One of the reasons the EU cannot be democratic is the inability to change its laws and policies following a General election in any particular member state. Mr Cameron has on this occasion tried to deal with some of this by having a one off renegotiation for us. The EU is very keen this should not become a routine for every country following a change of government, as the EU would do little else. The EU is a strong bureaucracy advancing by making ever more laws and common policies which cannot be changed or can only be changed after great efforts with a majority of member states wishing to do so.

UK voters expect a new government to be able to change any laws and policies of the old government that the voters by majority no longer like or are not working. The UK Parliament could do so, until the weight of Treaty commitments and EU laws became such that a newly elected government found it was unable to make the changes people or the government itself wished.

Mr Cameron won the election with three important popular pledges that are especially relevant vis a vis the EU. He promise to make a major reduction in inward migration to the UK, but has come up against free movement of people and the overriding rules of the EU. He promised to cut welfare benefits, including removing all benefits from recently arrived migrants for their first four years so they pay some tax before gaining entitlement, and promised to remove Child Benefit payments from children of migrants not living in the UK with their parent(s). It turned out both these promises are illegal under the UK’s binding treaty commitments in the EU and under EU law. So Mr Cameron rightly saw he had to try to persuade the other member states to let the UK government regain rights to do these things, or had to change the common policy to make them legal.

We know that it has proved impossible to stand by all three of these important Manifesto commitments. The EU will not budge on freedom of movement at all, so the Uk is likely to continue to experience more net inward migrants from the rest of the EU than Mr Cameron’s world total for net migration. Nor will the EU give the UK back a single power from the Treaties. It has agreed to very modest changes on benefits on a temporary basis, but these fall far short of the policies the Uk government wishes to follow. UK taxpayers will still have to pay some Child Benefit to children not living in the country, will still have to pay benefits to recent migrants and will still have to accept unlimited numbers of migrants under the freedom of movement rules.

There is an even bigger way in which the deal falls short of what is needed. The Conservative party in opposition spoke strongly against the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties. These treaties surrendered the veto over more than 100 areas of policy., That means in 100 important areas of government spending, policy and lawmaking the Uk can no longer do as it wishes, but has to do what the majority of member states wants. Many Conservatives who will vote to leave wanted us to get back those lost powers. Without them there are huge areas of life where we no longer have a democracy in the UK capable of making the decisions and fixing the problems.

All this week we will hear of last minute pressures to worsen the deal Mr Cameron has negotiated. We read that the French want to water down the already weak statements on how the UK avoids being dragged into comprehensive Eurozone regulation and taxation. We hear that some Eastern European countries are still not content with modest changes to the UK’ s welfare payments system.

Some cynical Eurosceptics think this all a choreographed dispute to make it look as if the UK has won something worth having. Other observers think the push back from some countries is genuine,as the deal was not cleared fully with all member states when the Commission and Council President put together the package. I am inclined to believe the latter. If all this is stage managed, then it serves to help the Leave campaign more than the Stay in group. For what the protracted and difficult negotiation has shown many British voters is just how little power the UK has over basics like welfare and business, and how we have to beg and petition to get modest change to our position which we ought to be able to do for ourselves. If someone did think creating a sense of difficulty would make people value the deal more, they forgot that it might merely show people who had not though much about the EU just how much power of self government has already gone.

The wish to water down some of the original proposals is not good news. Without Treaty change none of it is binding legally anyway, but if you are seeking a political agreement and strong statement instead of legal guarantees it is important to have clear and firm ones which will take a bit more unpicking. The UK wants to be part of the so called single market, but it does not want the Euro area to be able to override all City regulation, impose transaction taxes and change the architecture of financial markets against London’s interests. France seem very reluctant to offer any guarantees, and is one of the main advocates of much more financial service and banking integration. It does not augur well for life outside the Euro but still inside the EU. France makes clear the EU is not a multi currency Union, but a union based around the Euro with just two members allowed legal opt outs. That’s a long way from the multi currency union of the UK’s imagining.

Nor are the benefit rows insignificant. Lower income member states do not want to see the UK paying lower Child Benefit than our domestic rates to children not resident in the UK, yet the UK’s starting position long since surrendered was we should not have to pay any child benefit to the child of an EU migrant to the UK where the child has not come with the parents. The UK has also been forced to back off from saying no EU economic migrant will receive any benefit for the first four years of residence, to accepting a four year phase in of all benefits. Anyway a new migrant has every right to school places for children and free NHS treatment from the day they arrive.

The deal Mr Cameron was offered fell well short of what he asked for, which fell well short of the good aims of the Bloomsberg speech. The further rows just serve to tell all UK voters interested that we do not run our own affairs, and even under pressure of a referendum our partners do not want to offer us what we want.

THe U.S. Administration seems to think foreign policy is about telling the rest of the world what to do whilst doing little to ensure the U.S judgement is sensible or can be enforced.

John Kerry behaves like some over privileged commentator. He tells Russia who they can and can’t bomb in Syria with no ability to make them stick to his rules. Instead they bomb US allies amongst the opposition to Assad and Mr Kerry says he has improved collaboration.

Yesterday there were devastating attacks on hospitals, to add to the concerted damage to civilian targets around Aleppo in recent days. The Assad regime is blamed, and they tell us the ceasefire will not be possible.

During his period in office we have seen the Syrian civil war get worse and watched as Russia has intervened more decisively in Syria in ways he does not want. The US has failed to act successfully in Libya, backed unhelpful EU positions on Ukraine and the Middle East, and withdrawn most of their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan without creating settled and effective democratic governments there.

I accept that none of this is easy, and sometimes even the USA has to realise it dos not have the power to bring about what it wishes. It is however difficult to see good in what John Kerry has furthered with President Obama.

The Middle East is in a dreadful state. The Syrian civil war has just got worse, with yet more extensive migration. Mr Kerry still seems to believe there is a democratic opposition capable of winning the Syrian civil war, but so far his clumsy and limited interventions have helped prolong the agony without supporting and developing a proper democratic challenge to Assad and ISIL.

In the north of Syria there is also worse news, that the US ally Turkey is now attacking the Kurds, another US ally in Syria, whilst Saudi Arabia, another US ally is going to the support of Turkey. There is no sign of Putin yet ending the bombing of targets the US opposes.

Meanwhile Mr Kerry has time to lecture the UK on our own future as a democratic nation, recommending we do not seek to restore our democratic control over our own affairs. Mr Kerry clearly does not believe Mexicans, Cubans and Canadians should tell the U.S. what laws to follow, so why does he think continental European countries should impose laws on the UK?

Instead of lecturing us, we need to hear from Mr Kerry on how he is going to get his peace plan for Syria back on track, and how he is going to influence Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in the way he wishes. I do not feel more secure for the actions and words of either the USA or the EU over Syria and the Middle East, nor over Ukraine.

I am sending this open message to fellow Conservative MPs today:

Be true to your electors! If you told them you were Eurosceptic, then vote to leave the EU in the referendum. Your supporters backed you because they want our democracy restored, with powers of self government returned. They will feel very let down if you do not help them get the UK out of the EU at the referendum.

This referendum will be a defining moment for MPs. We will be judged for several Parliaments to come by what we do and how we vote. Some colleagues have implied that as it is the people’s choice their vote can be a private matter. This is unrealistic. If you claimed to be a Eurosceptic to get selected and elected you now have to vote to leave. It is important to listen to the members of our party who turned out to help you win your seat.
We live in an age when traditional political parties are mistrusted by many electors. One of the main reasons is their fear – or in the case of some parties their experience – that promises are not kept or important views are overturned once in office. It is crucial that we do the right thing by our voters on this most important of matters. This is a time to put country before party, and the public interest before any personal interests. Brussels is a bureaucracy run by bureacrats for bureaucrats. Many of those who voted for free trade with the EEC dislike the excessive regulatory interventions of the single market, and never imagined they were voting for a government of the EU with its own currency, anthem, President, borders, foreign policy and soon to have its own Treasury.

We know more than enough about the prospective deal to know that it falls far short of the words of the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech, where he rightly talked about restoring Parliamentary control over the things that matter to our voters. His well meaning efforts to negotiate a compromise that the UK can live with has simply illustrated the sad truth that the UK can no longer decide for herself the most basic things like how much we pay in benefits, who we invite into our country or what taxes we levy.
We Conservative Eurosceptics have rightly highlighted the dangers of having to ask permission to make even modest changes to our spending plans, our taxation and our borders. Those of us in the Commons at the time united to oppose the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties that gave away far too much of our power to govern ourselves. David Cameron himself led us in our opposition to Lisbon. The deal before us does nothing to change a single word of any of these treaties. Not a single veto is returned to the UK that was wantonly given away. In future without a veto the UK government, Parliament and people can be outvoted by other EU states, giving us laws, taxes and policies we do not want. The well intentioned efforts to give us a bit more freedom over the payment of benefits in certain circumstances is not proof against a European Court case reversing it, nor against a future change of policy by a majority of EU members.

There is no half way house or middle way. The vote is simple. Stay or leave. If like me you want to be governed by a democracy, where government is of the people, by the people, for the people, there is only one option. UK democracy is incompatible with EU membership. Your voters and your party members look to you now to lead them. They will watch carefully, and will expect to see you now do what your words at the selection conference and at the election implied you would. We cannot just be Eurosceptic for the election.

Yours ever

John

This year April 23rd marks not just St George’s day but also the probable 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare’s death.

On April 21st I am planning an evening in Wokingham to commemorate both events. I will organise readings from Shakespeare’s plays about England, write something myself about Shakespeare’s love of our country, and intersperse it with Elizabethan and Jacobean music.

The present aim is to combine the readings and music with a traditional English dinner. If anyone is interested in joining us please contact Office@WokinghamConservatives.org.uk for tickets.
If anyone wishes to make use of the materials for an event elsewhere then that may be possible. Someone may like to organise one for St George’s day itself. Please let me know.

The mistake over our border at Calais reveals not just a misunderstanding of French politics, but also a misunderstanding of how independent countries control their borders. It was an own gaol given the French government’s rapid statement they would want to keep the Calais arrangements. They fully understand that if they sent a different signal implying people could go to the UK easily they would greatly intensify the pressure on France as well.

Outside the EU the UK would require all ferry and train companies bringing foreign passengers in to pre check passengers as airlines are required to do at present. Travellers as on an airline would have to show ID documents and necessary visas and permits to enter the country they are travelling to before boarding the train , ferry or plane. We do not see camps around Washington airport or New York harbour as travellers to the US know these international borders are policed and the travel companies using those ports have to comply with the rules. Were any train or ferry service to fail to do this they would need to take the people back at their cost.

The case of the BSE campaign seems to be that independent countries cannot control their own borders. This is not the experience of many independent countries around the world. In the UK’s case it is easier than for many others, as the main part of the UK is an island surrounded by the sea. This means most people arriving here arrive at a relatively few large ports and airports where it is possible to police arrivals well.

Meanwhile we learn that the French and others do not want it accepted that the EU is a multi currency area. They want all countries save the two opt out countries to have to join. They also do not want the UK having any veto over what the Euro area needs or wants, making it more difficult for us to live alongside it in the same organisation. Other countries are trying to weaken the already hopeless emergency brake on benefits. The one good thing about this negotiation is it should leave no-one in any doubt that a lot of power has gone from this country under past treaties, and no powers are coming back any time soon because the rest of the EU does not want us governing ourselves.

The EU preaches austerity to its member states yet is itself a spendthrift organisation. The UK is meant to adhere to the 3% maximum budget deficit the EU seeks to enforce on Euro members, though all the last 3 different governments have broken the EU limit. Meanwhile the EU insists on us sending more and more tax revenue to them as they think they can spend it better than we can, usually outside our own country.

The EU sees no contradiction between telling us we need to cut our spending and raise our taxes, and demanding we send them more money to spend.Out of the EU we would be able to choose our own budget deficit level without need to report in to the EU. More importantly we will get our £15 billion back that we send to them to spend. Around £5bn of this is spent by them in the UK and the rest is spent in other countries.

The Leave campaign has made clear we would want to pay farmers, universities and others the same sums as they get today from the EU out of the money we get back. That leaves us £10 bn to spend. We could banish austerity in the private sector with tax cuts, or spend more in the public sector to give more of a real boost to spending than recent budgets have allowed. I am working on a suitable package. This is your opportunity to influence it. What balance of tax cuts and spending increases would you like? What are your priorities?

This could be one of the clinchers for the referendum. Many people would like the public finances to allow more for good purposes.Getting our money back from the EU would allow us to banish austerity and run our own affairs.

The Radio 4 Farming Today programme this morning spent time debating life after subsidies have been abolished in the context of exit from the EU. Whilst they said the UK could pay subsidies itself on exit, the rest of the piece left farmers with the clear impression the base case was no subsidy. This is simply false. I know of no likely post exit UK government that would remove all farming subsidies. The Leave campaign says we should just pay what is currently paid.

Yesterday I was invited to a short debate with Martin Wolf of the FT about whether the UK will be better off or worse off out of the EU.

Martin Wolf is an intelligent and well informed commentator on the UK’s senior business newspaper, so I was expecting a polished and detailed analysis of the UK economy in or out of the EU. Instead he resorted to the usual tactics of the Better Stay in Europe campaign. His case was negative. It entirely centred around the proposition that if we left the EU the rest of the EU would in some way retaliate against their trade with us, in unspecified ways which would cost us and not them.

He did not say they will be throwing our exported goods into the harbour, nor did he suggest Germany would no longer wish to sell us BMWs and Mercedes, though he might as well have said that. He implied we would have to carry on sending contributions to the EU after we had left it so they still buy some of our goods, and implied they could find ways round WTO rules to impose new barriers on our exports. He concentrated on goods, not services in all his figures, so presumably he is expecting physical barriers and tariffs on trade in goods.

I told him I had met senior representatives of the German government before Christmas who has assured me Germany sought no new tariffs or barriers on trade if we leave. I asked him if he thought the German government had been lying? He seemed surprised, and claimed that other unspecified EU countries might be able to stop this sensible German approach to Brexit. I pointed out that as they sell us more than we sell them they have an interest in sensible trading arrangements. I reminded him that over 160 countries around the world trade successfully with the EU but are not members and pay no contributions. Mexico and Canada have free trade agreements with the EU, and the EU now says it wants more of these agreements with bigger trading partners. Surely that would also apply to us.

He had no positive thing to say about our membership of the EU. He did not seem to want us to join the Euro or Schengen, the main features of the modern EU. He just wants us to stay in a club with some countries he thinks will behave badly if we leave. Is this the best stay in supporters can do?

We need to keep asking them

Why don’t they want us to join the Euro and Schengen, as these are central to the project?

How do they think the UK can avoid having to pay some of the bills and provide some of the support for the ailing Euro area?

Why hasn’t the EU in 43 years negotiated free trade agreements with the USA, China or India?

How can the UK be kept apart form the increasing rules and taxes needed within the financial services and banking union?

The EU does wish to supplement or even rival NATO, and does wish to work towards a European army, navy and airforce.
In their defence paper in July 2015 they called for “EU owned dual use capabilities and a proposal to explore how capability needs could best be fulfilled by assets directly purchased, owned and operated by the Union”. They have not got there fully yet, but the direction of travel is clear.
In the meantime The EU has created a naval force in the Mediteranean to pick up economic migrants and asylum seekers exposed to dangers at sea. It also has another naval force tackling piracy off the Horn of Africa.
The EU began by pooling iron and steel manufacture, then the sinews of war. It has moved on to some joint defence procurement, and to the creation of a defence and aerospace industry crossing frontiers to make member states interdependent in the production of weaponry.
The EU has created an EU defence force, with a rapid response army and a common command headquarters. The Eurocorps, called “a force for the EU” has a “permanent operational multinational structure capable of being deployed at very short notice” with up to 65,000 troops. At the core of it is a joint Franco German force. It has seen action in Bosnia, Kosovo and twice in Afghanistan. So far it has usually worked through NATO.
The UK has been wary of this emerging force, but has nonetheless gone along with various collaborative projects, especially with the French. The UK has also joined in various joint weapons and aircraft programmes. UK Ministers often have to argue against further EU involvement or control of military matters. Meanwhile our security is guaranteed by our own forces and by our membership of NATO. It is noteworthy that we belong to Five Eyes, the enduring and successful intelligence gathering and sharing alliance with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand out side the EU.
The UK wishes to avoid the creation of an EU army and navy directly under the control of the EU where member states have no say in whether to participate or not. The NATO alliance is founded on the principle that each member state decides whether to back a NATO military intervention or not, and if so with how many personnel and with how much weaponry and supplies. The EU has a habit of moving from voluntary co-operation to legal requirements in other areas. The UK is keen to avoid a situation where British troops could be put in danger against the wishes of the UK people and Parliament.