On Tuesday I made the following speech in the House during a debate on the EU and national Parliaments. The crucial question I raised is how can our democracy flourish if the electors want changes that are illegal under EU rules? How can we claim to have a proper democracy, if on major issues like welfare, borders, migration and energy we have to accept what the EU has already decided? What we have seen in Greece owing to the damaging and inflexible rules of the Euro could soon sweep through other Euro countries. Outside the Euro the UK is better placed, but we too need to be able to override EU rules when our democratic imperative requires us to do so.

SPEECH AVAILABLE BELOW AS VIDEO OR TEXT

Watch the Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU067H7aOU0

Text of the Speech ( with a few amendments to turn a speech made without notes or text into written prose):

Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): This debate is central to what we do here in Parliament and to the promises that various parties will make to their electors as we leave this place shortly and go into a general election.

It used to be a fundamental principle of the House of Commons that no House of Commons properly elected could bind a successor House of Commons. That was a fundamental part of the British people’s liberties. They have to trust a House of Commons for up to five years to legislate and govern on their behalf. They can do so safe in the knowledge that if we—those in government—do not please, they can dismiss us at the following general election. They can elect a new group of people who can change all that they did not like about the laws and conduct of the Government whom they have just removed.

Our membership of the European Economic Community, now the Union, has increasingly damaged, undermined and overwhelmed that essential precept, which was the guarantee of our liberties as the British people. Now there are huge areas of work that are under European law and European control. Those parties that go out from this House into the general election and, for example, offer a better deal on energy, may well come back and discover that what they have offered is quite impossible under the strict and far-reaching rules on energy that now come from the European Union.

Yesterday, we did not have time to debate in the House the EU energy package. Within the proposals we were being asked to approve in the Commission’s work programme was a strategic framework for energy policy.In turn, that will spawn an enormous amount of detailed regulation and legislation, making energy a European competence almost completely. More or less anything that the main political parties say about what they wish to do on energy policy during the next five years will be possible only if it just happens that what they wish to do is legal under this massive amount of law and regulation. Much of it is in place already. More will come forward in ever-increasing volumes under the strategic framework and further legal policy.That is but one area.

A couple of other big concerns that will be much debated in the election are welfare and border and migration policy. Again, anything that parties say in our general election has to go through the European test. Will changes in benefits that parties wish to see be legal or possible under the European Union? May we not find that we are completely bound by predecessor Parliaments because they have signed up to legal requirements under European law that make it impossible for the House any longer to control our own welfare policy?

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe encouraged me with his optimism because he said that welfare remained a national UK matter, but there is plenty of evidence that it already is not in many respects. All sorts of policies have been looked at that I am told would fall foul of European law and regulation. It is quite obvious, again, looking at the European Union’s work programme, that it will intensify its activity in this area and make it even more difficult for a national Parliament to express the wish that it wants in its laws on welfare. The same is true of border controls, where we are signed up to the free movement of peoples.That is now being ever more generously interpreted as giving the EU carte blanche and substantial control over border and migration policy throughout the EU.

We find ourselves in the position of debating today yellow cards and red cards to try to assert the will of national Parliaments, but it comes nowhere near the task that we need to undertake as we seek to reshape our relationship with the EU. Even having a red card, where national Parliaments collectively can block a new proposal, does nothing to tackle the problem that we have this vast panoply of law already agreed, sometimes many years ago, which may prevent a national Parliament from reflecting the will of its people. If could prove very difficult to get all member states to agree to block a measure. An individual member state, which had an overwhelmingly strong national view on the subject, might be thwarted because it just did not happen to be something that worried the other member states.

We need to pause over this. I remember the excellent words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Bloomberg speech. The Bloomberg speech wisely said that the fount of political authority in any European member state, but certainly in the United Kingdom, rests from the national electorate through the national Parliament.That is still right. We see that in the recent conflicts and rows in a country such as Greece, which is under even more European control than we are by being part of the euro. The Prime Minister reasoned that this country needs to negotiate a new relationship with the EU that recognises that on really important things—I would have thought that welfare, borders and energy were really important things—if necessary, the national Parliament can assert and interpret the will of the British people. There should be some mechanism by which we can then do as we wish, reflecting the will of the people.

We see at the moment the tragedy of Greece, where these conflicts are much further advanced because the European Union is much more intrusive on a euro member than on the United Kingdom. We have witnessed some very worrying things. Those on both Front Benches need to listen to and study this very carefully, because their futures, as well as the future of our country, are very much at stake. The first remarkable thing is that in the most recent Greek general election the two former traditional main parties—the equivalents of Labour and Conservative—polled 33% between them. Those parties, until recently, alternated in government. They had got into that parlous state because whatever they wanted to do in the interests of Greece was blocked, modified or amended by the EU. In practice, decisions were made by the euro group, the European Central Bank and the troika they came to hate. So the Greek people said, “It doesn’t make any difference which of you two we have. The socialists can’t be socialists and the capitalists can’t be capitalists. You all end up with the same euro policy that is driving the Greek economy into the mire.” The poor Greeks have lost almost a quarter of their national output since 2007. That this can happen in an advanced western country is mind blowing. Half their young people are out of work as a result of these policies.

The two main parties had nothing to offer because they either had to go along with the euro scheme in all its details or promise to disagree, but only in the full knowledge that they would not be allowed to do anything different. The Greek people elected into government a challenger party, with no experience of government, saying that it intended to break the rules of the euro.It did not want the troika arriving and telling them how to govern their country and did not intend to accept the bank details and loan packages that had been drawn up by the previous regimes. We now see this gripping and gruelling conflict where the euro area and the EU is telling Greece, “Well, we’ve got news for you: these are the rules. We don’t mind that your electorate have just rejected it all. We don’t care that you’ve elected into government a party that completely disagrees with us. You have no power in this. You the Greek people, you the Greek Parliament and you the Greek Government have to accept these rules, because those are the club rules.”

We heard a mild version of that attitude from the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), when I asked him whether, on a mighty issue that matters a great deal to the British people, there should be a right for us in this House to reflect their view and legislate accordingly. He said no, there should be no such right, and we have to follow all the rules of the European scheme.

Throughout past years, when those rules related just to trading arrangements or industrial regulation, they could be irritating or vexatious, but they were not going to become game changers that mobilised the whole British people against the whole scheme of the European Union. However, when the European Union rules start to influence things that matter a great deal to people—their welfare system, their benefits system, their borders or their migration—that might start to create a much bigger reaction. When European rules and requirements have a devastating impact on an economy and employment prospects—fortunately not in this country, because we have kept out of that bit—that completely transforms the politics of that country.We see the politics of impotence, the politics of protest and the politics of frustration.

I do not want our country to go down that route. That is why I say that we need to negotiate now, before we get to that stage, an arrangement—not just a yellow card or a red card in conjunction with other member states—for us, the United Kingdom. We must be able to say that we are still a vibrant democracy. We need to be able to say that if something matters a great deal to the British people and if it has been approved in a general election, this House can take action even if it means disagreeing with the rules of the European Union. By all means, we can try to negotiate an arrangement case by case, but where we cannot do that, we need an override. We need the right to say, “This thing matters too much to our democracy.” If we do not have that very simple change, we no longer have in this country a successful and vibrant democracy that can guarantee stability and guarantee to deliver what the British people want.

Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab): I agree with basic thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but is not most of what he is suggesting impossible? Most of the rules governing the European Union are bound up in treaties that require 28 countries to decide to change them, and that is simply not going to happen. Much as I agree with his aspirations, I am afraid that they will not come about, will they?

Mr Redwood: The hon. Gentleman may be right, so I hope that the British people have a referendum in which they may decide that they cannot live under such a regime without change. I would certainly vote to leave if flexibility cannot be built into the system along the lines that I have mentioned. He is a distinguished politician both locally and nationally, and surely he recognises that when we need fundamental change, we have to make the case for it and be optimistic.

I am not completely pessimistic because I do not believe that only Britain needs such a change. If this were just Britain being difficult—the island nation, characterised by its critics as being on the edge of the European Union, whose traditions are “old-fashioned” and whose idea that Parliament really matters is now old hat because we have moved into a new world—I do not think we would win. Fortunately this is not the position. Our democratic traditions are vital and essential today as yesterday. This is also live, desperate politics for very large parts of the euro area.

The issue is live politics for what remains of the governing parties of the euro area because the path trodden by the two leading parties in Greece, whose jobs have been taken by Syriza, could be trodden by the two leading Spanish parties given the rise of Podemos and by the Italian parties given the rise of the Five Star movement and all the other pressure movements in Italy. Those countries are not immune to an insurgency challenge like the one in Greece. That sort of thing can start to concentrate the minds of other member states of the European Union and their Governments. One thing I have learned about Governments over the years is that they quite like staying in power. When they feel that there will be a very strong electoral challenge to them, they may begin by condemning it—saying it is irrational, unpleasant and all those kinds of thing—but if they think it is going to win, they have to do a deal with it, understand why people feel as they do and make some movement.

My strong advice to the whole European Union is that it needs to do a deal with the people who disagree with it, because the scheme is not working for all those people in the euro area. It needs to change policy, and it should do so before politics changes it. I do not want our country, which matters most to me, to get anywhere near such a point. I am pleased to have been part of the forces in this country that kept us out of the euro, which meant that we missed the worst—this country has a reasonable economic recovery that is completely unrelated to the continent, with its long recession and deep troubles in the southern territories—but as I see my country sucked into common policies on energy, borders, foreign affairs and welfare, I think that we might be sucked in too far and have exactly the same problems on those issues that the euro area is already experiencing on the central matter of economics.

I urge Ministers to take this seriously and to re-read the words of the Bloomberg speech. I urge the Opposition to join us, because they aspire to govern this country. One day they may come up with really popular policies and be elected on that basis, and what a tragedy it would be if they discovered that they could not enact those policies because they were illegal under European law. That could happen just as much to the Labour party as to the Conservative party.

These are not some private arguments among Conservatives in some secret club of Eurosceptics held in the privacy of the House of Commons; these are mighty arguments about the future of our continent and our country and about the nature of democracy itself. Accountability still rests with a national Parliament, not with the European institutions. If there is to be trust between politicians and the people, the national Parliament must be able to deliver when the people speak. We are in danger of that no longer being true, which is why a yellow card and a red card are not sufficient. It is also why we need to answer the question: how do the British people vote for what they want and how do an elected Government in Britain deliver it if it disagrees with European rules?

When Labour says Conservatives wish to take spending back to 1930s levels they mean as a percentage of GDP, not in real terms let alone cash terms. However, it comes across as if they think Conservatives want to cut real spending back to 1930s levels. So what are the true figures?

In 1932 the UK public sector cost £1.397 billion. If you translate that into today’s prices, allowing for all the inflation since then, it would mean public spending of just £82.9 bn. Instead public spending this year is £731 billion, or 780% higher than 1932. That’s why we can afford the NHS and much else besides which we did not have in 1932.

Put another way, today’s £731 bn would have cost £12.3bn in 1932, nine times what was actually spent! Incidentally, for much of the 1930s public spending was lower than 35% of GDP, as well as GDP being so much lower in real terms.

 

One of the two biggest lies which sustains the EU fan club is the statement that the EU prevents wars. I have often explained how wars between western European countries have ceased since 1945, and why this has nothing to do with the EU. The latest outburst that we need an EU army to fight wars for us should help me dismiss this misleading claim about the EU.

The call for a European army does at least show honesty. It recognises that EU policy to date has not been successful in establishing friendly and stable relations with Russia on our borders. EU apologists will claim the latest rows are all Russia’s fault. As I have often made clear, I have no time for Russian aggression or military intervention outside her borders either.Nor do I think the EU has been wise or helpful in managing the Russian relationship. The inclusion of a defence clause in the proposed Association Agreement with Ukraine was bound to provoke Russia for no obviously good purpose.

The call for a European army may be honest, but it is unrealistic and undesirable. These debt soaked countries seeking budget cuts to conform with the discipline of the Euro are in no position to suddenly finance and arm new forces in European uniforms. Most of them fail to spend 2% of GDP on defence to meet their present NATO commitments. They would have  no capacity and little desire to spend more to arm Europe.

It is true they could transfer their current forces to a European force. This too would be unwise. Many people sign up for the armed forces in their country because they are loyal to their homeland, and accept the political control and guidance of their elected government. Fewer would feel allegiance to Europe, and many would ask who is the sovereign, who is the government which would decide when and where these European personnel have to risk their lives and fight their wars?

I am glad a Conservative PM, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have made clear the UK does not wish to participate in a European army. We have the British army. It is part of NATO’s forces should need arise. The NATO system requires the member state government to be the authority over that state’s forces. It does  not have EU like powers to counter command or overrule the member state.

Yesterday Parliament held a debate on the new Commission work programme for the next year. It is the EU equivalent of the Queen’s speech. It contained 23 major proposals, including two new taxes, a federal energy policy, a Euro 315 bn investment programme and work on migration and borders.

My Conservative colleague Sir William Cash moved an amendment to highlight the importance of migration and the impact of the free movement policy. The debate as a result had to cover both freedom of movement and the work programme, which overlapped anyway.

I spoke against the Energy Union proposal. I raised the question of how much of the Euro 315bn investment programme is to be money from  taxes in member states. The Minister told me that would be Euro 24bn, with the rest coming from borrowings and other levered money from the private sector. Sir William and I pointed out that under current EU law benefit reforms which we need to deal with recently arrived migrants may be illegal. I suggested putting our benefit system more onto a contributory basis, so recently arrived people will not automatically qualify without infringing EU law. Anyone educated at school here would also qualify for benefits.  Sir William proposed using an amendment to the European Communities Act allowing us to legislate as we wish, which would  be a good way of doing it.

Neither Mr Carswell nor Mr Reckless came to the debate, until at the very end Mr Reckless arrived. He did not speak. It was strange that both UKIP MPs missed a crucial debate on the activity of the EU for next year, and had nothing to say on migration, benefits  and borders. As it happens, the amendment was passed without a vote, but that was not clear until well into the debate. We need more Eurosceptic voices in the Commons. Once again it was just Conservatives. The Labour front bench supported everything the EU Commission proposed, and made no criticism of the Coalition government’s handling of the EU issue.

 

From 1997 to 2010 the UK built very little extra road space. The Labour government welcomed in many more people to the country. More people bought and used cars, vans and lorries. Congestion got worse, time and money was wasted in traffic jams, and the environment suffered from more needless pollution as a result.

The Coalition wanted to improve the road system. For the first couple of years a shortage of money and the absence of inherited plans that could be built delayed matters. More recently the government is embarked on numerous improvements, led by the introduction of so called smart motorways where emergency lanes become additional traffic lanes to provide more capacity.

Roads are supplied free at the point of use and paid for out of general taxation and public borrowing. This has its advantages. It allows people of all incomes to enjoy access to the roads without worrying about cost. It obviates the need for specific revenue collection. It also means there is no price rationing, making it difficult to assess how much roadspace we need. It means we have rationing by queues and inconvenience rather than by price.

The missing decade and a half of road building made a not very good position in 1997 far worse. There is still no south coast dual carriageway all the way from the channel ports to Southampton, although this is a very busy area. There is still no continuous dual carriageway from  the busy south east to Exeter along the A303. There is inadequate road capacity to the east coast ports, no full motorway to the Scottish border in the east, limited cross Pennine capacity. The plans I left in Wales for a main route across the top of the valleys from the A40 in the west to Swansea has not been completed (A465) .

Big roads lead to better economic development. Most industrial and commercial parks these days are located near to motorways and trunk roads, rather than next to railway lines. The next government needs to make a better national road network a priority. It also needs to do more to assist the motorist, van and lorry driver. Instead of treating all drivers as potential criminals and concentrating on taxing and fining them, government needs to see the provision of road space is a necessary public service where the users pay large fees for the privilege of using their cars and roads. Of course road safety and responsible driving matters. So should it matter that road blockages by the authorities are kept to the minimum, that they do not block roads close to each at the same time other making lives impossible, and they should be constantly improving junctions with a view to easing congestion. They need fewer traffic lights and more roundabouts.

 

I find it extraordinary that some people are proposing a grand coalition between the Labour and Conservative parties after the next General Election. As someone who has helped construct the Conservative Manifesto, there is no way I could reach agreement with Labour on a common government after May 7th. Conservatives want a renegotiation with the EU and an In/Out referendum. Labour opposes that implacably. Conservatives want English votes for English issues. Labour opposes that and refuses to recognise the case for England. Conservatives want tax cuts, Labour wants to impose extra taxes. Conservatives wish to remove the deficit next Parliament. Labour thinks that is going too far.

Those who argue for a grand coalition are being premature and pessimistic about their party’s chances of winning. Why not fight out the election first, with the intention of winning outright? More importantly, they are recommending something that would do great future damage. Far from saving the union and providing wise government, a grand coalition would undermine the principles and credibility of both parties and make it far more difficult for either to win outright the following election. Whilst in a close race it makes sense to help define each party by asking with whom among the minor parties they could do business, it makes no sense for the two main parties summing up the main differences in the election to stifle that choice by saying they could combine.

On the continent, where grand coalitions or collaborative actions between centre right and centre left have been used to keep the Euro and its policies alive, they have usually resulted in grave further electoral damage to the parties concerned. In Greece the centre right and centre left invented the idea of giving 50 extra seats to the party with most votes as a way as they saw it of keeping in business the alternation of the centre right and centre left in government. Instead  they gifted the latest election to Syriza. In Spain and in Italy the two main traditional parties are struggling to command just 50% of the vote between them, because electors know that whatever they promise the cruel logic of the Euro will dictate many of their policies once in office.

Going into grand coalitions compromises principles, results in torn up election promises, and above all stifles electoral choice. If both main parties in a country work together they do indeed both become the same with respect to government policy. That impedes true democracy, or stimulates new parties to arrive and overturn them. The differences between Labour and Conservatives in today’s UK are large and important. They do not allow forming a common government in 9 weeks time.

In February 2013 the Prime Minister in agreement with Germany negotiated the first 7 yearly financial framework for the EU to cut their budgets. The limit of Euro 908 bn for the 7 years was Euro 35 billion lower than the limit for 2007-13,and Euro 80 billion lower than the Commission wanted. So far so good.

Unfortunately after this deal the EU announced changes to the figures it used to assess UK liability to contribute based on VAT and national income which were heavily adverse for the UK. A country which grows more quickly than the rest of the EU is penalised by having to make larger payments.

The UK has to pay 10.97% of the EU budget cost. (2014 after rebate) The UK’s contribution after rebate has been as follows:

2010 £12.15bn
2011 £12.21bn
2012 £12.64bn
2013 £14.46bn
2014 £14.36bn

The UK has received back around £4bn a year in payments. I do not net these off because UK taxpayers have to pay for the gross contribution, and not all the payments are on items we would chose to spend if we had domestic control of these budgets. There is certainly no need to feel grateful for these spending programmes. The UK is one of just 10 net contributors to the budget, and the second largest after Germany. The UK also sends the EU overseas aid money to spend on its behalf.

This week there was a rare event. The European authorities said the UK had the better of the legal argument with the ECB over whether institutions in the UK can trade in Euros. The ECB was threatening a new protectionism to place more business within the Eurozone.

It looks as if the European authorities have at last decided that a very provocative move against UK business and trade would be a bad idea when an important part of UK opinion already thinks the UK deal in the EU is a bad one. To lose a chunk of the City now would weaken further the pro EU forces in the UK. The last thing the EU wants is to lose the UK’s generous payments into the EU, let alone our big and profitable export market for them.

The unusual good legal result may lead more to conclude that the UK will only be taken seriously and given the occasional support it needs if it continues to complain. The danger in a union is parts of the Union feel they have to threaten or be difficult to get attention and better treatment. The very disobliging things that they have to say or do both damages the union, as it reduces trust and common feeling, and may get results.

We see this pattern in our own Union. Scottish Nationalists decide they will continuously complain and demand more,as making demands in the past has got them some of what they want. In a more extreme form Greece has shown us within the EU and Euro area taking an aggressive stance can bring dividends for the complainer.

Here we have the paradox of unions. If a party to the Union is unhappy, they will demand change and express unhappiness. In doing so they drive a wedge into the Union. The Union will normally accommodate part of their grievance but by no means all. It just sets itself up for another grievance and more disputes

Something remarkable happened yesterday in the Commons. All the Ulster parties present joined with Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to advocate lower taxes for Northern Ireland. They told us that a lower tax rate in the province would lead to new investment, more company formation, more private sector jobs and greater prosperity. The Commons duly approved unanimously a measure which will allow Northern Ireland to cut its Corporation Tax rate from 21%, the present UK rate, to 12.5%.

It was remarkable because many of the people who now think a lower tax on business profits is a good thing are usually dreaming up ever more higher and new taxes to hit anyone who does well or makes a profit. Normally we are told that higher and wider taxes are crucial to good public services, without a thought for any damage they might do to jobs, incomes, and investments. I asked them to reflect on what they had been saying and to draw some conclusions on other taxes, and on business taxes elsewhere in the UK.

Taking Corporation tax down below 20% will lead to a loss of revenue – I agree with the Treasury about that. This is not a straightforward tax cut of the kind I often advocate which will increase the revenues.

The new Parliament will need to do a lot of thinking about the new tax settlement which is emerging. Scotland will have its own Income Tax and Stamp Duty land tax. Northern Ireland will have its own Corporation Tax. Wales will have its own business rates. The new Parliament has as a result to settle two difficult matters. The first is the familiar one of who speaks for England? The second is how much grant will devolved governments receive, bearing in mind they will be responsible for raising more of their own revenue. The formula will matter and will not be easy to settle.

On Monday Parliament held a debate on devolution in England. Many MPs just wanted to talk about devolving more powers to Councils. I made the point that before you can fairly devolve power within England you first should devolve power to England. The Departments of Health, Local Government and Transport are largely or wholly English departments. Parliament should reflect that in its voting and debates. Our English Ministers in these departments should recommend to Parliament what parts of their powers would best be devolved to Councils.

Giving more powers of decision to Councils may or may not be a good thing. It depends on what the power does, and it depends on the quality of leadership and management of the Council you are giving it to. Some people both dislike centralisation, and they dislike a “postcode lottery”. In each case you have to chose. If you like more decentralisation, you must like postcode lotteries. The whole point of more devolution is to get different answers and different spending priorities in different places. If they all wish to end up doing the same it would be cheaper and easier to have centralised control and management.

I gave a couple of examples from transport policy in my area where I would accept different answers on devolution of power. Wokingham Borough has devolved responsibility for the A329M. We would like to continue it over the river into Oxfordshire to make it an even more useful road. Oxfordshire refuses. Were it a national rather than a local road the central government could make a decision without having problems over powers.

Wokingham does not have powers over the budget of Network Rail. Network Rail is owned by taxpayers and spends large sums of tax revenue. It controls important pieces of land, and its rail tracks create substantial road congestion owing to the difficulty of crossing the railway. It would be good to delegate some of Network Rail’s budget to Wokingham to allow us to spend some of this money on improving the railway, the access to it and the crossings over it to help our general transport system. Network Rail has been persistently unhelpful in my experience.

No amount of transferring budgets and powers to Councils within England can make up for the lack of any devolution to England. When Scotland choses her own Income Tax rate, so should England. That is not a job for Councils, but for English MPs at Westminster.