We read this week-end that the government is responding to the vote on Monday. We hear the Foreign Office is masterminding an exercise to ask all government departments what powers they would like to regain, with a view to drawing up a possible negotiating brief.

                 Reading between the lines , there is still an issue over the timing of any such renegotiation. Those of us who say we need a bigger price for granting more power to Euroland to bail out each other, have not yet heard that the government intends to dig in over this “technical change which does not affect us” with a view to getting a better deal for the UK. They seem to have in mind delaying  further negotiations until  other possible Treaty changes are discussed.  Euroland may need more changes to strengthen economic government on the back of the “save the world” package we have just been  treated to in outline.

           There also remains a disagreement between those of us who say real powers are being given away continuously through Directives and Regulations, whilst the Foreign Secretary only counts powers given away in a new Treaty.The Prime  Minister does now recognise the powers being surrendered over the City without a new Treaty as a serious threat. This is a welcome development. His worry could lead to a more vigorous approach to new law and regulation by the government.

            I would like to hear from you over your priorities for repatriation. I appreciate many of you just want to pull out of the whole EU in one go. This option is not favoured by most MPs, and there is nowhere near a majority either for pulling out or even for an IN/Out referendum. That is why we do need to respond positively to the newfound enthusiaism for powers back. This policy is clearly endorsed by a very large majority of the UK electorate.

              The powers could include:

1. Resumption of UK control of borders and entry policy, including people coming from the rest of the EU. (The UK used to have an opt out from the common migration policy under the Conservatives)

2. Return of powers to make our own employment and social laws. (The UK did have an opt out from the Social Chapter under the Conservatives)

3. Return of fishing policy. (The Comon Fishery Policy only applies to Northern Europe, not the Med. It has been unpopular with all political parties in the UK for many years)

4. Return of Agricultural Policy

5. End of any more opt ins to Criminal Justice Policy, and ending the Common European Arrest Warrant in the UK

6. Smaller EU budget and larger UK rebate (Labour gave away part of the rebate successfully negotiated by Mrs Thatcher)

7. Environmental policies – return of powers to settle our own approach to energy

8. Financial regulation

                For the UKIP supporters who will write in to condemn what we are trying to achieve, I have two simple questions. What power have the UKIP MEPs got back for us? And what progress have the UKIP MEPs made to getting the UK out of the EU in line with their stated policy?

 

Some of the advocates of a hung Parliament see it as a way of avoiding hard choices. Some indeed are starry eyed about a new kind of politicis that would result, with all the parties and politicians “having to get on with each other” and with the parties choosing the best policies from each for a coalition governent. Dream on.

In practise a hung Parliament could bring out the worst in many politicians. There would be a scramble for jobs, horse trading on policies to try to find a way of securing the most jobs for a given party, and an ultimate package that failed to tackle the deficit crisis because the easy way out for many politicians would appear to be spending more money they do not have.

We know Mr Brown wants to cling on to power. We learn today that Mr Clegg wants half the Cabinet posts in any hung Parliament for Lib Dems, so the bargaining has already begun in an unseemly way before the electorate have spoken. Of course it would be nice to have the Lib Dem tax cut without the large and partly unspecified Lib Dem tax rises, to have some extra front line spending on better schools or healthcare without cuts to pay for it, but that is simply unrealistic.

If we do not elect a government that is serious about controlling the deficit, the deficit will come to control us. The Greeks today are protesting and complaining about the IMF, saying the IMF wants them to cut too much. They should have thought of that before needing an IMF loan. They have lost control of their country and its policies because they overspent. There is a danger the UK could do the same thing, a danger intensified if we do elect a hung Parliament with too many new MPs who think they can borrow and spend other people’s money with a view to promoting themselves into the Ministerial limo.

It is a bit rich that the Greeks blame the money lenders who are coming to their aid at a price – they should be grateful that the IMF and the EU are prepared to lend them more at a lower interest rate than the markets demand. If they were wise they would get on with sorting out their finances, so they do not need the begging bowl.

Promoted by Christine Hill on behalf of John Redwood, both of 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU