John Redwood's Diary – For freedom and prosperity

Anyone submitting a comment to this site is giving their permission for it to be published here along with the name and identifiers they have submitted.

The moderator reserves the sole right to decide whether to publish or not.

The losses at British Steel

October 14, 2026 24 Comments

My Lords, I find these instruments very worrying, because they seem to be part of a pattern that the nationalised British Steel will not be properly accountable and will not provide decent information for the taxpayers’ representatives now funding the operation. We all wish every success in saving jobs and maintaining the basic steel-making capacity in this country, but I fear that this vehicle is not going about it in the right way.

We are not learning about what we are actually buying for the huge sums of money that are currently being put into it, with no proper budget line and no proper business plan to explain the expenditure. We learn in the scrutiny committee’s report that, in the first year or so, it was £555 million, so it is eating into the budget line for investment support in new steel-making activities. I think this is how it is being funded by the Treasury—when presumably all or most of that has nothing to do with capital spending but has everything to do with operating losses. Much of it is based around the non-competitiveness of UK energy prices and the phenomenal cost of burning fossil fuels in blast furnaces with carbon taxes and the other net-zero impedimenta. These are gradually deindustrialising very large areas of British activity, and would have deindustrialised us completely from basic steel-making if the Government had not stepped in, in this rather clumsy way, to route very large subsidies into a business that cannot conceivably compete at its current cost levels.

It would be timely if the Minister could update this Committee, and therefore the wider Parliament, on where we are getting to on the losses to date, as the last figures relate to the summer and the monthly losses were obviously very considerable since then. Is there any sign of the monthly losses coming down at all, or are we to assume that it will be £500 million or so a year every year?

It would be very good if the Minister could tell us what the plans are for these two blast furnaces. They are extremely old. I do not know whether they are both steel-producing or what maintenance schedule they have to be on, but, at some point, they will obviously need fundamental maintenance. Will that be put into the budget plans? Alternatively, will the nationalised industry carry on with the plans that the previous Government—and, I think, this Government at the beginning—were trying to negotiate with the Chinese owners. It was a case of switching over from blast furnace-basic steel-making to an electric arc furnace arrangement for recycled steel. That would clearly come with the loss of a lot of jobs, because they are far less job intensive, and would mean the termination of our country’s ability to make primary steel in the traditional way. Sometimes, you need primary steel to provide the additives and special steels that are more difficult to produce from recycled steel. Therefore, Parliament deserves to know more about the long-term plans.

Capital expenditure for an electric arc furnace would be very considerable and would need to have its own budget line, but it would be a more legitimate drawdown of the monies in the current overall budget for steel modernisation, out of which this seems to be funded. The Government wish to drop the idea of quarterly reporting of the financial figures. If a business in the private sector were losing this much money, quarterly reporting would be a bare minimum—you would want it to be monthly. The executives would want weekly reporting because this is a terrifying rate of loss, which implies that it is unsustainable. I would have thought the unions and workforce would be very interested as well, because I cannot see how the current operation represents a way of saving these jobs. At some point, there will be a crisis because of the lack of competitiveness and the very high level of cash burn, which would force the Government into a change of mind.

I am concerned at the wide-ranging and sweeping legal powers that the second statutory instrument wishes to take. There would be many companies trading in the private sector that would love to have friends at court who could suddenly suspend or remove all kinds of legal obligations upon them. Rightly, the Government will probably not do that, so why do they think it is reasonable to suspend important legal obligations on a company because it happens to be nationalised? The idea that you should not consult over TUPE when transferring people’s jobs seems particularly strange, because I would have thought that many employees in the union there would have welcomed the nationalisation. Why do they have to be told that they no longer have the normal rights to consultation on what could be quite important changes to the contracts they are operating under?

More worrying still is the idea that no senior official—doing this as a day job and liaising carefully with the board and the company—and no Minister designing the steel policy should be deemed to be a shadow director. Surely, they would be able to influence, to control or to order the company, because he or she who controls the money controls the business. This business really only has one important customer, which is the British Government, who are supplying these monumental sums of cash to keep the jobs going and to keep the blast furnaces operating, if possible.

Of course, Ministers and senior officials are, in practice, making crucial decisions that will dominate board discussions. If they are determined to suspend company law in relation to those activities, because they are Ministers and senior officials, there should be even more of an obligation on them to come regularly to the Commons and Lords to report on the progress they have been making. We need to apply the kind of scrutiny to them that would otherwise have been applied by company law and in normal board discussions by directors who genuinely have the power to determine the future of their company. The directors who the Government appoint will not determine the future of this company; the big decisions will be taken by the Government. Its very future is entirely dependent on the Government continuing to put very large sums of money into it.

We should also ask why the Freedom of Information Act will not apply. Again, it leads to suspicion that the Government think the results, performance and plans of this company will be so bad that they should not be revealed to the taxpaying public who pay for them. I would be a little more reassured if, in return for taking this big power—removing freedom of information inquiries from this expenditure of money in this very important company—we were told that there would be more regular and frank reporting through Parliament and directly to the public by normal company information. We could then be reassured that the Government are not trying to avoid all kinds of accountability.

It would be good to know from the Minister when the finances of this group will be regularised with a normal budget line, which we can see in the Red Book and Budget Statements. I do not think that they can go on for much longer saying this is just part of a general steel package designed for something else. We need an honest line in the Budgets so that we can see that it is being properly financed and is part of the Budget settlement.

It would also be good to hear something about the cost of energy, because this is a major reason why the losses are so huge. Will they be benefiting from the recycling of government money? The Government take money off businesses through carbon taxes and then give some of it back through the so-called supercharger that we have heard about this afternoon in the Chamber. This is a very unsatisfactory way of doing it. It increases the administrative costs. Instead of just taking the tax off, you have to ask to get some of the tax back. Can we know something about how much of the tax they will get back so that can help us form a judgment as to how competitive this might become?

Above all, we need to know from the Minister when there will be a proper government plan—or a proper company plan approved and directed by the Government—that meets the requirements of this legislation. It says that they are charged with the duty of making a competitive and sustainable industry. Those two words are very interesting. Does “sustainable” mean that they definitely have to close the blast furnaces on the grounds that they do not meet net-zero standards? “Competitive” implies moving into breaking even, if not into profit. We are so far away from that that it would be extremely good to have a deadline or timetable for the first plan, and the knowledge that the Commons and Lords will have an opportunity to debate that plan. Given that very large sums of money are being discussed, that a very important number of jobs are at risk—if the finances are not gripped, those jobs will eventually go— it is surely good order for a Government to be open and transparent in their dealings about such an important national industry.

My Express article on the EU and Mr Burnham

October 13, 2026 59 Comments

Mr Burnham does so want to live in the past. If he is not campaigning against Margaret Thatcher for daring to win elections in the 1980s and transforming the economy, he is campaigning to re open the conclusive Brexit vote of 2016.This is bad politics, bad for democracy and bad for our current economic prospects.

He wants us to know Russians might have tried to influence the Brexit vote. He could instead turn his study to what impact did the very public interventions of President Obama, the IMF and the OECD have with their gloomy forecasts and warnings? Better still he could accept the result and get on with his job of using the Brexit freedoms to promote UK prosperity.

He is floating three ways of going back on Brexit. There is the slow stealthy way of the Re Set. There is the crazy Lib Dem way of joining the Customs Union. There is the full throated way of seeking to rejoin. All three would make the UK worse off and undermine the democratic result of the UK’s largest ever popular vote.

The Re Set means giving away to the EU more of our money, more of our fish, more of our powers to choose our own laws for nothing back in return that is worth having. If being in the single market under so many EU laws worked we would have had faster growth when we were fully in the EU. It would be salami slicing, as the EU sent us a large and growing bill whilst changing rules so they could export more to us and we could make less for ourselves. Their package will put up energy costs even more and speed de industrialisation in the UK.

The Customs Union would be worse than useless. It means putting back tariffs on a large number of things we cannot make or grow ourselves which we import from non EU countries. It means levying a tax on components and raw materials our industry needs from non EU sources. It means losing or watering down all our trade deals with non EU countries which we have been able to agree now out of the EU. The Customs Union makes people poorer. It is protectionism, seeking to protect continental businesses from American or Asian competition. Why tax our consumers more when we are in a cost of living crisis? We already have tariff free trade with the EU itself. These people think tariff free in Europe is best so why impose tariffs on most of the world outside the EU?

Rejoining the EU would be impossible or would come at an unacceptable price. Why would the EU want us back in when the main Opposition parties would pledge to leave again? They would not offer us the same terms as we had. Doubtless the costs of membership would be much higher as their budget and borrowings are now so much larger. There would be no special UK rebate. We would probably have to pledge to join the Euro at some later date. An avalanche of new EU laws passed since we left would be visited upon us. The bulk of UK companies just serving the UK market would face all the needless extra costs of complying with EU laws which our exporters already do anyway.

All three routes to more EU would damage the interests of the UK and undermine its democracy.

Governments should govern first and play politics seco

October 12, 2026 75 Comments

Our voting system delivered a large majority to Labour. It is true the Labour vote fell, turnover was poor and their vote share was very low. The electorate expressed their anger about the wrong policies and missed opportunities of the Conservatives, with many former Conservative voters staying home and some voting Reform.There was no switch to Labour or Lib Dem . People thought they could live with Labour’s bland Manifesto and wanted to believe in their two big promises, to smash the gangs and not put main taxes up.

You would have thought given the big majority and the weak voting base Labour would use the majority to show competence , get faster growth and stop illegal migration. They should have recognised the public wants a government that is competent and between elections concentrates on governing. Instead Starmer/Reeves used their majority to put through two hated big tax rising budgets, drove up unemployment, deterred investment and help fuel inflation. An often absent PM spent his time flying round the world giving away our islands, our fish, our money. Labour imploded, dumped the election winner and brought in a new leader to shift them further left, further away from their fairly cautious Manifesto.

The modest Burnham bounce is in danger of persuading them they did need a more political Prime Minister. Instead it is more likely the clever messaging will create an ever greater gap with reality, angering people more. Voters want a government with a majority to do some serious governing, not to play more politics. Why can’t they smash the gangs? Why can’t they get unemployment down? Why can’t they slow the giddy growth in people on benefits? Why cant Mr Burnham and Mr Healey agree a budget for defence? Why do they now say there will still be long NHS waiting lists in 2029?

Failure to take action to resolve some of these problems will mean dismissal for Ministers when they do hold an election.

People do not want to rejoin the EU

October 11, 2026 40 Comments

I have permission to reproduce charts compiled by Facts4eu, so will now publish relevant ones to add to what I write. I collaborate with them over some of their excellent research.

1. Would you support rejoining on today’s terms, without all our opt-outs?

Do not sell out again to the EU

October 11, 2026 44 Comments

The EU has dreamed up Made in Europe as a new protection scheme to make it more difficult for exporters to the Union. This should not apply to the UK, as the UK paid a heavy price in concessions to get a Free Trade deal when we left the EU. The UK should tell the EU the new restrictions will not apply to the UK, and we will require enforcement of the current terms and deal.

If the EU persists with its new protections then we have rights under our membership of the World Trade Organisation to retaliate. We should take proportionate similar action in response to that being taken by the EU. Meanwhile we should anyway set about reducing our excessive imports from the EU through a full throated buy British.

The government has rightly promised the Unions to do this, but so far fails to deliver. It should

Create a new farm subsidy scheme to replace ELMs that concentrates on assisting more food produciton
Cancel the excessive fish quotas for foreign fleets and help rebuild our own fishing fleet.
Promote onshore fish processing based on more fish landings in home ports
Remove high carbon taxes and the EU derived emissions trading scheme, to start to price energy intensive business back into the market
Develop its wish to have more made in the UK under MOD contracts
Plant more trees and encourage more private planting for sustainable forestry, to reduce the excessive timber imports
Exploit our own oil and gas to replace more imports
Increase usable electricity capacity to return to being self sufficient. We import far too much dear electricity when the wind drops and the sun does not shine, so we need more despatchable UK power
Require government subsidised wind and solar farms to back and order from new UK factories to produce the needed equipment
Negotiate with chemical and petrochemical majors over how to retain and restore lost capacity.

My IEA article on EU

October 10, 2026 62 Comments

I did not expect to have to spend time rehearsing all the arguments we made to leave the EU so soon after we left in 2020. When we joined the EEC those of us who lost that referendum did not call for a new vote six years later. Treaty after Treaty went by taking ever more powers to Brussels fundamentally changing what the public had voted for. We waited until Maastricht and its radical changes. A “Common market” was evolving into a political and economic Union. We finally got a vote 41 years after the first.

Too little has changed since we left. Successive UK governments have been slow to make the good changes an independent country can make. We still live under reams of EU laws and taxes which slow our economy down as they did when we were in the EU. We do however enjoy some good wins from no longer paying huge sums to the EU. Much more than the £350 m of savings a week on the side of the Brexit bus has been allocated in extra spending to the NHS. The UK has ducked having to pay a share of the £750 bn the EU is now borrowing in its own name. As we have plenty of debt of our own that is a blessing.

There are some ironies in the Brexit freedoms the Labour government have been able to use despite their hostility to the UK going it alone. The damaging VAT on school fees policy beloved of the left and the more sensible cut in VAT on electricity were only possible thanks to Brexit. The government has enjoyed taking credit for trade deals with countries like India and with the Pacific countries TPP which were well advanced when they took over. They were only possible because we have regained control of our trade policy from the EU.

Remain politicians have wrongly claimed UK GDP took a 4% or an 8% hit from leaving , based on a misinterpretation of forecasts that said no such thing. One said over fifteen years we might have 0.25% less growth per year, making 4% less growth in total by 2035, whilst the UK economy would still carry on growing. The other said if we grew like the USA and a few other faster growing countries we would be 8% better off. That of course would never have happened if we stayed in slow growth EU usually managing only half the US growth rate. Neither forecast said GDP would fall after the vote. The Remain campaign wrongly claimed we would see falling GDP, falling house prices, rising unemployment if we voted Out. The opposite happened in 2016.

UK GDP tracked EU GDP fairly closely from 2016 and from leaving in 2020. Like EU economies there was a sharp fall in GDP in 2020 with covid lockdown, and a big recovery in the following two years. The UK did not suffer an additional Brexit fall. The UK has been growing faster than Germany and a little faster than France since 2016. Our trade, especially with the rest of the world and in services, has grown well. The majority of our trade is services, and a majority is with non EU.

Some say we would grow faster if we rejoined the Customs Union. The opposite would be true. We took tariffs off non EU imports of food and goods we cannot produce for ourselves. We took tariffs off raw materials and components industry needs to import to add value and make things here. The Customs Union would increase the squeeze on consumers, put prices up, raise industry’s costs and make us less competitive. We would need to give up our Free Trade Agreements with non EU countries, slowing trade growth with the rest of the world which is now the majority of our trade.

The government says we need to re set our EU relationship. This is code for rejoining by stealth. They will agree to progressively adopt more EU laws and taxes, sector by sector, until we are more fully back under EU control. The idea is to start with food where UK exports are small and where the EU is keen to dominate our market, keeping out non EU cheaper food through regulations and tariffs. The government is scrambling to avoid the imposition of regulations which would inhibit or ban the great work in the UK on genetic modification of crops to deal with pests and low rainfall.

The UK has established higher levels of animal welfare in farm trade, banning the export of live animals and establishing better standards for animal husbandry. These too could be at risk with a poor Re set.

The Re set will require agreement on a Youth mobility scheme. This is an EU attempt to reintroduce much of the freedom of movement of people that applies to EU member states. The problem for the UK is it is likely to be one sided. There are many more under 30s on the continent than in the UK. There is a bigger proportion wanting to come to the UK to take advantage of our high standards of university education and jobs available, and wanting to improve their English. There is a smaller percentage of UK young people with enough foreign language skill to go to a continental university or get a foreign job.

As the UK struggles with its own young people problem with far too many out of work and not studying, the last thing our jobs market needs is more young people seeking work. Our universities are apprehensive that the student deal may entail including a big discount on the fees European students in the Uk currently pay as the EU presses to get the much more favourable UK home student terms. How will they make up the lost income?

The UK has already sold out on the EU Erasmus student scheme, agreeing in principle to pay a ridiculously expensive £800 m a year to a fund which will help a lot more EU than UK students. It means ending the successful and cheaper Turing scheme which only pays out to UK students and allows them to go to universities all round the world, not just in the EU like Erasmus. UK students are keener to go to high quality universities in the USA and other English speaking centres.

As the UK is brought into more EU laws and regulations under the Re Set proposals the UK will have to pay an administrative charge to cover EU costs, whilst also incurring its own substantial costs on government and business from the laws themselves. Worse still the EU is threatening to insist on a solidarity charge where UK taxpayers have to contribute to public spending in the lower income member states! The costs of Re Set will be billions a year. The UK government has no extra money spare, so which taxes will it put up to pay these extra and needless EU bills?

The UK government sacrificed a large quantity of our fish stocks to EU fishing licences for 12 years, giving away around £6bn of value just to get into talks. It showed the EU that if it just hangs tough the UK wilk give plenty more away. The UK never negotiates as the customer, yet with such a large balance of trade deficit with the EU we are more customer than exporter. Why don’t we demand payments for access to our lucrative market? Why don’t we set standards for the conduct of this trade? Why don’t we show that our lower tariffs and fewer rules delivers better results? That after all is what the Draghi Report is telling the EU from one of its own most famous insiders.

Worse comes in the energy sector. The EU wants the UK to join its carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, which entails even higher costs than our own domestic version. The last thing we need is dearer energy to close down more of our factories. The EU is successfully making the UK dependent on importing energy from the continent as net zero policies close down the older fossil fuel stations that always gave the UK electricity independence. The coming carbon border tax will be another rise in the costs of industry’s imports of raw materials and other supplies, adding to the lack of competitiveness.

Mr Burnham’s idea that maybe we should go back into the EU is completely absurd. Why would the EU allow it when the main opposition parties would be opposed and threatening to pull out as soon as they won an election? The EU would be bound to say no more rebate on contributions, greatly hiking the cost of membership compared to last time. They would want us inside their Euro scheme preparing to abolish the pound. They see us as Treasure island, weak enough to pay them large sums and with sufficient borrowing power and taxing power to be able to afford a larger contribution. They should realise this time the UK has overspent and over borrowed despite saving billions from ending its expensive membership. It is doubtful the UK does now have the borrowing and taxing capacity to add large EU bills and debts to its big collection of home grown ones.

Any attempt to take us back in would need a new referendum. Polling shows people feel let down by the lack of progress after Brexit, but are still strongly against surrendering powers back to Brussels. It didn’t work last time. Since then the EU has become an even slower growth area slipping further and further behind US economic and digital success.

UK did not lose 4% of GDP from Brexit

October 9, 2026 65 Comments

One of my critics here complains I do not show charts or graphs when setting out economic arguments. I do use numbers from ONS/Treasury/Bank of England/ World Bank/IMF and check the sources carefully. I do collaborate with Facts4eu.org who produce excellent charts which I strongly recommend. Go on to their site to see the UK and EU in great bar charts and graphs. Here is an example reproduced from them showing how the UK economy has outperformed leading EU countries since the referendum.

The economy has grown by 14% in real terms since the Referendum
June 2016 – June 2026

The past and future of Jaguar

October 8, 2026 87 Comments

This week Jaguar, a once great British brand of car, revealed its much delayed new vehicle in the US. As a former Jaguar fan and owner for me it is too dear, too bland and only available with battery power so I will not be buying one. It bears no resemblance to great Jaguars of the past, and has nothing beautiful or eye catching enough in my view to make it break through with a new distinctive design. This is no modern E type nor even an XJ.

I used to be a Jaguar owner, changing my vehicle for a new one every two years, making myself a good customer of the Jaguar company. When they prematurely ended the S type and moved to the XF they allowed articles to appear saying they did not want the buyers of the old style car as they were launching something more modern for a new audience. Despite this I went along with the change and bought an XF. It was hopeless in the snow and ice that winter and it annoyed me in its handling and control whilst I was underwhelmed by its looks. I traded it in for a Land Rover 4WD which did work in the snow and have never bought a new Jaguar since.

Over the last year Jaguar did its best to kill off many other loyal supporters by getting itself into the absurd position of having no new car to sell anyone. It could have continued its previous ranges and responded to the fact that a majority of car buyers still do not want an all battery car, but it wouldn’t do that. Now it has launched a car eventually that cuts out most past Jaguar owners on two counts. Jaguar was more affordable luxury which this is not, and Jaguar offered petrol and diesel variants which this does not. I guess it was first revealed in the US because there are more billionaires and multi millionaires there who might want one as part of their garage full of cars. Overtaxed UK will not have many desperate to spend so much on this vehicle.

Land Rover has continued with diesel and petrol cars and some more affordable vehicles for longer, but they too are going in the direction of dearer and hybrid if not all battery. A lot of their vehicles now do not offer 4WD which surely was the main proposition you expected of a Land Rover? 4WD is useful on grass and in the rain going to sports and summer events as well as for when we do have icy snaps in winter. It’s not just needed for off roading.

The UK industry has responded to government dictats, ignoring customer preferences. It is sad to see the collapse of a once great brand with much reduced likely future sales, as China takes over the battery car market for the many. A brand’s value rests with the number of loyal customers it can recruit, please and retain. Jaguar has just ensured even more loyalists to the brand can no longer see it as their natural choice.It is dearer to try to recruit new customers than keep the ones you already have.

My Conservative Home article on Referendums

October 7, 2026 61 Comments

When referendums are essential

The people are sovereign. UK democracy has evolved to embrace this basic precept, with a long gestation through Magna Carta, the 1660 settlement, the Glorious Revolution and universal suffrage legislation. Through direct political action of motivated groups, civil war, and Parliamentary led reform we arrived in the last century as a sovereign nation with ultimate power in the hands of the people. Government proceeds and is only possible with the consent of most of the people to how we are governed. Government needs the obedience of most people to the rule of law as laid down in Acts of Parliament and by our independent judges. Governments can undermine the law by wrongful deeds and by enacting widely unpopular laws. It is important governments can be removed peacefully.

In recent centuries the people have delegated their sovereign governing powers to Parliaments. Each Parliament is time limited, and its members know that if their laws and taxes displease enough people they will be swept from office at the next election. An incoming government will have a mandate to change any law and tax it has inherited that displeases.

Although there is no binding Act of Parliament to say so, most of us think that if Parliament wants to give away its powers to govern and to manage parts of the government to a superior power for a period longer than a UK Parliament, there should be a referendum. The people give power to Parliament for a limited time in the expectation that the power will be well used. Giving power away for long periods particularly to foreign jurisdictions with no ability to ensure good use ruptures the constitutional settlement.

Most of us think it was therefore right to offer the public a vote on the original entry into the European Community, which should have been called before entry. All agree it was crucial to have a popular vote to decide to leave. The principle of regular government accountability through elections was damaged by membership of the EU. The European Parliament could not be changed by the UK alone and did not offer much control of the Commission executive. The UK’s wishes were often ignored, negotiated away or voted down in a qualified majority vote in a meeting of EU Ministers without press and public present.

Some pro EU influencers sought to impose and enforce superior law and superior tax raising powers by getting more determined in Brussels and made legal through our adherence to an international Treaty. We the people could no longer remove laws and taxes we did not like by removing those from office who imposed them. The UK people as a result voted in a referendum to come out of this binding arrangement. They had previously voted retrospectively to stay in when they were told it was just a common market. It turned out to be much more.

We should embed the constitutional doctrine that any government wish to join or leave an international body that takes sovereign powers away from us must require a referendum. This need not apply to other international bodies which have no ability to override our Parliament. NATO for example is a close and important defence alliance, but it does not have any legal power to make us fight a war or use our forces in a particular way. It is a coalition of the willing deciding things by negotiation and agreement between sovereign countries. Our membership of the UN includes the all important right to veto any Security Council resolution that is against the UK interest.

We should also require a referendum to change the voting system and powers of Parliament. The Coalition government at the request of the Lib Dems put their chosen system of alternative voting to a referendum. There was 68% support for keeping the present single member constituencies with the winner of an election being the person with the most votes. It would clearly take another referendum to seek to change the system again.

There can be other times when it might help to ask people directly for their views instead of government weighing opinion alongside other considerations when making a decision. Our powerful Parliament can and does the ability to hold referendums on other topics, with voting systems of its choosing and in places where it sees fit. Use has been made of this to settle the future of some grammar schools and to see if people want elected Mayors and new systems of local government. That power does and will continue to reside with Parliament. It is good practice to allow local referendums on the powers and geographies of Councils where a government seeks change.

The UK is a Parliamentary democracy. We should be proud of our traditions. We should recognise the importance of the struggles of some of our ancestors to limit the powers of the Crown, to resist authoritarian government, to give everyone the right to a voice and vote, and to ensure a fair and enforceable rule of law.

Referendums are only essential where a government wishes to make changes in the way we chose our Parliaments and in the powers the Parliament holds on our behalf. The essential ones need to be embedded in our constitutional settlement as they have emerged from the trials and errors of EU membership in recent decades. Other referendums may be desirable and can be helpful to Parliament when splits in the country are recreated as uncertainty in the Commons. They are a good idea when Parliament wishes to make big adjustments to the shape and powers of Councils.

Why joining the EU Customs Union would damage the UK

October 6, 2026 74 Comments

The pro EU parties who want us to join the Customs Union do not seem to understand what a Customs Union does. The EU one would put up UK prices, harm UK business competitiveness and undermine our flourishing trade with the rest of the world .

If we joined we would need to put tariffs back on a wide range of goods from non EU. We took many tariffs off when we left. We took all tariffs off goods we cannot make or grow for ourselves. Why pay more for them with no home industry to try to protect? We got rid of tariffs on imports needed by UK business as raw materials and components. Tariffs on those raise UK business costs and make our finished goods dearer.It would be self harm to reverse our tariff removals.

If we joined we could no longer negotiate our own Free Trade deals with the rest of the world. We might have to tear up our successful and important trade deals with the Trans Pacific Partnership, with India, Australia, New Zealand, Caribbean countries and others. This would damage trade and relations with important and growing markets.

We would lose our right to speak and vote as a full member of the World Trade Organisation which regulates world trade, as the EU handles that brief and would make us follow their tariff decisions.

The purpose of the high EU tariffs is to protect farms and factories on the continent offering product that would not be competitive without a high tariff on the global competitors. The UK is primarily an importer of goods and food from the EU, not an exporter to them. It is not in the UK interest to have these suppliers protected by high tariffs and charging high prices.

The UK mainly sells services which are not subject to tariffs in most places . The UK needs to be able to sign good trade deals with strong clauses on services. The EU did not help us with that when we were members.