Author: johnredwood

Out of the EU the UK will regain her own seat on the World Trade Organisation, and be able to press for world agreements that we want.

The UK will gain a seat or have more influence on world standards bodies which in turn inform EU standards.

The UK will have her own seat and policy at World Summits like the World Climate summits.

The UK will be better treated by France and Germany who will need our support on various issues in the future and will not be able to outvote us in the EU to stifle our opinion.

The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy and one of the world’s most important military powers after the USA, China and Russia. It is high time we were fully represented in our own name in all important world fora.

I would be interested to receive comments on Mr Corbyn’s “new style” of handling PMQs.

Last week I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Office of Road and Rail. This body spends £32 million a year of our money on acting as economic and safety regulator of the railways, and acting as a new regulator of the Highways Agency, the government body that runs England’s roads.

I asked them why they had taken no action over Network Rail’s decision to take out foreign currency borrowings which I have warned against before. I asked why they had apparently taken no action over Network Rail’s derivative trading and hedging, nor intervened to stop losses or to complain about them. They reminded me that Network Rail’s finances are now under the control of the Treasury and they will not be making any more foreign currency loans, as if I was unaware of that change. They had no answer on the broader questions, and were taking no action over derivative losses.

They have been agonising over £2m of fines to Network Rail for poor performance. They wish to express their displeasure, but they do not wish to take too much money off a company owned by taxpayers and funded by taxpayers. They clearly have no sense of significant numbers. Network Rail happily lost more than £2m a day every day last year on financial derivatives , so I guess a single £2m fine is neither here nor there to them.

They were also asked about their attitude towards the prolonged closure of the M20 this summer in Operation Stack. They were asked about other options to allow this crucial highway to continue in use. Again they had no helpful answers, and showed no sign of wishing to change things for the better by using their powers.

I came away seeing little value in much of the £32 million spent each year on this body, as it is quite incapable of keeping a major motorway open, and uninterested in stopping major financial losses at Network Rail despite being their economic regulator. I think they said they had to add road regulation to their rail remit to meet EU requirements.Maybe their safety role for rail is better done than the financial regulation.

Two weeks ago Mrs Merkel told the world that Germany would invite in all Syrian refugees who wished to come. Many commentators waxed lyrical about Germany’s generosity. Some in the UK wrote pieces contrasting Germany’s compassion favourably with the UK government’s wish to avoid false hope and encouragement to people to undertake dangerous journeys. Anyone who raised problems with Germany’s approach was in danger of being condemned as heartless.

This week the German approach has suddenly changed. Germany now wishes to place a limit on how many refuges she can take. Germany now wants other EU member states to undertake proper border checks at the EU’s external border, denying economic migrants access. Just in case they do not manage to do this, Germany has placed new border controls at her frontier, against the spirit of the Shengen open borders policy she subscribes to.

Some of us queried at the time how Germany would distinguish between Syrian refugees, refugees from other countries and economic migrants. We asked how she would avoid a very large number of people deciding they wanted to take advantage of Germany’s apparent generosity. We wanted to know how EU law could be changed overnight by a German statement of policy, when EU law seemed to say in most cases Italy or Hungary or Greece had the task of deciding entry into the EU if the migrants turned up there first.

There remain serious problems with Germany’s latest policy statements. How can a quotas system work? What if the refugees allocated to some of the countries have no wish to stay there, but insist on travelling on to another EU country like Germany with more jobs on offer? For how long will Germany suspend her open borders required of her by the Shengen agreement? As Germany is now cancelling trains that come in from Italy, how much impact will this new policy have on the movement of people and goods other than refugees and economic migrants? Above all, does Germany now regret her previous statements.? What does Germany say to a genuine refugees that has been attempting the dangerous journey to the EU, encouraged by Mrs Merkel’s statement? Why is there now a limit on numbers when before there was no limit?

Venezuela currently produces no official inflation or national income and output figures, because the government does not like the truth to emerge about the damage its economic policy is doing. Analysts reckon inflation in Venezuela is well over 100% per annum, with some thinking it is now running at several hundred percent. The bolivar, their currency, has plunged drastically on the black market.

The government has printed large sums to try to keep the economy growing. It is likely output will decline by at least 10% this year.Prices of some essentials have been fixed at low levels to try to help the poor. As a result there are great shortages, and many of the poor cannot get the items they need at all. People have been banned from forming queues outside shops in the streets to try to buy things. There is a military crack down on smuggling, as people seek to buy up scarce products like flour and petrol to smuggle the output to Columbia where prices are closer to world levels. Basics like milk, soap, toilet rolls and bread are often out of stock in the shops. The leader of the Opposition has been in prison.

This year Venezuela may find it impossible to service her foreign currency debts. The country is short of foreign exchange to buy the imports they need in a range of basics for daily life. Venezuela is demonstrating that a combination of controls and overrides of the markets and prices, and printing extra money, leads to a break down in the supply system. The poor suffer as well as everyone else. Far from creating plenty, stimulating the economy and getting people out of poverty, these policies do the exact opposite.

I mention this today, because Mr Corbyn is an admirer of the politics and government of Venezuela. He wrote an article praising it in 2009, and renewed his favourable comments this year. I recommend he looks at the poverty, the scarcity of goods and the difficulties for many people in their everyday lives created by this socialist paradise. Just as the Europhile left need to explain or condemn mass unemployment in Greece, so Mr Corbyn needs to explain or condemn the impact of high borrowing and money printing on Venezuela. Venezuela suffers deep and severe cuts in living standards, from a government which claims to be an opponent of austerity.

Mr Corbyn has defeated a Labour party prepared to make compromises to win elections. Now watch as he goes on to attack middle England. He will condemn success, tax achievement and seek to undermine self reliance.

Mr Corbyn promises to make inequality the main issue. The government should reply by making poverty the main issue.

Mr Corbyn’s policy is to reduce inequality by taxing the rich more. If, for example, he went the whole way and said all income and wealth held by the top ten percent in excess of the rest would be taxed away he would immediately make the UK a much more equal society. He would also make it much poorer.

Many of the rich would go, taking their assets with them. Some of the rich who stayed would work less, cut their income, find legal ways of reducing their wealth, make fewer riskier investments, create fewer jobs. This would in itself cut inequality and make the rich poorer, in line with Mr Corbyn’s aims.

It would also make many lower income people poorer. It would mean fewer jobs in the luxury trades, fewer jobs providing goods and services for the rich and famous. Great footballers, singers, actors would leave the country, and with them would go the demand they create for goods and services. We would all be poorer. It would mean fewer new and successful companies and the career opportunities they offer.

Most people in the UK are not jealous of success. They accept that great entertainers, sports people, entrepreneurs should earn large sums based on their skills, subject to progressive taxation at sensible levels.

Most of us want the state to help tackle poverty. We want inequality to reduce because people on low or no incomes are becoming better off. That is the purpose of the Conservative tax cuts, taking people on low incomes out of Income Tax altogether. That is the purpose of welfare reform, to make work worthwhile. That is the purpose of education reform, to give more people the chance of a good schooling. That is the purpose of pro enterprise policies, encouraging more people to work for themselves or to set up in business and create jobs for others.

Conservatives should answer Mr Corbyn’s politics of jealousy with our politics of aspiration. We need to show we can help lift more people out of low and no incomes, and help more people to own their own homes, businesses, and savings. Conservatives want an inclusive society, where everyone can become an owner, and where the many have the opportunity of a good education and a good job. Mr Corbyn wants a divided society, where the better off are hounded, and everyone ends up worse off.

On November 13th at 4 pm I will be giving a public lecture on why the Euro needs a political union, and the EU plans to do this, in the Old Library of All Souls College High Street Oxford.

This is an advance notice for those interested.

The UK will be more prosperous, more democratic and more influential by leaving the EU – or by accepting a fundamental change to our relationship which takes us out of the centralising treaties.

Leaving will be better for people.
The UK can decide whether to enjoy £300 a year for every family every year as a tax cut, or whether to increase public spending. That’s how much we currently give to the EU to spend elsewhere on the continent.

The UK can guarantee to match all the EU payments to farmers, universities and regional projects out of the money we currently send to the EU and get back.

The UK could pursue a cheaper energy policy, taking people out of fuel poverty and aiding the industrial recovery of the UK.

Leaving the EU will let us be a freer and more democratic country.

The UK will be able to make her own decisions through Parliament as guided and informed by UK voters

The UK will regain control of her own business, environmental, criminal justice, migration and foreign policies amongst others

Once again we will live in a country where Parliament can change any law that needs changing

The UK people will be sovereign again, able to elect people who do their bidding without the interference or prohibition of EU laws.