Author: johnredwood

I have now heard from  members of the Wokingham Conservatives about the leadership by email and through my meeting on Friday with members at a party reception. I will continue to consult.

I  will now rule out voting for those candidates who want to delay our exit, and who have unrealistic plans to re open the Withdrawal Agreement and renegotiate bits of it, when the EU has said they will not do so.

I have heard enough to know Mr Stewart’s positions do not offer us a way forward that is likely to work. He was one of the three  foremost advocates of the Withdrawal Agreement which went down to the most spectacular defeat the Conservative party has ever experienced in the Euro elections, when it was the only proposition the official Conservative machine put forward. The failure with Mrs May  to sell it to more than 90% of the public should rule him out as a future leader of the party. His stubborn belief that a variant of the Agreement has to go ahead shows he is  completely out of touch with the electorate.

This Agreement is toxic, hated by both Leave and Remain voters. The Cabinet made a mighty mistake in going along with it, with some Cabinet members trying  trying the hard sell on it for weeks on end long after it was clear the public did not want it.

Now Nigel Farage leads the largest UK and largest EU wide single grouping of MEPs the next UK Prime Minister should work with him to secure an early exit from the EU. He should be invited to Downing Street as soon as the new PM moves in  to discuss the details of our departure on or before 31 October this year. The government should invite the Brexit party MEPs to assist in presenting our case for a smooth WTO exit, adding to government work on ensuring working arrangements are agreed for the main issues in an exit of many deals. Much of the work is already completed and agreed, including customs, transport and government procurement, but more could be offered and supported in the European Parliament as well as in further bilateral discussion between the UK government and the EU. Both the Brexit party and the government should accept that the Withdrawal Treaty is a no go for the UK, as the Brexit party made clear to achieve their win in the European election. The resounding defeat for Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement, commanding only 9% of the vote, should be decisive. There is no way we should sign that Treaty or anything like that Treaty, for the reasons often set out here.

The website Facts4eu which has some good material has run a piece adapted from this website today. It can be seen on <a href= ” https://facts4eu.org/news/2019 june redwood on brexit opportunities”>

The Independent says they will be running the first chapter of the book next week on austerity economics as part of an article.

Someone wrote in and said there are no more tickets for my IEA talk based on the book on June 11th at 6.15pm. The IEA assure me that whilst there is strong demand there are still a few tickets left for those interested.

They are on 0207 799 3745 usual business hours Monday to Friday

The book is available on Amazon

“We don’t believe you  Why Populists reject the establishment”   ISBN 9781095 254950

The President is mainly coming to the UK to commemorate the D day landings  and the  70 years of the NATO alliance. He will be very positive about the UK’s role and contribution. He and his advisers also fully accept the UK’s decision to leave the EU and would be happy to negotiate a free trade agreement as soon as the UK government is willing and able to do so. Mrs May was reluctant all the time we stayed in the EU, wrongly  claiming the EU  Treaty stopped us holding detailed negotiations.

The US has been making it clear for some time that they think Huawei is a threat to their national security, and recommend allies take the same view. As we share many secrets with them they do not want our systems offering access to companies in China that they think operate for the Chinese state.

Mr Trump’s recent imposition of tariffs on Mexico until they do more to control illegal migration into the USA across their border adds to the trade tensions with China. The President is also allowing only 180 days to the Europeans to respond to his claim  that the EU in general and Germany  in particular are cheating in their trade in cars, with asymmetric tariffs against the USA. As soon as the UK is out of the EU we can make our own decisions on a fair tariff regime for vehicles and avoid the likely fall out from a wider trade war if the USA takes action against  the EU as it is doing with China and Mexico.

The markets are not liking the aggressive stance on trade , but Mr Trump does have issues over Mexico and China that resonate with many US voters. It will be interesting to see if and when the President feels he has been offered enough by way of a possible compromise or settlement.

One of the best strands of conservatism is the urge to protect and conserve the flora and fauna in  our landscape, to preserve the  best of our built inheritance and to undertake new development in a way that is sympathetic to what has gone  before and to the natural contours of our world.

This is not to say we want a fossil country. Sometimes the best way to conserve and keep an old building is to allow adaptation and renovation for a new purpose. Sometimes we need to build on green fields as well as on regeneration sites. Some modern buildings are fabulous and add to our traditions. Some changes to the way we farm or garden can enhance the natural world around us. Some old buildings are best recorded for history then demolished for a better replacement.

In recent years large scale migration has meant a much faster new build rate, which has upset some local communities and given rise to a wish to adjust the pace of change. It is difficult to follow a convincing green policy if we expand the population too rapidly and have to build on too many fields or fell too many woods. If we want to limit the national  carbon dioxide output we need to limit the  number of people we invite in.

There are good economic and social arguments for allowing reasonable numbers of new people to come and settle with us. We may need their skill  or they may be family members to people already living  here who would like to be reunited with their kith and kin. We will want to take our share of people fleeing war and terror.  In the last century we typically invited in around 50,000 additional people every year. This century it has been five times that amount, which has been far too rapid.

I welcome initiatives to use less energy to cut our bills through insulation, modern controls and more fuel efficient systems. I like the idea that we will clean up our landscape and our seas by being better at limiting the use of plastic and ensuring it is properly handled once it is waste. I am all in favour of recycling and of passing on and re using products that an individual no longer needs or likes. I have found limiting food miles works well, with little need for imported temperate foods in my meal planning. There is good UK food available, and more can be grown if more people want to buy it. I continue to encourage more tree planting as we green our landscape.

I am all in favour of choice, but a possible offering of 17 candidates or more for Prime Minister creates a  muddled field with too many candidates offering a very similar package. The endless launches of new campaigns also takes attention away from those who claim to be front runners, making their task more difficult to be front runners. The MP electorate is proving hard to persuade, showing that the candidates need to come up with  better answers to my two fundamental questions for any wannabe leader. How do you get us out cleanly and promptly from the EU, and what is your programme for taking advantage of Brexit with a range of new policies to promote greater prosperity, wider ownership and better public services?

I will not write about all of them, and suspect some of the 17 will decide on reflection not to put in Nomination papers. I have written about two of the four front runners so far. According to Conservative Home Jeremy Hunt leads with a possible 29 MPs in support, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson are joint second with 26 MPs each and Dominic Raab is fourth on 22 MPs. To get into the last two for election  by members the top two have got to get around 155 MPs each if the vote is split evenly, or less  if one is much more popular than the other amongst MPs. The second placed is likely to have  at least a third of the party in support.  Today I will say something about Boris Johnson and soon I will also say something about Dominic Raab. Thereafter I will be guided by who seems to be an interesting candidate because of their platform, or because someone is picking  up more support.

The MP electorate needs to believe that the winner can deliver Brexit and can rebuild the Conservative vote. Too many candidates are defining the problem as trying to find compromises a Remain Parliament can accept, which Mrs May failed to achieve. They should instead be telling us how they are going to persuade by their actions the big Leave vote that they can and will achieve Brexit. If they cannot do that they will not rebuild the Conservative position.

Boris Johnson is the most popular candidate with the members so far, with many members of the party wishing him to be on their ballot paper. There is a widespread feeling that the court case against him for the Bus figures is an attack on democracy and an unfair diversion. Many like the way he gave voice to Brexit in the referendum and respect him for resigning from the May government when she decided to back the Chequers plan which most Leavers see as a needless delay and dilution of Brexit. He has reach and appeal to the wider electorate as his Mayoral wins showed that other Conservatives might struggle to achieve. In view of this I asked Boris to send me his statement of why we should vote for him as he had been talking to me about the leadership. His office sent me the following:

“Our next Prime Minister must be someone who can deliver Brexit, unite our Party and, crucially, defeat Labour.  Jeremy Corbyn is the single greatest threat to the prosperity of our country and Boris is the man to beat him.  Polls of the public and of labour members repeatedly underline this point and his track record of winning, whether as London mayor or in the referendum, speaks for itself.  Added to a positive vision for brexit and the energy and enthusiasm which he has to take forward our economy it is clear he is the right man for the job.”

What do you think of this prospectus?

In order to get more MP support he does have to flesh out how he will get us out of the EU cleanly and quickly, and what new directions he would want for the UK once out. He also needs to deal with his critics about his past alleged gaffes and changes of view.

Several leadership hopefuls seem to think their mere presence in Brussels after becoming PM would get the EU to change its often stated position that there can be no change to the Withdrawal Treaty. It is difficult to understand why they think this. The EU has repeatedly said they will not reopen the Treaty. The EU did nothing to help Mrs May get it through the Commons when she was their best hope of doing so.

The new Commission may not be formed before the summer break. There is no indication that any candidate for Commission President wants to change the policy on the Withdrawal Treaty. It is very unlikely that a new Commission, if one is formed by September, will want to devote the first month of its life locked in major negotiations with a country leaving the Union. They have many important issues they need to handle for the member states staying in. They will want to reinforce those MEPs who believe in the project, not help those trying to leave.

Let us examine today, for example, the prospectus of Jeremy Hunt. I thought he did a generally good job as Health Secretary. I liked the way he believed in the offer of free health care in relation to need. He worked hard to ensure higher quality care with better outcomes was the driving force in management. His record as Foreign Secretary has been more mixed. I find it odd that he has changed his position on Brexit, moving from saying No deal is an acceptable fall back position to now saying a No Deal Brexit is political suicide. He does not seem to have understood what Brexit voters were voting for last week, nor understood that the Conservative party can only rebuild its position with electors if it recaptures many of those Brexit voters who used to vote Conservative. I do not see how he would do that if he wants to block a No Deal Brexit. Nor do I see how he thinks he could get a better deal if he has taken No Deal off the table. The promise of just leaving was always the best way to secure a decent set of agreements on departure. It was a tragedy that Mrs May would not do this. Any new PM has to be ready to leave on 31 October at the latest with no Withdrawal Agreement. Mr Hunt seems to be continuity May. I note that he only posted two items in his local constituency blog last year and  one this year, and just one local issue in 2018 and in 2019 so far  on his website.

Have I missed something about his candidature that makes him worthy of being PM?

Jeremy Hunt writes:

Just read your blog – as I have the highest respect for you may I just correct one point? I did not say no deal would be a catastrophe – although the Telegraph headline incorrectly summarised my view as such. I said calling an election to overcome a parliament that blocked a no deal exit on 31 Oct would be a catastrophe because we would be squeezed between the LibDems and the Brexit party.

My view on No Deal has not changed: if it was the only way to deliver Brexit I would support it, but with a heavy heart because there are some risks, notably to the Union. If there was a chance of a better deal (e.g. without the CU implications of the backstop) I would go for that – and I believe there is if we play our cards correctly.

Hope that helps