Here’s an easy spending cut


     The Uk government is being asked to approve Euro 1033 billion to be spent by the EU between 2014 and 2020. We have a veto on such a proposal. I  would like to see us use it.

          The EU wishes to spend  Euro 386.9bn on the Common Agricultural policy. That’s the one where Mr Blair told us he had negotiated a right to reform it, in the interests of a better deal for EU taxpayers and food buyers. Now seems like a good time to demand delivery.

                 The EU plans to spend  Euro 376bn on regional aid. Much of this goes to regions in  relatively rich countries. Given the stated aim of the EU to  bring budget deficits down around the EU, wouldn’t this be another good place to make major changes and reductions? Shouldn’t regional aid be concentrated just on the poorest regions in the poorest countries, at a fraction of the current cost?

               The EU plans to spend Euro 70 billion on the External Action Service, or its rival system of diplomats to our own. Why do we need all this? Why can’t we carry out our own diplomacy through our own Embassies, without all this doubling up?

                The EU plans to spend Euro 63 bn on administration. In the UK the government has said it plans a one third cut in administration costs. Why not do the same in the EU?

                  There are a host of smaller sums for a wide range of differing departments, as if the EU was running  a full EU government. There would be scope to reduce or eliminate several.

                    Of course, if the public was given a referendum and voted to come out, we could save  our share of the whole  lot. On the assumption that we stay in, there is huge scope for the EU to lead by example. The EU is always lecturing governments to get their budget deficits down to just 3% of GDP. They could show us the way, by taking the knife to their own wasteful spending.  That would in turn lower the budget deficits of member states, who have to raise the money to support the EU.

                 A Uk veto to lavish new spending plans might be just the catalyst needed to start to sort out the huge deficit problems of several EU member states.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. lifelogic
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:34 am | Permalink

    Yes but Cameron, lost the last sitting duck election and is clearly a EUphile when judged by all his actions. Anyway he has the Libdems to placate. So more tax, borrow and waste and more EU it will be. All the while he pretends not to be a EUphile with his words. Not that anyone now believes a word he says.

    Only two and a half years left and then the delightful Unison place man Miliband with more big government policies, needed like a hole in the head.

    • Bob
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:01 am | Permalink

      Was it David Cameron or Ted Heath that said “we will deny with our lips what we do with our hands”?
      Or was it some other Fabian?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

        Arnold J Toynbee (grandfather to Polly).

        “We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands”

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:16 am | Permalink

          No wonder poor Polly has such daft “BBC think” views, given the sad history of her Father and Grandfather on Wiki. By why on earth would anyone sensible want to print or broadcast them?

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      Plenty of other easy cuts they could make – all the grants for green tosh/bling for a start and all the climate change nonsense. The energy certificates, all the employment tribunal nonsense and about half of everything else the state seems to think are “public services” and all the diversion of tax from the responsible used to augment the feckless.

    • BobE
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

      Thats why I am going to use UKIP as a protest vote. Both of the large parties are identical. Left=Right=Left.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

      Why do think he will be elected? Just because Cameron is so unpopular and no one understands the benefits of extreme right wing economics?
      Listen up lifelogic. They know what will happen to this country and their living standards if your economic fantasies were put in place. Poverty for them and the rich getting even more richer. As you said we need this as much as hole in the head. You don’t seriously think that abolishing the minimum wage stopping benefits, including housing, easy hire and fire laws, no regulations insurance based healthcare, toll roads, no direct taxation, Vat based tax system except for luxury goods, etc etc. Is going to help the average person do you? It will? That cleaner would see his wages and standards of living rise!? Ha! Ha! Ha!I suppose they should also feel sorry for the higher rate tax payers paying a higher percentage in tax, as they do for people on six quid an hour. What planet are you on? Bore your fat chums on the South of France with it.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

        Forgot to tell them to. Ram it! Cough!

        • Richard
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

          Bazman,Read some Dr Freud
          Im getting concerned at your constant wish to ram it

      • Ludwig
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 1:54 am | Permalink

        Bazman, we all understand socialist economics. They have been tried in quite a few countries and resulted in the average citizen being considerably worse off and always with a considerable loss of liberty. You see, what you don’t understand when you are writing your abusive tirades is that right-wing economics do result in the rich getting richer but they also result in the poor getting richer too. In late 19th /early 20th century USA the rich got richer too but people flocked to the US from all over the world (especially Europe) because they had an opportunity to get richer themselves. If the free market capitalism was so awful why were people desperate to go there? Within 2 or 3 generations many of those immigrant families, who arrived with very little, acquired a significant wealth and a comfortable life. Now compare that with Mao’s China, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, where citizens became massively worse off and lost their liberty because force is the only way to make a socialist society even remotely work.

        • Jerry
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:44 am | Permalink

          No, they flocked to the USA because they could escape the mess that there home countries were in, this in an age before Socialism -but not always what we now call Capitalism either, often just Feudalism-, the fact that people like you forget is that the USA (before and after it became the USofA) was actually more Socialist than Capitalist in nature. Oh and don’t mix up socialism and communism, they are not interchangeable terms, it is quite possible to have both socialism (even extreme socialism, in the case of present day China) and a free market.

          The USA was once “The Land of the Free”, it would be better described today as The Land of Opportunity.

          • Sebastian Weetabix
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:06 am | Permalink

            In what sense is China socialist? There is no welfare state, uniform low taxation, almost no environmental or labour regulation. It’s a rapacious capitalists wet dream.

            What it is, is a thinly disguised nationalist kleptocracy run by hereditary oligarchs who derive legitimacy by being “heirs of Mao”, who is widely loved – even now – because he ended foreign domination of China.

          • Richard
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

            “China is an extreme socialist nation”…totally ridiculous

            China is one of the most ruthless capitalist nations on earth.

          • Jerry
            Posted September 10, 2012 at 8:21 am | Permalink

            Sebastian & Richard: China is (ab)using the Capitalist system, yes ruthlessly, to gain advantage but from within an all but Communist political system.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

          Does that explain the communism for the rich that now dominates many societies with the rich becoming fabulously wealthy and the rest getting the crumbs? No it does not. The trickle down effect your underpinning belief is becoming more false as time moves on. Don’t bore me with India and china and the fantastic strides they are making with the massive middle class. It’s pants.

        • uanime5
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

          You forget about Sweden and Germany; where socialism does work without any loss of liberty.

          Give the fact that income disparity has been constantly increasing it’s clear that right-wing economics do not result in the poor getting richer. Instead their incomes fall in real terms.

          People went to the USA because they thought they could have a better quality of life, however the vast majority of them remained poor. Just because there’s a small chance people can get rich doesn’t mean everyone will get rich.

          Finally your failure to distinguish between communism and socialism fatally undermines your argument.

          • Richard
            Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

            Germany…socialist…. hilarious!
            Just like Cuba and the USSR, is that what you mean?
            America… where the vast majority who went there remained poor…again, hilarious….. the most wealthy nation on earth, still with over 75% of the worlds millionaires in it.
            Why do you make this nonsense up…just look at the facts and figures.
            Have you ever been to these places?

          • Sebastian Weetabix
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:09 am | Permalink

            Sweden is a country where Christian pastors have been jailed for preaching against homosexuality. That is a loss of liberty – you cannot express opinions that offend leftist sensibility.

            Until relatively recently they also engaged enthusiastically in forced sterilisation of the mentally unfit, as you would expect of keen socialist eugenicists. Yes, delightful place.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:00 am | Permalink

            To this day millions maybe up to a 100 million Americans live in poverty. They are not poor because they drive cars and have an air conditioning unit like our poor are not poor because they can afford SKY TV? This idea that all Americans can become rich and become president is as false as we can all go to Eton and become prime minister. Sebastian Weetabix, pulling an example of some pastor preaching hate and some bad social engineering. How many does Britain have? Forced deportation of children to Australia. Exposing servicemen ot nuclear tests to name a couple, does not support your simplistic argument whatsoever. Ram it.

          • Jerry
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 9:43 am | Permalink

            @Richard: will you please go and find out the difference between Socialism and Communism, even Fox News doesn’t make such a basic stupid mistake!

            @Sebastian: You appear to be making a comment about bigots, not Christians…

          • Richard
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

            Both you and Jerry accuse me of not understanding the difference between communism and socialism.
            Im well aware of the difference.
            In one you do what the state tells you to do, you are poor and have a vote, in the other you dont have a vote, you still have to do what the state tells you to do or you are sent away to somewhere very unpleasant and you are still poor.

            Come on, I challenge you, tell me, where is this socialist ideal nation, either existing now or ever in the past?

          • Jerry
            Posted September 10, 2012 at 8:31 am | Permalink

            Richard: Your comments suggest that the USA is a Socialist country, there many are poor but also have a vote, whilst in some US states one could be mistaken for thinking it was a communist state when the poor are told were they can shop -due to the way socail benefits are given, nor can they (or find it very difficult to) get registered so they can vote…

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 2:28 am | Permalink

        Cameron will surely be voted out because he has reneged on the EU, failed abjectly to get any growth and jobs – due to his policies of every bigger government, every more regulation, ever more tax, more wars, more expensive quack green energy.

        They will vote for the Unison man Miliband, as he is the only alternative they have. Despite the fact he is clearly even worse.

    • Disaffected
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

      Circular debate which you have revised many times before John. However there are too many spineless Tory MPs who vote for the country to be in the United States of Europe. It makes no economic sense to be in it. If it were a trading group to exact influence in the world, fine, but power crazy and lazy EU bureaucrats will not let it go. Even those British politicians who were against it were bought off by non-jobs and huge pensions.

      Your challenge to Cameron is a non starter. He has made this point clear and the electorate will not forget last October. He gave up his opposition to spending at Strasbourg because it might have upset the French- who cares, he should act in the UK’s national interest. Doesn’t the EU also give foreign aid? So we give it twice! He is assisting the establishment of the EU army by joining forces with the French rather than ensuring the UK has its own military to protect its interests and position in the world.

      Why does Borosso and Van Rompouy attend G8 and G20 meetings? The EU is not a nation state- yet. Why doesn’t Cameron object? I recollect Daniel Hannan reporting how these two attended the same meeting but attended separately on private jets leaving within half an hour of each other. And we pay for it!!!

      The only alternative is UKIP. No difference in Labour and Tory.

      • Jerry
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:53 am | Permalink

        Vote UKIP, get Labour, as so nearly happened in 2010!

        So why not vote Tory and get at least a nominally eurosceptic government – which with a outright majority might actually become even more eurosceptic, I know that UKIP are not and are all well meaning people but sometimes UKIP can seem like a 5th columnist party [1], Vote for us and we will make sure you get what you didn’t want

        [1] which is why I suspect they made, and keep making, noises about making a pact with eurosceptic Tories and not standing in those seats

        • Russ
          Posted September 11, 2012 at 7:24 am | Permalink

          Because we know the party is not Eurosceptic – at least, not in any meaningful sense. Cameron’s clique – rapidly appearing to be every bit as toxic as Blair’s – simply don’t want an independent England, either from the EU or from the other nations in the UK.

          I think most people understand that UKIP cannot deliver real change – they’re a single issue party, with all that that entails.

          What they are, however, is a useful way of collecting together the majority of tory voters who will not vote for Cameron again, and communicating with the rest of the Conservative party through the pollsters (because God knows they aren’t listening to us directly).

          The best thing for the country is for a period in which political parties are abandoned or knocked out after a single term. The bloated sense of entitlement amongst the ruling classes is the only real problem that this country faces – the solutions to everything else are obvious and achievable.

  2. Sue
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:38 am | Permalink

    Let’s see if our spineless Prime Minister passes the test then, shall we? I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      Alas I think he is a mere jelly fish, floating in the prevailing currents – while pretending he is leading the country.

    • zorro
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      I’m sure that he might prefer if we did all hold our breath…..


  3. colliemum
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:46 am | Permalink

    I couldn’t agree more with each and every sentence of your post, John!

    Of course, the last paragraph gets the lion share of my applause!

    • nicol sinclair
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

      I second that in its entirety. All points very well made, JR

  4. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    Well noticed! This is the only blog I can find that actually does the number crunching and that draws me back time and time again.
    “The Uk government is being asked to approve Euro 1033 billion to be spent by the EU between 2014 and 2020. ”
    That, allow me to remind myself, is the entire national debt at the moment! It is a staggering sum of money to hand to unelected, uncheckable and wrong headed foreigners.

    • Jerry
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:22 am | Permalink

      It’s a staggering sum of money to hand to anyone, I would need convincing if it was the UK government who was to saying that they wanted it to spend on unknown (unannounced) projects, the “jolly foreigner” aspect is irrelevant!

    • uanime5
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

      You do realise that the 1033 billion euros is the budget of the EU from all 27 members, not the amount the UK has to contribute. The UK doesn’t contribute 172.2 billion euros to the EU every year.

      • Sebastian Weetabix
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 7:00 am | Permalink

        Thank Goodness for that. I almost thought it was real money. Clearly there’s nothing to worry about, a mere bagatelle. I expect we could just print it.

    • nicol sinclair
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      Agreed. Well put…

    • zorro
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      That is 1,000,000,000,000 Euros…..


      • zorro
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

        The government has QE’d just over a third of that total in the UK in the last 3 1/2 years….


  5. ian wragg
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    Of course John if we had a referendum and left we could save our contribution. How about you joining us at UKIP which will no doubt start an avalanche of defections of real tories.
    As you have said many times, under the present government all the EU traffic will be one way, and thats not in our favour.
    I’m afraid you will go to your maker still asking us to vote tory and change the Eu from within. This will never happen.

    • A.Sedgwick
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      UKIP has the policies but lacks sufficiently good parliamentary candidates at the moment. Who they put up at Corby will be significant. There are a number of Conservative MPs with good majorities who could take their current seats at a General Election under the UKIP banner, but they won’t and I guess they have personal reasons for remaining in the fold.

      Everything Cameron touches becomes messy and disorganised and he has gifted the next election to Labour, which is really beyond belief given who its leaders are and the disastrous 13 years of Blair and Brown. If it were to be a close race I think an EU referendum would be in the Labour manifesto but as they have a clear run they have no need to risk their pan socialist credentials.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

        Bob Spink was a good MP, but he’d had enough of the Tory party’s direction so became an independent. I like Bob, he’s a man of principle. He and I corresponded quite frequently, but party loyalty runs deep. Conservative voters were prepared to support him as a Tory, but not ss an independent, no matter how good his character.

        That fate could befall any Conservative MP who decided to go with their conscience. Perhaps it is the Conservative voter themselves who need to see the true pro-EU direction of the party. I remained loyal for as long as I could, in the hope they’d change from the Heathite, Majorite lefties – then along comes Cameron!

        If the party procrastinates, and doesn’t lose these lefties asap, they’ll be turfed out at the next election. It’s their call. Personally, I like all the things UKIP are saying, and unlike the Tories, they haven’t let me down.


      • Peter Chodera
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        Response to A. Sedgwick.
        Margot Parker is the UKIP candidate for the Corby and East Northamptonshire constituency. Her campaign was launched 4 weeks ago. Please visit the UKIP website for more details.

      • Disaffected
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

        Off topic, but related to out of touch Cameron. Only 30 MPs debated immigration. BBC hardly reported it.Hmm….. Why did only a few turn up when the vast majority of the voting public want immigration stopped or at least cut? Shows how Cameron is really out of touch with the public.

    • dan
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:08 am | Permalink

      I’ll tell you why…Mr Redwood hasnt the guts to leave a party that throws away our borrowed money by the billions.
      There’s never a line that must not be crossed with the ‘eurosceptics’ of the Conservative Party.

      • Jerry
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:53 am | Permalink

        I suspect it is more a feeling that he can do more good as a ‘eurosceptics’ from within the party and Westminster than from outside having sacrificed both his influence within his party and constituency seat [1].

        If anyone has evidence to show that Tory voters will switch to UKIP simply because the sitting MP has crossed the floor of the house then please do cite it. Sorry but the simple fact is, and I do wish it was different, UKIP simply doesn’t have enough support when it comes to UK national elections – they might even do better had they not such a strong presence in Brussels/Strasbourg…

        [1] after all he is, surely, in the best position to judge the will of his constituents, surely they are not all silent on the issue of the EU

      • outsider
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        Oh come off it Dan, the record shows that our host does not lack political courage. You really should apologise.

      • Sebastian Weetabix
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

        You are being unfair. Mr Redwood’s personal voting record on these matters is excellent. The rest of his party, not so much.

      • zorro
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Permalink

        That’s a little unfair on John….. He has resigned (first time) as a Minister to challenge for the leadership of the Tory party and is clearly not in favour of UK membership of the EU. He just thinks, I guess, that it should (not that it will but should) be the Tory party which is the vehicle to achieve that aim. He has also campaigned vigourously to oppose a lot of federalist measures, and probably feels that he shouldn’t be beaten or kicked out of his own party by Europhiles…..


      • Ludwig
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 2:03 am | Permalink

        Dan, I think Mr. Redwood is right to remain a Conservative MP and to keep trying to persuade his colleagues that they are moving in the wrong direction. As a Conservative MP he has a voice in the House of Commons to argue his (our) case. If he were to leave and join UKIP then who knows when or even if he would have the same opportunity. In fact, I would reverse the argument and say that if some of the UKIP representatives (such as Mr. Farage) had remained with the Conservative party then they might have been able to exert more influence, both within the party and nationally.

        • Jerry
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:08 am | Permalink

          Ludwig, Farage is a self publicist, (etc etc) , his influence would have been minimal had he stayed as a member of the Tory party, also had it not been for a certain ex TV presenter attempting to take UKIP in a different direction I suspect Farage would not have gain the platform he has. UKIP needs a “quite assassin”, not a loud-hailer as leader (even if that is what is needed in show-parliament that is Brussels/Strasbourg). I would even suggest, and the 2010 election results might well be the proof, that if Mr Farage were not leader of UKIP they might do even better on the national scene.

        • Jon burgess
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

          Well you’re entitled to your view, but I for one don’t agree. Farage would have been ignored and marginalised by the Con leadership in much the same way that (sadly) Mr Redwood and others are.

        • Lindsay McDougall
          Posted September 11, 2012 at 12:24 am | Permalink

          Do not imagine for one moment that Mr Redwood is in a minority in the Conservative Party on our relationship with the EU. At the moment many Conservative back benchers are restraining themselves because they want office or because they are afraid to break up the Coalition. Once the 2013 budget has been converted to a Finance Act, the chains of Coalition will be unnecessary and you will see real Conservative back bench opinion.

          It’s all about ensuring that the 2015 manifesto contains a Eurosceptic EU policy, with repatriation of powers, and that only those candidates willing to sign up to it remain candidates.

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:11 am | Permalink

      UKIP, under the UK electoral system with the, always have always will historical voters, cannot every win power nor even a seat at Westminster it seems. They could not even unseat the useless Speaker Bercow with his (words deleted-ed), self publicist, wife.

      In the news again today I see:- “Sally Bercow has revealed her husband, Speaker of the House of Commons John, has been “very supportive” of her new TV show.”

      At Westminster UKIP is a pointless vote, it is a vote for Labour, in effect.

      • Bob
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:26 am | Permalink

        If you really believe that, then there is no hope.

        The problem is that Mr .Redwood by remaining in the Tory party together with a handful of like-minded colleagues bestows a veneer of conservatism that gives false hope to the grass roots.

        • lifelogic
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:26 am | Permalink

          I do not see much hope I tend to think the EUSS is going to win the battle in the short term.

      • Sean O'Hare
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

        At Westminster UKIP is a pointless vote, it is a vote for Labour, in effect.

        As previous comments have pointed out – “so what?” Given that it seems to make absolutely no difference whether we have a Tory or Labour government you can forget tactical voting and vote for what best matches your political beliefs and for me that means UKIP.

        I’m currently stuck with a Europhile LibDem MP in a marginal Tory-LibDem seat. I couldn’t care less which of those two represent me after the next GE so will stick my cross against UKIP and if they don’t stand I won’t bother to vote.

        • Russ
          Posted September 11, 2012 at 7:31 am | Permalink

          Absolutely. Tactical voting has probably contributed to this centre left car-crash of a political landscape.

          Everyone is whoring themselves for the swing vote, so we end up with this muddle of directionless platitudes.

      • Jon burgess
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

        It may take time, but UKIP will get MPs into parliament. The worry for me is that by the time it does happen there may not be much left that they can help to salvage. Would you vote for Cameron?

        • Bob
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

          @Jon burgess
          “Would you vote for Cameron?”

          I can’t think of any reason why anybody would.
          He doesn’t offer anything you wouldn’t get from Balls or Cable, so what’s the point?

          So if you’re opposed to the policies of Balls and Cable you may as well make it known by voting for the UKIP. The more votes they pick up the more people will see them as an alternative to the socialist parties.

    • norman
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      Forget MPs. As has been pointed out by JR countless times under our current system UKIP has no chance of getting an MP so to get a sitting MP to turn would be impossible. If there were regional lists like the EU we would see defections (as we have with MEPs).

      But real tories are ‘defecting’ to UKIP in our hundreds of thousands. That’s what we must do, this government is finished, everyone can now see that, the reshuffle proved beyond doubt there is no ambition for a second term so our objective must be to get enough of us to vote UKIP that when the time comes for next leader we get a conservative instead of what we have now, little more than a clique of public school boys having a jolly old time playing at politics while the rest of us suffer for it.

      They don’t give a damn about us and it shows in every utterance Cameron and Osborne make.

      • Jerry
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:28 am | Permalink

        Vote UKIP, get Labour, you have said it as much yourself – by all means tear up your Concentrative memberships but to switch votes?!…

        Remember that when you talk about “the next leader” (after 2015) he or she will not be in power for at least another four years, a europhile government (with or without the help of the LibDems) could have taken the UK so far down the road of EU integration that it will be very difficult for the UK to extract ourselves -a bit like Hawaii leaving the USA, possible but unlikely. By voting Labour the only hope, as much as we probably hate the idea, is that a Miliband government steps a lot further to the left, as far left as was the left-wing in the Wilson government of 1974 and thus become anti the EU themselves. The UK can recover from a bout of socialism, if we wish, but we might not be able to recover from any further EU integration.

      • Sean O'Hare
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

        ..UKIP has no chance of getting an MP so to get a sitting MP to turn would be impossible.

        Not impossible! As an earlier comment pointed out Bob Spink resigned the party whip, allegedly to join UKIP although he subsequently denied it. Whatever the truth is, he expected to get re-elected, whether as an independent or a UKIP candidate, so the point remains that it is not impossible for a sitting MP to turn.

    • David John Wilson
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that UKIP is campaigning against this budget in the EU parliament let alone the UK parliament.

      • Bob
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:42 am | Permalink

        @David John Wilson

        Arguing about the budget is the responsibility off the UK government.

        UKIP are campaigning to leave the EU, in which case the EU budget would be a non issue.

      • Sean O'Hare
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        I think that could be because UKIP don’t have sufficient funds for their campaigns to come under your radar. Plus of course the MSM ignore them even they are now arguably the third party.

  6. alan jutson
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    Not much to add to your post today John.

    I simply cannot understand the thought of Parliaments across Europe voting for this all to be paid for, out of borrowed money.

    Is there any Country in Europe that is in surplus ?

    Money is the oxygen for the EU to be able to survive, time to cut the supply and let it die.

    • alan jutson
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:02 am | Permalink

      Not just a simple spending cut, it would show we have some backbone and were serious about all future negotiations if we did veto this expenditure.

      At the moment we are regarded as poor Europeans by many, so let us live up to their expectations, and save some money to boot.

      Time for some of the bulldog spirit to reappear

      • lifelogic
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:12 am | Permalink

        Cameron has none alas he is a socialist, EUphile, photocopier salesman.

        • norman
          Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:03 am | Permalink

          Enter David Cameron and Angela Merkel:

          ‘Look at this model madam, perfect for your needs, it’s been serviced regularly and proven itself able to stand up to long print runs. We’ve ran £175,000,000,000 through it and I’m pretty confident it can, in fact almost definitely will, handle the same in the next couple of years. That’s why we’re proud of the ‘Made in Britain’ stamp on this particular model. A few tweaks and we can ship these to every member of the EU. How about it? Forget the 1920’s, we’ve put an end to print and inflate, no more print and inflate, any fool can see that can’t happen again.

        • J A Jones
          Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:49 am | Permalink

          He hasn’t the honesty to be a salesman. Etc etc

        • Jerry
          Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:04 am | Permalink

          He is also a man with at least one limb tied behind his back, it might have escaped your notice lifelogic but Mr Cameron doesn’t have a majority at Westminster, and which party denied the Conservatives of that in 2010 – yes UKIP!…

          Funny how some wish to blame Cameron for the absence of their own noses after their fits of self-spite!

          • zorro
            Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

            UKIP did nothing of the sort. It was Cameron’s fault for being lack lustre and uninspiring in being unable to beat basket case Brown in a square fight. A teddy bear could have beaten Brown, Cameron should have put one up instead of himself and gone and chillax with a couple of glasses of wine….


          • junius
            Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Permalink

            Jerry, Cameron failed to gain a victory that should have been a certainty because his liberal stance , and his rudeness and abuse of traditional Conservative supporters cost the party hundreds of thousands of votes.
            His subsequent failures on immigration, Europe, law and order, and his wrong-headed and vociferous support for the homosexual lobby’s demand for ‘ gay marriage ‘, have cooked not just his goose but sadly that of the Conservative Party as well.

          • Jerry
            Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:44 am | Permalink

            Zorro, best tell UKIP that then as it was UKIP who boasted on the media about the fact [1] in the weeks after the election! Your ‘argument’ would hold more water if Brown had romped home and was still resident at N0.10 Downing Street.

            junius: Perhaps, but this is exactly what I mean about Tory voters catching a bout of spite and cutting their own noses off. Yes Cameron might be rude, might be more europhile than many would like but all this bout of spite has achieved is a coalition government formed with a party that is even more europhile than the Labour party is. Don’t think that I have not thought about voting UKIP or even joining UKIP, I have, but have ended up dismissing it as a vote/membership to nowhere.

            [1] and yes, it is born out in the marginals and their polling results

          • Bob
            Posted September 10, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink


            I’m glad Sir Winston Churchill didn’t have such a defeatist attitude back in 1940, or we’d all have been under the jackboot long ago.

          • Jerry
            Posted September 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

            Not defeatists, I am a realist though, like Sir Winston Churchill was.

            What I’m suggesting is that we are better off with a eurosceptic (of any level) Tory party in government than allowing a europhile Labour party a clear victory – UKIP is not and will not be taking votes from Labour, even less the LibDems.

      • Muddyman
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

        Politicians with backbone?, if they believed what they say then a large proportion would resign having seen the charade for what it is – another group would at least swing to UKIP and put their actions where their mouths are!.

    • Bob
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:16 am | Permalink

      “Money is the oxygen for the EU to be able to survive, time to cut the supply and let it die.”

      Same applies to the BBC.
      The BBC supports the EU
      The EU supports the BBC
      LibLabCon support both.

      Notice how all these Fabian constructs thrive on public funds, one way or another?

    • zorro
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

      They are just going to buy up government debt indefinitely to keep it going with some gestures of financial discipline by some countries. This is the real start of their mega QE.


  7. Brian Taylor
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:10 am | Permalink

    I wait to see if the BBC pick up on this,and other media.

    Which gov. Dept.or civil servant is responsible for negotiating this on the voters behalf?

    Reply Treasury with help from FCO

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      Not a likely BBC topic – far more likely they will just film a few more polar bears on bits of ice and tell us about the settled science, talk about the cutting too hard, too fast and the resultant double dip (what cuts) or go on about people on benefits having to miss a meal or go without wireless broadband or something. Usually showing film of a family who would clearly have benefited from missing a meal or even fifty meals.

      • Bob
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:15 am | Permalink


        It had to be said, and you said it.
        iPhones, iPads, iPods, TV licences, and HDTV are not essentials.

        What the underclass are actually lacking are budgeting skills, and they will be unlikely to learn them while the handouts keep flowing.

    • REPay
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      J.R. Is it possible to get the details of the UK position on this? It would be informative if there is any law-maker involved or is it a process for civil servants convey the sad fact that no change was possible. Are there figures to suggest whether this is an increase, decrease or mark inflation increase?

  8. Paul Danon
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:17 am | Permalink

    Do let’s veto it. We can’t “carry out our own diplomacy through our own embassies” because we belong to the EU.

    • outsider
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

      Dear Paul Danon,
      A veto is not enough. It would merely leave EU spending limits as they are, index-linked, programme by programme. On the surface, at least, the Commission is offering something better: spending limits frozen in real terms but a shift away from CAP and structural funds to “newer priorities”.
      I doubt that is as simple as it has been spun but we shall have to come up with something better, and more popular with our colleagues, to achieve meaningful cuts. Remember, an ever-rising number of members states are in hock to the Commission.

  9. Timaction
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    There are NO benefits from our membership of this undemocratic, unwanted, meddling behemoth at an annual cost of £11 billion and rising. Why should we be taxed to pay for foreign infrastructure projects or farmers?………because our mainstream politicians see a future job for themselves.
    Our borders and internal jobs for the English could be safeguarded, return of our fishing industry, food costs vastly reduced, no more meddling EU bureaucracy (£9 billion a year), no more EU Human Rights Court, the list goes on and on. With a £50 billion trade deficit they won’t threaten our jobs. Trade and frienship, nothing more!!

    • Jerry
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:08 am | Permalink

      @Timaction: [my emphasis] “Our borders and internal jobs for the English could be safeguarded, return of our fishing industry, food costs vastly reduced, no more meddling EU bureaucracy

      …and no doubt you will be voting UKIP at the nest election? Think about it…

    • uanime5
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      Let’s see now, a £50 billion trade deficit over 26 countries means each country will lose about £1.92 billion per year. By contrast the UK will lose much more because it will lose the markets for 53% of its exports. So it’s clear that the UK will suffer far more if trade ceases than the EU will.

      • Jerry
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:11 am | Permalink

        @uanime5: Your figures are wrong in at least on aspect, I suspect most of your figures thus don’t add up, the UK exports a mere 40% (less if you remove the distortion cause by the Rotterdam error, that has been mentioned many time on these blogs) to the EU, being free of the EU would actually allow the UK to increase our RotW exports as we are at the moment prevented by EU law from entering into trading agreements by ourselves. In any case, trade will not “cease”, and the EU would not wish to start a trade-war, the EU has far more to loose than the UK does as it would be the EU who would suffer the loss from not just the UK but our natural trading partners etc.

    • zorro
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

      There is no real need…the ECB can just buy up their member governments debt and they can pay for it themselves. A perfect opportunity for us to refuse to fund it as we are outside the Euro.


  10. Pete the Bike
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    Dave will give in. He won’t even query the spending. The only time he even tried to veto something they just ignored him and did it anyway.

  11. The Prangwizard
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:57 am | Permalink


    • Bazman
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:27 pm | Permalink


  12. John Fitzgerald
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    “Of course, if the public was given a referendum and voted to come out, we could save our share of the whole lot.”

    Yes John we know but we will not be holding our breath waiting for it!

    • lifelogic
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:19 am | Permalink

      If the public were given, the endlessly promised, referendum – many would surely die of shock.

      • Bazman
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

        What would you say if it did not go your way. They where all to stupid to understand and need to be dealt with by undemocratic means. Business, well, your business knows best?

        • Ludwig
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 2:09 am | Permalink

          Bazman, why make hypothetical remarks about a hypothetical situation? Why are you so afraid of a referendum? A referendum would be an opportunity for BOTH sides to make their arguments and then let the public decide. I’m happy to accept the result as the democratic voice of the country. Are you? Unlike the EU, if we lost then I wouldn’t demand to hold it again and again until we got the result we wanted.

        • sm
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

          We could always have another vote until we get the right (exit) vote!

          What happens to the EU when Germany exits the euro? I wonder if Project Euro Kaput is ready.

          Meanwhile 1000 million euro probably could zero the greek debts and a good chunk of the Spanish debt. Now that would be solidarity, but it wouldn’t suit the higher purpose.

      • zorro
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        Don’t give Cast Elastic too many ideas to get rid of us!


  13. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Good suggestion but, as usual, you know it will be ignored. Your leaders show no desire to stop spending let alone by giving our money(borrowed or printed) to their masters in the EU. The contributions to the EU were not announced as being ring-fenced prior to the election in the way that the NHS and overseas aid were. Presumably it was inconceivable to even consider the question with regard to the sacrosanct EU. You know there will be no referendum as your leader has told us that he believes it would be wrong for the UK to leave the EU and therefore won’t allow the people their choice. Just like his masters in Brussels an anti-democratic stance.

  14. frank salmon
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Time to rebel John. Quote from the BBC yesterday. “No economist saw the recession coming.” Well this one did. And I can predict that we stay in recession unless, among other things – we leave the EU.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

      Frank, that’s typical BBC BS!

      They’ll be urging us all to vote Labour next!

      Sir Stuart Rose, who at the time, was advisor to Gordon Brown, warned there was ‘something wrong with the markets.’

      And even a school kid could predict the ultimate collapse of a system that was founded on ever-growing debt. It just couldn’t go on like that, living on tick, but just try telling that to the EU. They’re still at it!


      • Jerry
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink

        Indeed Ted, and why do you think Blair got out when he did, he knew full well that the fan was about to get messy, Brown was so desperate to be PM/Leader he took the bait, hook, line and sinker, as if Blair could not have out-foxed the supposed plotting against him…

  15. Iain
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    As the Government is being asked to agree to a obligation that stretches across several Parliaments it should at least be put to the people in a referendum.

    Prime Ministers have no right to dictate policies or expenditure to future Parliaments.

  16. merlin
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    I don’t know why you even raised the subject of the EU the majority in parliament are pro EU including the PM, so nothing will happen and there will be no referendum. The EU is a socialist entity which means that central planning, taxing and spending is the norm and the fundamental approach is to level down every country and citizen and person so we are all the same. The uk politicians won’t say it, with certain exceptions, but we are governed by europe now and the Uk parliament has been neutered. The only way to govern ourselves is to leave, renegotiation is impossible, so let’s have the referendum that we were promised by Cameron now. You know and I know that this is never going to happen under the present government, in fact, it is way down in the public’s priorities, the economy, health and education being far more important. The Conservative Party is a pro european party and will never leave the eurozone the only hope is UKIP. Yes, I know they have no power but who else is there and us anti europeans have to start somewhere, given the opportunity I would leave instantly.

    • me2
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

      By costing the Tories the next election UKIP may act as a catalyst for returning the Conservative party to sanity.

      There is certainly little practical difference between having Miliband or Cameron as prime minister.

      • Johnnydub
        Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        This is unfortunately true…

    • Bazman
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

      Why is UKIP so marginal then? Is it because of the conspiracy and the lack of understanding by voters in knowing what to vote for?
      Mainstream parties appeal to mainstream views. That will be the majority even if a minority of voters decide which government is in power. They in general do not vote for extremist one policy parties. Or crackpots except as a protest vote. Whatch gonna do about that?

      • Ludwig
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 2:22 am | Permalink

        Firstly, UKIP isn’t a one policy party, as a cursory glance at their manifesto on their website would have told you. However, it is frequently viewed incorrectly as being one. Secondly, the mainstream parties always use this excuse (we’re all pro-EU and we keep getting elected so the electorate must support our membership) but most people vote Labour, Lib Dem, Conservative (and a few others) for reasons other than their support for EU membership. The government and parliament is there to represent and serve the people. I am fed up of leaders condescendingly telling me it is in our best interests to be in the EU without ever making a serious attempt to justify that position. A referendum would at least force an honest and open debate. It would also allow the British people the chance to express their will on the fact that a great deal of Parliament’s sovereignty has been handed over to the EU.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 7:50 am | Permalink

          The clue as to what they are about is is the name and a cursory glance of your post confirms this.

          • APL
            Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:29 am | Permalink

            Bazman: “The clue as to what they are about is is the name ”


            Independence, is about EVERYTHING, Jeez!!

          • Jerry
            Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:33 am | Permalink

            So that is a new leader and new party name for UKIP then… Bazman, whilst you are factually wrong about UKIP policies, it is true that the perception amongst many non-members (or those who don’t bother to check) is that UKIP is a single issue party.

          • Bazman
            Posted September 8, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

            UK Independence Party? What do I not understand from their name? Their lack of dedication to the independence of what is not specified, but one would assume of other countries? Are we dependant and on other countries and for what?

  17. oldtimer
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    Sounds like a no brainer to me. Which means it will beyond the capacity of the coalition government that appears hell bent on impoverishing the nation.

    • Bob
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:40 pm | Permalink


      “the coalition government that appears hell bent on impoverishing the nation.”

      More like laying waste utterly, so that there will be no possibility of resistance to eventual total subjugation.

  18. Chris
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    A much needed analysis of the situation, but one that will be ignored. Perhaps opinions could be voiced on the Commission’s own consultation bout what we citizens think of the EU? (I didn’t know that we had been invited to do this). An amusing article with comments on this from:

    • Martyn
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

      I had a go at this. Great apportunity to have a say, albeit probably all to be ignored by the EU surveyors. Started off by making it clear that I am an Englishman living in England (not that it is on the EU map any more). Pointed out that I am not a EU citizen, because the EU is not a nation state (no matter what Blair signed up to) and a few other pithy comments, including a hope that the unelected EU leadership collapsed under the weight of its own huge pile of legislation.

      I see today that Mr Van Rumpy is proposing that a new EU Parliament be brought into being for the Euro zone. Where that leaves the UK and its MEPs I have no idea, unless those who are of the Euro zone have to quit and the existing EU Parliament becomes that of those nations not in the Eurozone. Madness, all is madness…..

      • sm
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        The UK MEP’s could vote on all EU matters but otherwise insist that all UK matters are devolved and therefore for the devolved parliaments.

        We could call it the EU-West Lothian Principal?

  19. ciconia
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Sorry Mr Redwood, but sadly I think many of us are resigned to your party being just as quick to sell out our interest as the others.
    The eu project is out of control but the main parties don’t have the guts to say so or the confidence to see a future outside it.
    At Cabinet level the tories seem much too comfortable with the libdems.

  20. Attila
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    Isn’t this exactly what we should use Mr Farrage to promote.

  21. StephenS
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:09 am | Permalink

    I look forward to the UK government exercising its legendary “influence” from its “seat at the table” to “help frame the rules/budget” with baited breath.

  22. Normandee
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    All the same comments, on the same subject that we have been reading for the last few years, all the hand wringing, all the pointless voting against motions that will pass anyway, but nothing so dramatic as to drive the argument on. Status Quo Status Quo Status Quo, you have nothing new to say John so what’s the point of it all.
    It’s been coming for a while, but I think now that I am a UKIP supporter, there is none of the conservative party that I used to follow left just sheep led by comrade Bo Peep.

  23. roadrunner
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    David Cameron is the worst Tory PM that I can remember and I have been voting conservative since the early sixties,sadly I can no longer do this whilst Cameron is leader,the man is not trustworthy.Why can the back benches not force a leadership challenge it’s the only way for the conservatives to survive his betrayal of the conservative party and stand a chance of winning in 2015.

    • Jerry
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      You obviously don’t remember Mr Heath then!

      • Sebastian Weetabix
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:36 am | Permalink

        This one is worse than Heath. I couldn’t stand what Heath set out to do (and of course did achieve, subsuming us into Europe) but at least he stood for something; you have to respect that. Cameron stands for nothing and will say anything if it means he can be PM.

        Btw – what does Hunt have on Cameron? I can’t imagine that loathsome lackey of the Murdochs has been promoted on merit.

        • Jerry
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:59 am | Permalink

          @Sebastian: Oh right, so the PM who caused the current mess and lies (and not just that of the EEC/EU) is blameless in your book, the person to blame is the one 40 years down the road who can’t do what is needed even if he wants because he doesn’t have a majority – go figure indeed…

          Oh and BTW, all most all politicians tend to say what they think we the public want to hear, Heath wasn’t immune to such traits himself.

  24. Atlas
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    Please veto until the cows come home. The French and Germans will, of course, be horrified and lean on ‘Le Clegg’ to weasel.

    I doubt Cameron is ‘butch’ enough to do do anything – all wind and no action.

  25. Matthew
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    It would be great if Mr Cameron took this line, won’t hold my breath though.
    Well explained it would go down well with the electorate too.

    It wouldn’t do too much for Lord Oakshott’s blood pressure – off the scale I’d say.

  26. Sandra in Accounts
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    No difference between the three main UK political entities where the EU is concerned.

    UKIP for me.

  27. stred
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    How lucky the Swiss are to be free of these bloodsucking empire builders. How are they going to manage with only their own foreign office.

    Their high GDP and personal incomes allow them to spend more per person on their health service than the UK, yet the percentage of GDP is only 11.4, as opposed to the UKs 9.8 – only 1.6% more for an excellent service. The figure for the US is 17.4% for a system which allows the poor to depend on charity. Re. Bazmans reply and links to DT on 5th Sept.

    As our system is rationed, inadequate and patchy, it follows that if we adopted a Swiss system, a better service could be provided for less.

    I have Swiss relations who confirm that the system is excellent and, although their insurance is high by our standards, as a proportion of salary it is about the same as our taxes.

    • Bazman
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      Ahh! Switzerland. Utopia. We finally got there! Ram it.

      • zorro
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:23 am | Permalink

        Switzerland has been ranked the most competetitive economy four years in a row…..Why do you despise it so much and idea of a Greater Switzerland?


        • zorro
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:24 am | Permalink

          Is it because it is so successful?….Ram it yourself!


          • Bazman
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 8:28 am | Permalink

            Switzerland is a highly federalistic consociational democracy and largely middle class like Germany. There is so many pointless, absurd business regulations that stifle and prevent wealth creators going about their business its ludicrous. Their welfare system generous and prevents any incentive to the unemployed to work from being given like many of the Scandinavian countries has high and complex tax rates though on the surface seem low. Prices are expensive and you need more than most countries to be able to afford clubs and trips to the cinema to make work contacts. Not easy without a job. As the political will is zero to make Britain like this you are living in a wonderland. Plebs and toffs rule and I don’t want to be middle class. I just want their money.

      • stred
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 9:49 am | Permalink

        We met a young Swiss junior school teacher last year. She was about to take a salary of over E100k (in SF). Don’t know what lorry drivers earn there. They do not have the dafter safety and other regulations but are quite controlling on a personal level and joke about it.

        They also have the same type of social security that pays for single mothers to be put into nice flats and reproduce at the expense of young working people who can’t afford children.

        Their transport systems work like their watches. Their energy production is not designed to support ridiculour windmills. The demand for their products keeps their currency and shop prices high. However, they can easily travel to the EU zone do buy at lower prices.

        All things considered, it would be better to pay some Swiss civil servants to take the mandarins jobs and get rid of the goons that mismanage the UK.

      • Jerry
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        Actually yes Bazman, Switzerland were democracy is taken seriously (probably to seriously!), were those willing to work have jobs, those unable to work are taken care of without fuss, were even the terminally ill are allowed to die with dignity so yes Bazman, you can “Ram it”.

        What’s that Bazman, oh sorry, silly me of course your disgust was really about all those people who use Switzerland to avoid tax, but of course if they didn’t feel the need to protect their hard earned income by avoiding such high rates of tax in their own countries…

        • Bazman
          Posted September 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

          No. It’s their average and overrated chocolate.

          • stred
            Posted September 9, 2012 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

            I wish my oulaws would stop bringing bloody Toblerone with them. I have a drawer full of it. They also take a pride in soul singing in french, which is unbearable.

            I would not like to live there, but would just like their civil service to run the economy, transport and industry. They do have a working class, by the way, it’s just that they are well educated and capable and don’t have inverted class snobbery.

      • Richard
        Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:12 am | Permalink

        Try living and working in Cuba and then try Switzerland and see which one you prefer.

        • Bazman
          Posted September 9, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

          I know which would be more fun..

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

      The Swiss also have a fairer voting system and direct democracy. Perhaps this is why they have a better governed country than the UK.

  28. Peter Richmond
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    This as you say Mr Redwood is a no brainer. We should not only veto it, we should be telling everyone NOW that we will veto it ‘pour encourager les autres’. I now wait with interest to see if your government follows up your suggestion to not pay this optional charge from Brussels. I am not optimistic as long as Clegg and other Europhiles remain in position.

  29. Vanessa
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Of course the EU wants all national governments to cut their spending so the EU can spend what we can’t. It really is the most dishonest and corrupt organisation that we have ever had the misfortune of being a member of. Please will someone tell me why we are a member of it?? Our living standards would bounce UP by a third if we left in food prices, energy(?) trade, businesses etc. Cameron obviously wants to see this country hit the bottom of the pit.

  30. Derek Emery
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    I can’t imagine the EU ever going for cuts in its spending as the less it spends the less important it becomes. The same applies to all public sector bodies. The only way is up with more spending.

    France receives the most from the CAP (over 10 billion Euros) with Germany second – the co-owners of the EU. You can forget any serious revision of the CAP as it can never be in their interests.

    EU funding is hardly transparent but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and the FT have tried to get details of structural fund spending.
    The BIJ have found
    1) The ndrangheta (Mafia) has become expert at getting these funds
    2) Millions of Euros go to multinational companies to move factories within the EU despite guidelines against this.
    3) A hotel building boom funded on protected nature reserves in Spain
    4) Some of the world’s biggest companies receive funding which is supposed to be aimed at small/medium l companies
    5) Inadequate checks mean money is wasted

    some finding of th

  31. Nigell
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    All good stuff as ever but no one will take any notice. Why don’t you and others that think like actually stand up and be counted for a change instead of poorly read blogs, a few rumblings from back bench meetings. Pathetic.

    We all know the answer and it doesn’t reflect well on you or parliament

  32. Martin C
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    Thanks for that you’ve made my day. The EU volountarily cutting its budget? I havent had such a good laugh since Tony Blair returned from europe bragging about how he had negotiated some of our rebate away in return for reform of the CAP. There is of course not a chance of it.

  33. Neil Craig
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:13 am | Permalink

    It is no coincidence that the EU is in or on the cusp of recession while the rest of the world is growing at 6% a year. It is no coincidence that the EU now represents a much smaller proportion of the human economy than before we joined it (as the EEC) , despite the fact that it had only 6 members. The bureaucracy is strangling all its members.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

      Firstly the USA, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are growing at far less than 6% so it’s clear that low growth in developed countries isn’t the fault of the EU.

      Secondly the growth in India, China, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and South Korea has resulted in the EU and USA having a smaller percentage of the world economy. Your claim that this is somehow the fault of the EU shows you don’t understand basic economics.

      • Richard
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        The EU is going slowly backwards against other trading blocs like Australasia, the Americas and all the BRIC economies.
        Vast numbers of unemployed, no growth, inflation, low returns on savings and investments, poorer pensions and rising taxes for its people.
        As much as you may like the EU and want it to be a success its official economic statistics are poor and getting worse.

  34. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 11:17 am | Permalink

    Yes, bulls eye. Make sure that you say it in Parliament.

  35. David Langley
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Where was this published John? I would love to see this list and proposal. I bet UKIP would also. Was it published on the EU websites? What is the governments reaction to this proposal? Will it be brought before the house by the Chancellor as it should be. Will this be quietly agreed to and then kicked under the table!
    The use of a veto is all very well but is really a sticking plaster on a terminal boil. I wonder why you wanted to inflame the fires right now John. The EUsceptics on this blog are already incendiary!
    As for the cocktail parties being held with our money in the EU embassies well it makes my trigger finger itch again, and its a long time since that happened.

  36. David Langley
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    By the way where is the ECB going to get the money to buy Spanish debt?

  37. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

    The UK should agree and support the euros 1033 billion but in return for an agreement that member Nations can use their own currencies in parallel with the EURO to allow a Free Market (Publicly decided) decision of whether the EURO is to be kept or not.

    This will dramatically reduce the need to raise future funds as Nation States – such as Croatia (thinking of joining the EURO) or Greece (DEVASTATED BY THE EURO), will no longer have to be dictated to by Brussels becasue they will be able to create their own means of Exchange using similar Inflation Restrictions.

    A member Nation should be allowed to make it’s own mistakes, and not be punished for other peoples. If they decide to have Weimer Republic Inflaiton, well… that’s up to them, but we must remember that the Germans were forced into this appocalyptic Inflaiton due to outside demands on Germany’s War Debts, a fine for WWI.

    They will then be able to balance a reduction in Credit Based Money with Government Created Money (created as Currecny and not as Treasury Bonds). This will stabilise the Economies and reduce the need for Financial Market “Confidence”. Any new money would have to be used to reduce debts and invest in future industries.

    The big problem at the moment is that lending is down – due to more conservative lending practices and higher reserves, so the money supply is down. Banks create moeny when they lend. It’s a great opportunity to balance this reduction of debt money with Government created Currency (debt free at the point of creation). banks can still lend it.

    I would suggest that Banks also be restricted to only lend money that already exists. If there is a shortfall in the amount of money in the system, then the Government should create it. Private Bank Lending created the inflaiton over the last few decades – not the Governments, they just watched and let it happen and pretended the Boom years was becasue of they did.

    The greatest gift the European Commision could give to it’s people is debt free money – money not issued as Treasury Bonds but directly as currency, maintained by an independent body implementing Government policy on GDP, Inflation and the like.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:56 pm | Permalink


      I think it’s an opportunity – the EU wants something off of us, it’s about time we teach them that there’s no such thing as a free lunch – even for an MEP with an expense account – not doubt being partly funced by this euros 1033 billion.

      Don’t veto it, negotiate for a agreement to allow competative currencies – i.e. The Greek Government would accept payment of Taxes in Drachmas as well as EUROS. Allow Governments to create their own Currencies – the way they should have been and the way most people think happens anyway, and prevent Banks selling money they create at the point of purchase.

      • sm
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        Why would Greeks choose to use the Drachma? over a competing harder currency? I guess government workers would have no choice?

        Perhaps the ECB should create the money and force a debt paydown as suggested by Steve Keen and then implement the competing currencies.

        Problems with FIRE vested interests though and Germany.

      • uanime5
        Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

        What happens when countries, such as Greece, only want to use euros because it’s more convenient to be paid in a currency that is accepted in much of the EU?

  38. Bernard Juby
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    But will Cameroon have the guts to use it????? Time he moved over for a more Eurosceptic leader, methinks.

  39. Julian
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    Keep up the pressure – maybe in the end some sanity will prevail. I think the root cause of the problem is that the argument for careful management of the public sector has not been won – in fact the opposite. This is partly because of so many vested interests but is also more fundamental – the general public and the main political parties do not have a problem with lavish public spending funded by high taxation.

  40. Phil Richmond
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    John – You know and we know, and you know that we know that your Europhile PM is at best going to do nothing. The EU has also infiltrated the FCO to the point when more than half of them should be arrested on charges of treason.
    People like yourself and Carswell will make a little noise in protest but you will be drowned out by the EU propaganda ministry – The BBC.
    We the people will be shafted as always. I despise our political class.

  41. Sue Doughty
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    The Common Agriculture Policy was designed to avert another famine on mainland Europe. That used to happen a lot and usually triggered unrest and political change – the French Revolution and the collapse of Soviet Russia being just two examples. Here in the UK we trade with the wider world and exchange news and technology for food production. Central Europe tends to treat the rest of the world as inferior and to be kept away with tariffs and by flooding their markets with “donations” of surplus food.
    This year the British, Russian and US harvests have failed and we must assume France has done no better in the grain harvest so there is to be famine in Europe, there will be higher food prices and unrest, leading to demands for political change. The EU wishes to avoid this at all costs and will throw money at it.
    You are right John, we should not be paying for their failings to deal properly with the wider world and have a more varied diet depending on the free market.

    The European Central Bank has agreed to buying up bonds in bankrupt nation states and we must assume the taxpayers of the single currency member states will be footing the bill. Though the collapse of the euro will be traumatic and will have a short term shock on the British economy we did not sign up to the euro or to supporting the euro. Mr Cameron must again put his foot down and declare that the euro’s troubles are outside the remit of the European Union and refuse to pay, or let them use the offices of the EU in sorting out the euro’s troubles. Not even one penny of British taxpayers money can legally be spent on the euro issue. It is their problem and their bill.

  42. Bert Young
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    EU accounts have not been “signed off” by auditors for years because of the fiddling that has taken place ( I posted an example of the cheating in one of my responses ) , why should things be any different in the future ? Of course we should not sign up to any contribution let alone one that is entirely out of kilter with the present economic times . I fully support the “let’s get out camp” , but , I accept that our withdrawal has to be effectively stage managed . UKIP does have a significant part to play in the forthcoming by-election and the result should provide enough evidence for a deal to be made with the Conservatives . It is “wakeup time”.

  43. Leslie Singleton
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

    In the Alice in Wonderland world that is the EU and in particular the Eurozone it is clearly no use trying to be logical. Never were truer words spoken than those by the President of the Bundesbank. If it were that easy for a State (or anything else for that matter) to borrow then issue money to pay off the relative debt (which is what is happening, right?) how could a government go wrong? Why is this not unarguably obvious?? How can the money supply be sensibly increased in this way– that is without an increase in the assets that the money is supposed to represent and all that? As somebody else just said, putting it another way, why isn’t it obvious that the ECB will end up with (an unlimited amount, yet, of) toxic waste from impaired States across the Eurozone? Are we, or they, Dei Gratia, going soon to need a “Bad ECB” to park it all in?? Sob!! Education welcome.

  44. Tad Davison
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    The EU always has led by example, a very poor example!

    I cannot think of anything more wasteful of other people’s money than that cursed place. They don’t know the meaning of good management, only profligacy and unfettered bureaucracy. The advantages of coming out are massive, but the penalties for stopping in are also massive.

    I honestly cannot begin to understand the mindset of the Lib Dems, or those in the Labour party, and those on the left wing of the Tory party, who still believe membership of the EU is somehow good for Britain. The facts tell a wholly different story. Yet I challenge those in favour again and again, to put their case, people like the local Lib Dem MP, Julian Huppert, but they consistently and singilarly fail to do so.

    Given the weight of evidence against any advantage to Britain’s membership of the EU, it staggers me why this present government just gives in to their pressures and demands. I will say again, there just has to be something they’re not telling us. Some underhanded plot they don’t wish us to know about, because nobody could possibly so stupid as to acquiesce to this menace to our nation’s well-being, without good reason.

    We really do need a new leader with a new direction. One that will tell it like it is, and if necessary, ridicule the Lib Dems’ pathetic and flimsy pro-EU policies. Yet Cameron is reluctant to rock the boat. He says he has to keep the coalition together in order to drive down the massive deficit given to us by Labour (lest we ever forget who it was). That would be fine, if spending wasn’t actually increasing!

    This is where the Lib Dems and all the other Europhiles need to get real. They say they are against things like welfare cuts in principle, and wish to protect the most vulnerable, so fight against them. They can’t have their cake and eat it. We can’t drive down the deficit and protect poor and vulnerable people at home, if we’re giving money hand over fist to the EU. Now we know that, but why the hell don’t they?

    And these are supposed to be educated people!

    Tad Davison


  45. Jon
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

    The PMs Presidents and Chancellors need to force the EU leaders to take cuts. It won’t come from the EU MEPs themselves. I’ve heard their views on this and they think we should be grateful for 6% or 8% spending rises. They themselves have no intention to cut any spending. It needs to be forced through by the few elected nation leaders that want the cuts.

  46. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    “A Uk veto to lavish new spending plans might be just the catalyst needed to start to sort out the huge deficit problems of several EU member states.”

    This seems to imply that it is the member states fault that they are in this mess. They’re Government made the mistake of joining the EU – true, but it is the system at fault and it is the system that must change.

    If by your comments you are implying that more deficit reduction is now needed are you saying that countries like Greece should experience a Civil War ? People are already dying becasue of the blunders of the people they elected but if there wasn’t really a choice in their elections, they are dying of dictatorship.

    Your comments do not differentiate between the People of a Country and their leadership. Their leadership will survive but forcing them into greater deficit cuts now without sorting out the route casue is not going to work. I would tend to agree that the people of a country are to blame to some extent due to a lack of interest in their own Nation’s affairs and an Apathy- partly encouraged by a limited and biased Mainstream Media with a primary focus on Entertainment and Advertisng Profits. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

    Can you clarify who you are blaming – the people of a Nation State or it’s Rulers ?

  47. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Not directly on this topic, but the European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill effortlessly passed its second reading in the Commons on Monday – there was no need for a formal vote on it – and it will start on its committee stage next Monday.

    During the debate on Monday evening, one Tory MP, George Eustice, described the Bill as “relatively uncontroversial”, which provoked this reaction from another Tory MP, Bernard Jenkin:

    “I cannot quite believe what I am hearing, because a criticism that my hon. Friend and I have regularly made of the European Union is that what we are categorically assured will not happen then happens, and when we amend the treaty just to tidy up the wording, that makes it more explicit that it was always intended to happen in the first place. May I just read to him what the no-bail-out article actually says? It says:

    “A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State”.

    That is what the treaty says now and he is supporting, by a sort of sleight of hand, that being negated and set aside simply because it has already happened illegally. Is that not the grandmother’s footsteps of European integration that he and I have always railed against?”

    Some amendments have been tabled for the committee stage: three New Clauses proposed by Labour which would require the Chancellor to provide reports on the operation of the ESM, “relatively uncontroversial” amendments I would say, and a more serious amendment which would insert this passage into the Bill:

    “This Act shall not come into force until the day after the Secretary of State has laid an order certifying that the constitutional requirements of all the member states of the EU have been complied with and all the related legal challenges have been disposed of.”

    As the Pringle case in Ireland has led to the Irish Supreme Court submitting three questions to the ECJ, that could impose quite a delay before the UK could ratify the EU treaty change and it could come into force to give the eurozone states the new legal right to set up the ESM.

    However there is not yet any proposed amendment to the Bill calling for the British people to have their say on this radical EU treaty change through a referendum.

    • APL
      Posted September 9, 2012 at 10:07 am | Permalink

      Denis Cooper: “Monday evening, one Tory MP, George Eustice, described the Bill as “relatively uncontroversial””

      This is what our respected host calls one of the new breed of Tory Eurosceptics.

      Laugh? I could cry!

  48. Conrad Jones (Cheam)
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Nation States could lower deficits by creating their own currencies instead of borrowing – at interest; from private financial institutions.

    Please explain why you think this would not work?

    Why is it more acceptable to entrust the creation of our currencies to private companies who demand interest payments?

    Is it some kind of Keynesian Religion that we are all members of ?

    A belief in Mandrake Macro Economics (One Product, One Person Economic Models, where; debt, banks and money are disregarded as irrelevant) ?

  49. Mr. R. Clifft
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Have you heard of UKIP Mr. Redwood?.

    • Conrad Jones (Cheam)
      Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

      Yes, Mr Redwood has heard of UKIP.

    • Richard
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

      Remind me, Mr R Clift, just how many MP’s did UKIP get at the last election ?……
      And how many are they likely to get in 2015 ?
      Same as the Greens perhaps ?
      Even the SDP got a few MP’s elected, remember them?
      I like Nigel he is very entertaining but thats about it.

  50. Mark B
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Soon, after the 2015 General Election there will be a new EU Treaty on the table. The EZ members need one to sort out the current mess they are in.

    We ‘may’ have a referendum on the new treaty, but not on membership, ie nothing is going to change.

    All this talk of referendums from both main political parties is just nonsense since it will deliver nothing tangible to the UK as the EU do not surrender powers.

    A referendum to leave will never happen as ALL parties and their leaders are FULLY committed to the EU – David Cameron has gone on record saying as much.

    Our only hope is that the EZ members get their new treaty and FULL political, financial and monetary union ie one nation state run from Brussels.

    At this point the UK will have to make a decision. Does it:

    a) Remain in the EU and continue to pay high ‘membership fees’ but with little or no influence.

    b) Join the EZ member states and become part of the the NEW Nation State.

    c) Leave the EU and become a member of the EFTA with little or no say but a significantly reduced membership fee.

    We do not need to have a referendum on these issues. We have never had a referendum on membership (1975 does not count) nor have we ever had referendums’ on treaties, despite promises from both the Socialists and the Tories.

    They say, “Turkeys’ do not vote for Christmas.” That’s because they are never given the vote. But you, the MP’s shall be asked to vote on your eventual demise. And going on past form, I’d say it is a sure done thing, that WE the British people, will be sold down the river by whoever is in power at the time.

    Gawd help us !

    Posted September 7, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Permalink


    Please try and convince your like minded collaugues that we cannot afford this level of expense.

    I hate the idea of a referendum on leaving the EU but is there any other way?


  52. uanime5
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Given that the UK Government tends to spend money in London rather than any other region I feel that forcing them to spend money in other regions via the EU is what’s best for the whole country.

    Personally I’d rather see whether the Government’s plan to cut administration by one third is even feasible before demanding the EU does the same. Past experience shows that reducing the number of staff just causes everything to take longer, such as customs at airports.

    Also if seems that Gove doesn’t know what he’s doing in education. He’s removed the guidance for teachers on how to effectively teach literacy at the same time as encouraging people who’ve never taught before to become teachers, so expect the quality of teaching to sharply decline. He’s also demanded that pupils be given exams on phonics, rather than using phonics to teach children how to read and testing them on their reading ability.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

      If you want less government money spent in London, the simplest way is to have less government. “Let the money fructify in the pockets of the people” said Mr Gladstone. He cut income tax to 4 old pence in the pound, 1.67 pence in the pound in modern parlance. Even in modern times, with all our centralised services, we ought to be able to run this country with total taxation no more than 30% of GDP.
      Get taxation low and reduce benefits in relation to wages and salaries and you would find that business would create jobs in the north and other locations outside London and the Home Counties.

  53. Electro-Kevin
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    An excellent post, Mr Redwood.

    Yes. Our predicament really is that serious.

  54. peter davies
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    theres nothing to add to that JR – how come you are not in government? aren’t these the times when we need people in government that can plainly see what needs to be done and just get on with it?

  55. Antisthenes
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    How low our standards and values have sunk. Kleptocracy has replaced democracy, corruption and incompetence is everywhere. In our search for that better life we have sort solutions through social democracy. What has socialist policies and practices given us? Mediocracy, economic and social models that encourages irresponsibility, dependency, debt and an entitlement culture. It has set up institutions that are wasteful and inefficient and centralised planning and control that introduces arbitrary plans that cannot and do not work simply because those who know best namely the free markets are excluded from the process. However the chickens are coming home to roost and little by little this new order is starting to self destruct.

    • uanime5
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

      Given that capitalism has given us companies which private the profits and socialise the loss (get a bailout from the taxpayer when they fail) I can’t say its any better than socialism.

  56. rd
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Why not get out?

  57. merlin
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    On the subject of Euroland:_

    1) In 2 and a half years time there will be no change at all in our relationship with Euroland.

    2) In 2 and a half years time there will have been more directives emanating from Euroland which the coalition will have been forced to accept.

    3) There will probably have been another treaty which Cameron will have accepted without a referendum.

    4) All 3 main political parties are pro Euroland

    5) when Labour get back in they re-commence persuading the british public to accept the euro, they will use Blair and Brown to do this and then there will be a referendum on joining the Euro.

    6) Every conceivable political trick in the book will be used to brainwash the british people to join the Euro, the money to do this will be the largest amount of money ever spent on a referendum to vote yes.

    7) The British people may vote no but there will be referendum after referendum until they eventually vote yes.

    Unless Euroland disintegrates, which I doubt, then this is what we have to look forward to.

    The Conservative party is pro europe- this will never change.

    The only possible hope is UKIP, there are no guarantees.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 8:27 am | Permalink

      If that future government wished to use its Commons majority to bounce us into the euro without the bother and risk of a referendum then it could easily do so, because the present government refused to allow the so-called “referendum lock” law to be entrenched against easy repeal through a later Act.

      It was even pointed out during the debates that it would be enough if the Bill to take us into the euro stated that it was to apply “notwithstanding any provision of the European Union Act 2011”.

      The weak answer from ministers was that no future government would do that because it would be politically damaging, ignoring the recent fact that the prospect of political damage didn’t deter Brown from pushing through the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum.

  58. Barbara Stevens
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

    How your blog rings so true, but we can’t do a thing about it if we have MPs who refuse to adhere to democracy and hold a referendum. This just shows the folly of this EU expensive club and how our MPs allow us to be more drawn into the stupidity of it all amazes me. They are bleating about economies for their own, and acting up on it, albeit sometimes unfairly, yet, allow millions to be sunk into this awful monster which we don’t want. When will more MPs wake up and smell the coffee and do what we wish for a change and most of all do what they were elected for and represent this country. Get us out, or they may find they are out.

  59. RB
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    Of course Mr R your suggestions are just common sense in the circumstances. Pity that of itself seems nowadays to be a guarantee that they will be ignored. We live in strange times.

  60. Lady Carole
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Agree ,Cameron may have missed it but the only time he was popular in the last twelve months was when he used the veto ,use it often !

  61. merlin
    Posted September 7, 2012 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    If you vote-

    Conservative you remain in the EU

    Liberal Democrat you remain in the EU

    Labour you remain in the EU

    I would like to vote for a party that will ensure we leave the EU ASAP

    Under the present electoral system that is impossible.

    As an individual I do not have a choice- conclusion-totalitarianism in the making.

    This is a hard fact and that is how it is now.

    All 3 political parties are subsumed by a totalitarian EU system.

    Individuals within these parties may protest but they can do nothing about it.

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      I would like to vote for a party that will ensure we leave the EU ASAP. Under the present electoral system that is impossible

      Come now merlin you know that bit is not true. There are several parties who have a manifesto pledge to pull out of the EU and you are free to vote for whichever one takes your fancy.

  62. Dr Alf Oldman
    Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:42 am | Permalink

    I totally endorse John Redwood’s argument. My only concern is whether David Cameron is strong enough to stand up to the EU?

    • Sean O'Hare
      Posted September 8, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

      Whatever makes you think he would even try?

  63. Andrew Smith
    Posted September 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    No one reading this blog seriously believes a Cameron led government would ever do such a thing as to use a veto in the EU.

    No one believes any Conservative (led) government woiuld ever fail to deliver whatever the EU wants. Bluster – maybe, nit picking and grumbling but no veto.

    We already know, because they have told us, that no Conservative leader will ever lead us out of the EU.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page