on managing the UK we would have accelerated away as apposed to their prescribed doom loop.
April 3, 2026
The question on the Ballot only had two options, ‘stay’ or ‘leave’. Parliament is seem was shocked to think it was being asked to step up an manage as a National Government, instead of a proctorial local council. Parliament is seems was shocked that democracy was what was being asked of it.
Since that day MPs on all sides of the house have fought, connived and contrived ways to not do their job, their simple but yes hard job, of being responsible for the UK and its people.
April 3, 2026
All discussion on this subject are a waste of hot air while Starmer and his hopeless crew are in charge.
We can only hope that they don’t do so much damage that Nigel cannot unravel it !
It’s another reason why we have to hope they get in enough economic trouble that an early election is forced on them.
The most likely scenario is for substantial problems to emerge in the Autumn of this year when it will be obvious, that without a reduction in benefits, taxes of every kind will have to be hiked again, substantially, in an attempt to balance the books. We have already seen the first inkling of reality yesterday, with Theeves at last calling for more oil and gas extraction. She can clearly see the need for the taxes that will bring her.
However, it will be nowhere near enough unless the welfare bill is substantially reduced, and that will not be allowed. Instead, we will hear further demands for a wealth tax and a lower threshold for the extortionate new Council tax bands, and defence will be allowed to continue to wither.
April 3, 2026
Hope you were looking at Lord Frost, Arlene Foster, Dodds etc and the other failures that heralded in this mess – all in their own way
April 3, 2026
For those that don’t believe that the EU tells the UK what it must and mustn’t do inside its own territory. The UK today has banned the UK from labelling Marmalade as Marmalade.
“The change, confirmed by the Government, will apply across England, Wales and Scotland if ministers press ahead with plans to readopt 76 revised EU food regulations.”
What has what the UK does inside its own borders got to do with UK EU trade? A bit like the Fish stocks inside UK territorial waters are handed to the EU to take at the expense of the UK