Author: johnredwood

I have always assumed Scotland will stay in  the Union. I have defended Scotland’s right to make this decision and have stayed away from their hustings as Conservatives have been advised to do. I would be happy for them to remain in our country.

I have also said we only want them to remain if they are happy to do so and see the value of our union to them. I do  not think it right to threaten them with bad things if they vote for out, nor would I shower them with new promises about what it means to stay in. They know what being in means. They are exploring what being out might mean in this referendum.

Given the narrowing of the polls and the sense of panic in some senior Labour statements, it is now appropriate to offer advice to the government of the rest of the UK in the event of a Scottish decision to leave.

The first thing the UK Parliament should do is pass a short Act. This would say that Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament will no longer vote on any matter  not applying to Scotland, and will take no part in settling the response of the rest of the UK to Scottish withdrawal. It would also cancel the May 2015 General Election in Scotland. Current Scottish MPs would continue for their residual functions until the split of the kingdoms in completed.

There  is no need to delay the General Election in the rest of the UK. The new government for the rest of the UK should be formed from the winners of the election in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  The remaining Scottish MPs would be excluded from calculating the majority and would not be eligible to be Ministers.  On Wednesday I will discuss the negotiating position I wish to see from the rest of the UK should Scotland trigger the split.

On  Friday the Conservative party was defeated three times in the House of Commons over a Bill to amend housing benefits. A Liberal Democrat MP with the full support of Liberal Democrat Ministers proposed substantial  changes to Housing Benefits without the agreement of Conservative Ministers. Conservative Ministers asked the Conservative Parliamentary party to vote down the measure.

There were three main issues in play. The first is the Referendum Bill. Conservatives are keen to legislate this Parliament for an EU referendum to be held before the end of 2017 giving people an In/Out choice.  Labour and Liberal Democrats are against a referendum. They wish to accord priority to other private members bills to try to squeeze out the Referendum Bill which is in third place following the ballot. This was the highest placed Bill slot which any Conservative was allotted.  The Conservative party wished to vote down the Lib Dem Bill to give the Referendum Bill more chance of c0mpleting its passage before March and the end of this Parliament. If it remains third in the queue its chances are reduced.

The second issue  is controlling the state deficit and the affordability of welfare. The cost of the Lib Dem proposed  Bill would be an extra £1 billion of spending a year. It was not just a measure to assist the disabled and those unable to find a suitable smaller property. Indeed these  hard cases are already  being taken care of through extra benefit money made available to Councils to help people who need a larger property because they are disabled, or who cannot find a smaller one. The Bill also includes removing deductions to Housing Benefit where other earners live in the property. Conservatives received  no answer to the question what else  the Lib Dems and Labour would  cut to pay for this, or which tax would they increase.

The third is the Liberal Democrats clearly wanted to find an issue which played into one of Labour’s biggest campaigns so they had a chance of winning in the Commons against the Conservatives. For them it was good politics, showing they wish to align themselves more on the left as they have been losing too many votes to Labour. They hope they are rehearsing for a future Lib/Lab coalition.

On the day Labour and Liberal Democrats did well mobilising their full forces.  They do have the votes to defeat Conservatives if they all unite, as they did. The absence of some Conservatives made the defeat bigger.

One of the compelling reasons the UK needs a new relationship with the EU and needs to be outside the current Treaties is the lack of control we now have over our welfare system and  borders.

The news this week that Calais cannot cope with all the illegal migrants who wish to come to the UK highlights the problems.

First, in a common border area your border is as weak as the weakest border in the EU. If the southern states will not police their borders more effectively to prevent first entry to the EU, then the northern countries will end up with more and more problems with  migrants.

Second, if the UK has to offer under EU rules  the same in work and out of work benefits to all recent arrivals from the EU as we offer to our own citizens, it will  attract more people.

Third, if the UK economy continues to generate a lot of jobs, but the Euro area economies remain mired with high unemployment, the UK will attract a large share of the illegal migrants to the EU.

The UK answer to this problem is to remove ourselves from the common border and welfare policies. We could do a better job controlling our own systems than we can do under EU rules.  The EU answer should be effective border controls throughout the EU. It would also help the EU case if they changed their mind and allowed the UK to take tougher action over access to benefits.

Diplomacy is an up market kind of politics. It is smart talking paid for by the state and directed by politicians.  Today both politics and diplomacy are derided by many, condemned by cynics as lying at the public expense. I want to make the case for them both. Done well they are the means that we reconcile our  differences, create and uphold the peace, and make progress as individuals and nations. I would far rather jaw jaw than war war. Diplomacy and politics are much better than civil or international war. The covering of civilisation in any human society rests on the successful conduct of politics and diplomacy. We see in all too many countries what happens when politics and diplomacy break down, as in Syria, Libya, Iraq and the Ukraine today.

I want my diplomats and politicians to do two things above all else. I want them to promote peace and demonstrate democracy. Of course internally a state has to be firm to maintain the rule of law.Those who commit acts of violence against others and the state, or who steal or damage the property of others have to be prosecuted and punished.  Externally a state has to show it has the means and the willpower to defend itself  should need arise. A large and powerful state like the UK should also be willing to use its power with allies and through the UN to deal with rogue states that disrupt the peace of others, where  the use of military force is necessary and can improve the situation. The UK was right to liberate  the Falklands,  and Kuwait with its allies.

The EU which now presumes to be a state with embassies, a foreign policy and interventions in other countries fails both my tests for diplomacy. It often fails to  promote peace, and it does not demonstrate democracy. Its interventions in the Balkans during their period of civil war and war between the emerging states at the end of the Soviet era were far from helpful. More recently its decision to back those who wanted the fall of an elected President of the Ukraine and wished to bring their country closer to the EU started a chain of events which led to the annexation of Crimea by Russia and the civil war in eastern Ukraine.

I am no supporter of the Russian actions nor of rebel violence.   The only good news is the most recent statement of the EU that there can be no military solution to the civil war in east Ukraine which mirrors what President Obama is also now saying. When will the EU pursue its interest in the Ukraine by offering to help broker a peace between the Kiev government and the armed rebels? If the EU does not like Mr Putin’s peace proposals, where are their own?  Why does the EU seem to think it is acceptable for a European government to be shelling its own people, instead of trying to find a way of restoring peace to its troubled country?

Which brings me to the EU’s main failure, its failure to be democratic or to advance democratic causes. The EU dislikes Scotland having a free referendum on whether to stay in the UK or not. It has intervened in the debate on the side of the Union not because it likes the UK but because it is worried that the Scottish precedent will catch on. The EU which did so much to foment tensions within member states in the early years of its existence by encouraging a Europe of the regions, now wishes to suppress separatist movements. The EU does not want the Catalans to have a free vote on whether to stay in Spain. They do not welcome the idea of Venice or Lombardy voting on whether to stay in Italy. They clearly do not see the need for the UK to have a vote on whether it stays in the EU or not.

The EU has designed a thoroughly undemocratic way of legislating. Deals and arguments between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, many of them conducted in private, result in a  torrent of new laws. In any individual country these laws are in effect immutable, however much they may be disliked or however bad they may be. One of the main principles of UK democracy is that no Parliament can bind its successors. If a Parliament enacts a law which is unpopular or proves to be ill thought through, the people can vote that Parliament out and replace it with people who will change or repeal that law. Now today a new UK government cannot amend or repeal much of the law it inherits from the previous government, because it is made in Brussels.

This is based on a speech I made yesterday to the “EU Foreign Affairs” conference at Europe House.

Yesterday morning a group of MPs met in Committee Room 14 to discuss the EU’s plans to take control over all the main ports in the EU, establishing by direct EU regulation their right to determine how they are run and how they charge.

This is one of many such scrutiny committees that have met over the years as the EU has greatly expanded its legislative activities. Under Labour the Minister would recommend the EU measure to the committee, and the Labour majority would vote it through, usually with no Labour backbench speeches either in favour or querying any element.

The EU’s wish to regulate the 47 largest ports in the UK is opposed by the  ports industry. Measures which may make sense for state owned or state subsidised ports in Mediteranean countries make no sense for free enterprise competitive  ports with market prices and no subsidy in the UK. The Chairman of the European Select Committee was present though not a member of this scrutiny committee, as his  Committee had recommended that this important new EU measure should be debated on the floor of the Commons. Bernard Jenkin and I were also present, though not voting members of the committee.

Mr Jenkin began the proceedings with a point of order. He argued that the latest draft of the EU proposal available to the committee was dated 23.5.2013. There have been various redrafts since then. There were also some other papers missing. He proposed that the committee be adjourned until the government had circulated all the relevant papers. I backed him up. The Minister, Mr Hayes saw the merit of our case and offered to move the adjournment of the committee so the right papers could be circulated and read. The three of us followed it up with speeches saying the whole matter should be taken on the floor of the House in good time before any decision was made in Brussels, with the latest text. The whole committee swung behind the idea of delay and the need for proper texts, and many also backed the proposal that the debate should be for the whole Commons given the importance of the power grab. We have already told the Minister that we think the whole regulation should be stopped as it is not needed.

The Minister I expect agrees with us that this Regulation is not needed and  is not in our interest. The problem is, it can be pushed through by qualified majority against our wishes. I trust he will vote against it if  the others want to push ahead with it this time It is yet another example of the growing legislative tentacles of the EU operating against the UK’s interests.