Author: johnredwood

 We learn that Labour is to be told to abstain on the Referendum Bill when it comes before the House. It just shows how little Labour cares about whether we have a UK democracy or not. They do not have the decisiveness  to come and try to vote it down, but nor do they have the wisdom to come and support it. The party that denied us a referendum on Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon when in office, now does not want to help to give us a referendum on a future attempt to sort out  the totally unacceptable relationship we currently have with the EU as a result of their federalising policies.

       China, the USA, Japan, Russia, Canada, India and Brazil refused to sign up to new Kyoto style targets or to join a new Treaty about global warming. It has left the Europeans rather isolated on this issue. Now China is to publish a Chinese translation of large amounts of peer reviewed research which questions global warming  in “Climate Change reconsidered” on June 15th. The Chinese Academy of Sciences wishes to make clear it does not endorse these views. It is good to see these matters being debated.

  Yesterday we were left none the wiser about what Labour would do concerning our right to opt out of a large number of Criminal Justice measures next year. They told us in their debate on the topic that several measures we could opt out from were important, but left it unclear whether they would opt out from all and then opt back in to some, or whether they would allow a large range of Criminal Justice powers to pass under the control of the European Court by opting out of none.

      I made the point that we want to opt out of these measures, as we wish to have control of our criminal law here in the UK, not find we are powerless thanks to future ECJ decisions. The potential opt out was the one good thing in the Lisbon Treaty. It is important the Uk uses its right. It looks as if the government does plan to opt out of all, and are still considering the issue of whether any of them are the best way of co-operating in justice matters with the rest of the EU. I urged the government not to opt back in, but to make a bilateral agreement with the rest of the EU on matters where we need co-operation across borders.

          Yesterday I heard more about the Green Investment Bank. It will have £3 billion of taxpayers money to invest in green projects.

          It is called a bank, but it does not plan to have any deposits. It will not raise money in the wholesale banking markets. Its initial plans are to invest the taxpayers money it receives in green projects with a view to making a profit on the investments. Many  of the investments will take the form of loans to greeen projects and companies.  It will be in effect a Green Investment Fund, not a bank.

                 Its idea of leverage is to be a co investor alongside private sector investors, who will help finance larger schemes. Without that it will not do a great deal with just £3bn of investment money in a £1500 bn economy. The fund has not ruled out borrowing some money later to augment its £3bn of taxpayer capital. It is clearly not envisaging anything like the leverage of a typical bank.

                I would be interested in your views on whether this is a good way to spend £3bn of taxpayers money?  If much of it is routed into green projects by loan finance the rate of return is not going to be that good. There are risks in concentrating investments in one sector. There could also be benefits if the fund managers build up an expertise and are the choice destination for interestign new schemes. Its early choice of schemes including a hospital project and a Council waste disposal project mean some of  the revenues of the investments are secured on tax revenues, as well as the investment coming from taxpayers.

I think the Speaker was right yesterday to allow a question in Parliament about what had happened at the week-end Bilderberg group. It gave Parliament the chance to explain why MPs do not see the Group as some rival power centre or government in secret. The pity was that Ken Clarke  did not deal comprehensively with what did get discussed at the Group, leaving it to Ed Balls to remind us of the agenda of the meeting which is published.

I do not myself hold the Bilderberg group responsible for the EU controls  placed on the UK. All those have been placed there by the UK Parliament following open debate. The chains of the Treaty of Rome were  originally approved by the electors in a referendum. Doubtless many of the people who go to Bilderberg are pro EU types, as it appears  Bilderberg does not invite and welcome vocal sceptics of the EU project. As a private organisation they do not have to balance their discussions.

Ministers who attend such meetings should have to explain what they said and why they went if MPs want to know. I am glad the Speaker allowed that to happen.

On 6th June I attended the 18th annual conference of the German British forum.  I seemed to be the one Eurosceptic invited to put a different point of view. Most of the participants expressed views which were very positive about the EU in general and the single market in particular. Most wanted to get over the message that they would like the UK to stay in, and regard staying in as crucial for our economic well being and for the trade between the UK and Germany.

There were a few Eurosceptic noises from some of the Germans. They did not necessarily like the idea of a transfer union. Some seemed to side with those in Central banking circles in Germany who do not favour monetary looseness and adventurism. All seemed to think the single market was good for them and necessary for us.

I sought to explain to them why so many people in the UK are no longer happy with our membership of the EU on current terms. I explained the strong feeling that we need a new relationship with the EU without all the rules, regulations and qualified majority votes. I had to accept some of the usual unfriendly comments from a couple of  UK participants.

I stressed that  we do not see the single market as crucial to our trade with Germany. Indeed, I am sure they would want to keep selling us their BMWs and their Mercedes, so a way will be found to facilitate trade between us, even if the UK voters vote to leave the EU. The UK has no wish to impose tariffs or barriers against German cars or other products. Indeed, it would be against international trade rules anyway, even if the UK were outside the EU. We assume Germany would not wish to block our exports to them.

I take an optimistic view about modern democratic Germany and assume they would have no such wish. I asked them at the meeting  to tell me if  they would want to block our trade. None signified they would. There is the added security from the UK point of view that they sell us more than we sell them. Eurosceptics should unite to explain to voters that there is no threat to our trade with Germany if we seek to renegotiate, or if the decision is taken to leave.

I went on to explain why  many of us no longer believe the single market is the guarantor of our trade or prosperity. The idea of free trade around the continent was never fully implemented. Instead the single market brand was used to introduce a very wide range of  new laws and regulations. It means that UK companies have to accept all these requirements, even for good solds in the UK or to non EU countries. Sometimes these EU rules make us less competitive or get in the way of selling elsewhere. The dear energy the EU is imposing is especially worrying, at a time when the US and Asia is benefitting from much cheaper energy supplies.

The single market has also been stretched to give the EU control over our borders, immigration policy and even over parts of our welfare and benefits policy. This is making the single market the problem, not the prize. UK people do not want the EU interfering in these matters, and do not see the benefit from the interference.

I do like the idea of more free votes. I explained yesterday why allowing free votes or encouraging more independence might make it impossible to construct a budget, get through tax increases or spending cuts, and do other unpopular things. There are many other issues where free votes are possible, because the outcome is not central to a government’s task or do not knock on to other policies and concerns.

Traditionally Parliament has most free votes in so called matters of conscience. These are issues where the splits are not on party lines, and where either result can be accommodated without wrecking government policy generally.   Parliament has kept the death penalty off the Statute books by free votes. Criminal justice can continue with or without it. Parliament has free votes on matters like gay marriage and abortion, where religious and  other beliefs are often passionately held and not on party lines.

This Parliament, with a Coalition government, poses the question of whether there should be more free votes on matters like the constitution. Given the level of rebellion on the issue of a referendum on the EU, the decison to whip the vote on the Conservative side did not have a great deal of traction with the Parliamentary party. Now the party is to be whipped to vote in favour of the Referendum Bill. However, you can also argue that big questions like the nature of the voting system and whether Scotland stays or leaves the Union are ones where a serious party of government should have a unifying position which most of its MPs can accept.

I would like  more free votes, but accept there do have to be sufficient things a party of MPs can agree so it can  be a governing or opposing force with some coherence on many issues that matter. The secret of leadership is finding those things, and offering free votes where unity cannot exist in good time. In a Coalition by definition there have to be more free votes for backbenchers.