Better off out – business benefits from leaving the EU

Leaving will be better for business.

Business now agrees we were right to quit the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which damaged jobs and closed factories.

Business now agrees we were right to say No to the Euro, which has helped to create mass unemployment and property crashes in several countries of the EU.

Out of the EU the UK can negotiate her own free trade agreements with China, the USA and India, after 43 years in an EU which has stopped us doing that and has not done it for us.

Out of the EU the UK can decide what regulations and taxes to impose on all our domestic business and all our exports to non EU countries, which represents around 85% of our total income and output.

The UK will continue to trade with the EU, and they will not wish or be able to impose new tariff barriers on us and certainly will not want us imposing barriers on them.

The UK will avoid new taxes like the Financial Transactions Tax, and unfriendly changes to Corporation Tax and VAT which the EU currently carries out.

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


  1. Richard1
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 5:45 am | Permalink

    I see Mr Corbyn has now comes out in favour of EU membership specifically because it will ensure taxes such as the financial transactions tax which would be so damaging to the City and to the UK can be imposed. At the same time he is reportedly concerned by the trade deficit. The inconsistency of wanting to disadvantage a major export sector and being concerned about the trade deficit doesn’t seem to have occurred to him. In a piece in the FT yesterday Corbyn was all for even more of the kind of job destroying ‘social’ regulation which the EU brings. If Mr Corbyn comes out in favour that will be an argument for Out for anyone concerned about growth jobs, economic stability and prosperity.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:57 am | Permalink

      Corbyn seems to have changed his mind on the EU already, what next will he become a warmonger too!

      Where does Corbyn stand on the job destroying & job exporting, over expensive green energy lunacy? Has he decided yet?

      • Richard1
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:12 am | Permalink

        My guess is Corbyn in opposition will be like Syriza in govt. he will have to backtrack from his far left policies which have proven such a disaster in countries such as Venezuala where they have been implemented, and move in a mealy-mouthed way to more ‘centrist’ positions. But he will remain an entirely uncredible and unelectable figure, so in 18 months to 2 years some bogus reason will be invented for him having to ‘step aside’, perhaps a fictitious illness. Labour MPs recognise already he is a disaster for them, but they can’t just chuck him out. So some sort of face saving excuse is needed. The good thing is, even if he has gone by the next election, the longer he stays the more electoral damage he will do to Labour.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:38 am | Permalink

          Let us hope this does not drive Cameron even further to the left than he already is.

          I see Allister Heath has it right on the very silly suggestions of the BoE’s chief economist Andrew Haldane. He calls for a 4% inflation target and has a desire to abolish cash.

          Presumably so it can be confiscated even more easily and at will by the state.

          • Richard1
            Posted September 19, 2015 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

            Yes this was a very odd comment. There probably is a statist / ‘keynesian’ bias in the Bank of England. It would be better if they had more throughput of economists. allister Heath would be a good chief economist for them for a few years.

      • turbo terrier
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        Where does Corbyn stand on the job destroying & job exporting, over expensive green energy lunacy? Has he decided yet?

        Steady there Lifelogic that will require a hell of a lot of thought!!

        Just returned from a week in dictatorship Scotland, it is mind blowing the hundreds of turbines that have been installed and the majority of them ain’t turning. I really do think that Amber is doing far too little far too late. Still the applications and planning consents are going in and getting passed.

    • A different Simon
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      Richard1 ,

      (Ro)bots are used to facilitate high frequency trading of tiny amounts .

      The main purpose seems to be to manipulate share prices .

      When a retail investor purchases shares their executions take longer , the prices they offer are less granular and the charges are much higher .

      Is there any justification for refusing to level the playing field ?

      Wouldn’t a financial transaction tax help to do this ? ( I could not support the proceeds going to the EU)

      If not a financial transaction tax , how would you advocate level the playing field ?

      • Edward2
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:40 am | Permalink

        But that is not the purpose of the tax Simon.
        It is just yet another tax removing money from the private sector and transferring the proceeds to the ever growing State sector.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 19, 2015 at 2:25 pm | Permalink


          You certainly do not need yet another new tax to get better competition in a market.

        • David Price
          Posted September 20, 2015 at 8:56 am | Permalink

          I Agree Edward, there are other mechanisms which can be used to limit high frequency transactions. The FTT is simply a transparent veneer for yet another tax which doesn’t really prevent stock price manipulation anyway.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink


        You make a good point about having a level playing field. I’ve had concerns about the use of computers and algorithms in trading for a long while. People are put off buying stocks when they’re at an immediate disadvantage. It isn’t right that the big boys can make money hand-over-fist without doing a damned thing, and make more in one second than some people do in a lifetime.

        This is why the likes of Jeremy Corbyn are so appealing to so many. Historical figures have prophesised the ultimate demise of capitalism, and unless such illicit practises are stopped, they just might be right. But it doesn’t have to be like this………..

        If we were out of the EU, the UK could show the way, and maybe even lead the way.


      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        Retail investors are under other disadvantages anyway. For a start, they are normally the last to hear any news about a company; usually by the time they read about it the professionals have already reacted.

        • A different Simon
          Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

          Denis Cooper ,

          Insider trading appears to be at it’s worst where regulatory oversight is at it’s poorest ; London and Frankfurt .

          The Brown and Cameron govt’s have done nothing about this .
          Instead Osborne has thrown the insiders fresh meat by making non dual-listed AIM shares ISA eligible .

          The election of Corbyn to Labour leader is part of the backlash which could have been avoided if the wrong doers had of been brought to task .

          I used to be against shorting until I realised it was the only real regulation there is out there .

          Etc ed

          Reply If you have evidence of wrong doing then you should report. Wild general allegations are unhelpful all round.

          • APL
            Posted September 20, 2015 at 9:34 am | Permalink

            JR: “I used to be against shorting until I realised it was the only real regulation there is out there .”

            When you buy a stock, you take a view on the long term viability of the company.

            When you short a stock, you take a view on the short term viability of the company.

            Both are equally valid trading strategies and both have risks to the investor.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted September 21, 2015 at 8:16 am | Permalink

            I’m not talking about illegal insider trading, I’m talking about perfectly legal briefings given by companies to outside analysts and major investors and financial journalists, which enable the large professional investors to take action before the small retail investors have even heard the news through the media.

      • Richard1
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

        No I don’t agree. An FTT – really an anti-UK anti-City measure cooked up by the EU and supported absurdly by all sorts of (generally rich) leftist luuvies, would serve only to raise the cost of capital for business and reduce investors’ liquidity. Interestingly the excess profits of high frequency trading have largely been competed away. So high frequency trading doesn’t seem to be distorting the market – just communicating price signals more quickly. A retail investor will always be at some price and information disadvantage due to smaller volumes and inferior information – so (as a retail investor myself) I would say don’t churn too much!

        • A different Simon
          Posted September 21, 2015 at 10:06 am | Permalink

          Richard1 ,

          An FTT is an anti-City measure but is not an anti-UK measure .

          The regulation put in place from the 1930’s which remained in place until the mid 1970’s was also Anti-City and Anti-Wall Street .

          It worked and kept them in check so that society shared the benefits of improvements in productivity .

          Since the financial sector was deregulated in the mid 1970’s to 1980’s all increases in productivity have accrued to the financial sector and not the real economy which produced it .

          When high frequency traders can intercept matching buy and sell orders and due to their faster execution time make a margin on them it seems like retail investors are paying a tax to HFT’s .

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:23 am | Permalink

      Well put.

      I feel the new Labour leader is trying to please too many masters. He soon realised the strength of the liberal interventionist Blairites within the parliamentary party, and had to placate them somehow, but of course, that flies in the face of those die-hard socialists who paid their three quid to elect him.

      On Europe, it seems Mr Corbyn is forgetting the many people who drifted away from the party and put their crosses elsewhere, because they were sick to death of the EU. He’s going to have one hell of a job trying to reconcile the two, and I suggest the latter are more plentiful, so he ignores them at his peril.

      The thing I find perplexing, is how can someone who says he wants full employment, then acquiesce to and support something that destroys jobs and living standards right across the continent. These are the politics of the fanciful and the insane. And that goes for many other politicians too, not just those from within the Labour party!


    • Anonymous
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

      Richard 1

      Why should we care what Corbyn thinks ? His party was rejected and he was elected because of Labour’s meltdown.

      All eyes should be on Cameron and his every utterance scrutinised for get-out clauses and caveates.

      The Tories now have a clear run at being Tory so what are they waiting for ?

      Acutally Cameron winning the election outright was the last thing I think he wanted to do.

      The greatest impediment to Britain has been the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party and their failure to put to death the fake Tory party.

  2. Timaction
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 5:53 am | Permalink

    You are right Mr Redwood but your party and the other legacy parties want a United States of Europe. That is and always has been their goal. 80% of our economy is internal to the UK. 20% is trade. 12% and growing with the world and 8% and shrinking with the EU. These trends are predicted to continue. The 8% figure is exaggerated by trade distortions via Rotterdam and Northern Ireland. We either want to be our own free sovereign democracy making our own laws and controlling our borders or a province of a dictatorship called the EU. The BBC, legacy party leaders, CBI all given funding by the EU via our taxes will lie and spin to deny us our freedom!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Indeed, and even if the UK did lose some ability to export to the EU (which is unlikely) the UK can just shift export activity to the rest of the World or to supplying the home demand perhaps created by importing less from the EU.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:06 am | Permalink


        My lad is the UK sales manager for a very high-end and exclusive audio manufacturing company, and he says exports to the EU are minimal compared to the UK and the rest of the world. The company has done a lot of research and the EU is a rapidly diminishing market, and that bears out everything JR says.


  3. Lifelogic
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    Indeed so why are the majority of the Tory party and its leadership so very keen to remain in this anti-democratic economic disaster? So keen to slope the pitch for the referendum, and why is the BBC allowed to continue to pump out its hugely biased propaganda on the issue?

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      As an example, I listened to the BBC’s Mark Urban on Newsnight, give his take on the so-called ‘Russian military build-up in Syria’. I urge people to watch it, then compare that with Jon Snow’s interview on Channel 4 News with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry. The latter was straight from the horse’s mouth. The former seemed to emanate from the other end of the horse entirely.


  4. Lifelogic
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    I do sometimes despair of economists even the brighter one who started off doing the Cambridge Maths Tripos.

    Prospect magazine has an article by Anatole Kaletsky entitled “How Corbynomics could work”.
    It suggests a QE for the people, with the government giving each person £20 per week from about £375bn of QE for a year. A sort of reverse poll tax he says.

    Great idea should do wonders!

    But why not make it even better by tweaking it a bit. Instead of giving it to everyone it is surely better just to give rather more to the ones who might use the money more wisely and give non to the feckless who will be likely to spend it on drink, drugs or waste it in some other way. The government know who these wiser people are as these are generally the ones who already pay most tax. So you could give it back in proportion to their tax recent tax bills. One further tweak as you are giving the money to the people who pay tax anyway just take it off their tax bills to save on the admin costs of taking off them then giving it back again.

    Clearly these tweaks will make it much more efficient for the economy.

    So this ends up as just a very sensible tax cut for the hard working and productive.

    One further tweak to make it even better still. Instead of “funding” it by QE just cut back on the endless government waste and inefficiency and release the very many people in the state sector doing little of any real use (or even causing positive harm) to get a real job instead. That way you do not even need the inflation causing GE to fund it. You then have far more people doing productive work too. Plus far fewer in the state sector inconveniencing and harassing the productive.

    • David Murfin
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      This simplistic solution reduces government activity and the number of people employed therein. It can surely never be effective? Pushed to its limits it might even lead to the closure or merging of government departments and fewer ministerial posts.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink

      such economists should be asked why, If it’s a good idea to give everyone £20 pw through QE, isn’t it an even better idea to give them £40 pw, or even £100? If a really ‘radical’ ‘Keynesian’ came in and made it £2,000 pw I might even decide to hang up my boots and just live off such handouts myself! (Do you think in such an event that prices would stay where they are now so £2,000 buys what it does today….?)

      • Edward2
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:44 am | Permalink

        Indeed Richard
        Just reduce VAT or the point at which you start to pay income tax.
        Or reduce National Insurance rates.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:30 am | Permalink

      I wonder if they propose to end the tax-payer subsidy of businesses that still don’t pay a decent wage?

      In the 1970’s, we had a situation where the state-owned British Leyland were producing cars that nobody wanted to buy, yet were subsidised by the hard-hit tax-payer. That was madness, but it seems it is still going on. It makes more sense to me to pay a decent wage, than giving the low-paid a tax-credit. Although the removal of the latter seems to have been badly-timed, as indeed one senior Eurosceptic Labour MP said to me a few weeks ago.

      The Daily Mirror columnist, Robert Head, said something to me some thirty years ago that has stayed with me ever since. He said, ‘We have always had 3 million unemployed people in the UK, it’s just that they were taking home a pay packet.’

      If in truth, we have a surfeit of labour in the UK, that rather makes a nonsense of the government’s immigration policy and highlights the desperate need to get out of the EU and regain control of our borders. That is, unless Mr Cameron wants to remained chained to something so wholly unworkable and damaging as the EU.


    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

      Most of the £375 billion was paid out to individuals, directly or indirectly, in one way or another, it was just distributed according to the government’s normal spending patterns rather than with an equal amount being handed out to each person. The principle beneficiaries were those who were due payments from the government which they might not have got in full if the Treasury had tried to borrow more from its normal lenders to fund the budget deficit, rather than taking the unconventional step of indirectly borrowing £375 billion from the Bank of England.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      Lifelogic – Anusol Kallwrongsky has a history of getting things wrong.

      If economists were any good at their jobs they wouldn’t be working as economists. They’d be traders making millions for themselves !

    • Bob
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink


      Your alternative to QE handouts is so sensible that there is no chance it would be adopted by the political establishment.

      They keep telling us that the minimum wage is not a living wage and yet they tax £4k of the min wage to fund cash handouts to foreign countries.

  5. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    It is becoming increasingly likely that we are going to be offered AM (Associate Membership) which will probably mean accepting all the EU legislation, the four freedoms, the legal system and, (who knows?), the CFP and CAP too. It will also mean moving inexorably towards ever closer union as things get worse and worse inside the Eurozone. And we will lose the precious little influence which we already possess. Mr Cameron will probably offer us the choice of AM or out.
    There will then be a scare for staying in at all costs after a prefabricated “row”.

    My question is this: how will you vote? The Eurozone is out of the equation now.

    Reply As I have made clear, I will vote for the restoration of UK democracy. Associate status is unlikely to be attractive. I want out of the centralising treaties. Why do you find it so difficult to grasp? I voted against EEC membership in 1975. Why would I want a referendum and have spent so much energy and political capital on securing one, if I wanted to stay in the current mess?

    • David Murfin
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      What I find hard to grasp is why you are still a member of the Conservative party.
      Presumably at the general election you voted Conservative, and so for a government whose leader and policies intend us to remain in the EU.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

        Comment of the day, Mr Murfin.

        With the Labour party moribund John Redwood ditching the Tory party now would be a safe and powerful move.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:15 am | Permalink

      Indeed, the full restoration of UK democracy. Nothing less is acceptable, cooperation yes but EU centralised control never.

    • turbo terrier
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply.

      Well said John, the problem there are not enough like you in Westminster.

    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    Political parties are fixated with getting pats on the back for their policies from Business, Trade Unions, Royal College of Nurses, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all insomuch they see them as authoritative,representative and vote gaining.

    I guess if you are lucky enough to have got a job in a Call Centre in India or South Africa contracted to British Businesses to take incoming calls then you might be impressed to vote for the African National Congress or perhaps the Indian National Congress. If you fail to get a job in Britain in a call centre which loses contracts then “Business” could be seen as requiring a small plastic black bag for use when taking Rover for walkies.Which reminds me of Trades Unions.In the UK they are by and large “Corporate” in that they are organised, permitted and structured by Local Authorities…even to paying the salaries of officials and exclusively keeping and holding away from even the eyes of the officials names, addresses of union members and the number of members.
    In short, Mercenary Businesses and Shackled Trade Unions and what they think about matters political is only meaningful for the most part to paid-up members of political parties.
    We the People are better off outside the EU, full stop.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

      Most members of trades unions want their unionists to deal with trade issues – not the overthrow of elected governments etc.

      The 40% rule on ballots is a good idea.

      Most members are sick to death of the minority of militants who get a job doing one thing and then use it as political leverage.

      Did they say at interview “No. I’m not going to do overtime when you need me to. I’m going to organise strikes to kick a democratically elected government out because I don’t like it.”

      Never mind that conservative (small c) workers put up with 13 years of New Labour’s shit without obstructing it because they are law abiding and understand that democracy means living with someone else’s democratic choice.

      This is one of the reasons why I hate the Left. Were it not for the immigration crisis I’d say prioritise this 40% rule.

      As it is this generation is facing its own Battle of Britain and must rise to it. Sadly it seems they’re more interested in rugby at the moment.

  7. Douglas Carter
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:41 am | Permalink

    I recall that some nations have indicated they’re ‘not interested’ in negotiating a Trade Agreement with the UK.

    ….which isn’t the same thing as saying ‘we’re not going to negotiate a Trade Agreement with the UK’, no matter how often Europhiles wish to imply that it does…..

    It’s also worth recording here once more that around 70% of the total contribution that Norway makes to the Single Market is a voluntary subscription to the Research Framework Programmes.

  8. matthu
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    I suspect that Cameron will secure (the promise of) opt-outs that any future UK government will simply be able to opt back into without the tedium of having to hold another referendum.

    Of course, we have seen this all before.

  9. Old Albion
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:09 am | Permalink

    There will never be an in/out referendum.

  10. Mark B
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    Yes, and we would not have to pay some 2 billion pounds too the EU just for being successful.


  11. Peter Richmond
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Well said Mr Redwood. What would be good to see is more of those in Westminster and elsewhere who agree with your kind of arguments, putting them across more forcibly in public and in the media. The immigration issue, important though it is, will never persuade those who wish to stay in the European project change their view. Pictures of the rather sad and pathetic scenes now shown daily in our media only creates more publicity for them to attack those of us who wish to leave. It does not help serious analysis. But then t’was ever thus.
    That being said, Frau Merkel should be ashamed of herself given her recent approach to the immigration issue. It is she who has provided the trigger that created this human tsunami flowing across Europe. Addressing the problems in the Middle East at source must surely be the only way forward. Simply opening the floodgates into Europe is not solving much at all.

    • Martyn G
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:31 am | Permalink

      Indeed it seems to have been largely Frau Merkel’s “come one, come all” statement that triggered the human tsunami trying to get into the EU. Those like me of a certain age might think that she opened the borders so as to irreversibly change the demographics of EU countries – just as did Tony Blair when in government here. The fact that it soon forced Germany and many other countries to re-erect their border defences was probably an unexpected and unwelcome outcome.
      Is it not strange that once again within living memory, the actions of Germany’s leaders have caused stress, tension and fear in so many parts of Europe?

    • Joe
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 11:41 am | Permalink

      Oh I don’t know Peter,

      Merkel has played a blinder, she’s managed to ‘acquire’ some young people whilst at the same time encouraging a migration within the EU. Closing the gates has simply forced immigrants onto Eastern states without any protracted negotiations.

      The Germans think she’s wonderful and a few Hungarians disagree…

    • MikeP
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

      If you haven’t done already, I recommend you follow Daniel Hannan on Twitter. Not a day passes without him exposing the huge unsung benefits of leaving the EU, the ludicrous actions of the EU bureaucracy and the contrariness of many UK politicians (not least Corbyn of late) as they dodge and weave on EU memerbship.

    • Ian wragg
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

      Watching the migration crisis unfold whilst at sea in the Med. I fear it is being orchestrated by the Islamic States around the world
      Encouraging Muslims to move West to destabilise the nation’s of Europe
      The Eastern block countries understand this and are having non of it. It was I interesting to hear a Syrian who had been on benefits in Germany for about 18 months telling how they had set up an Arabic speaking enclave and he felt at home.
      I see Saudi has offered to fund 200 Mosques in Germany
      There should be a clue there.

  12. Shieldsman
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    I am glad to see you have nailed your colours to the mast.
    “Why would I want a referendum and have spent so much energy and political capital on securing one, if I wanted to stay in the current mess?”

    To have any success in an OUT/LEAVE vote we need a united front and your fellow like minded MP’s should publicly form a group and unite with like minded groups. Time to appoint a leader and come out into the open.
    Looking at the various organisations professing to back a referendum, many would settle for a negotiated promissory note. This would carry no guarantees and a new treaty should require another referendum.
    UKIP is the only political party whose stated aim is to leave the EU. The media, especially the BBC have labelled its member as racist and xenophobic. Surely wanting a return of sovereignty to the United Kingdom and rule by our elected Westminster Parliament is not racist, it is our Democratic right.
    Perhaps our electoral system is not ideal but we do have the opportunity at least every five years to elect our MP.
    In many respects the European Parliament is a dictatorship in which we have very little say. Our acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty binds us to implement the Directives of the Brussels Bureaucrats.

    Reply We have formed Conservatives for Britain under Steve Baker. Individually we made our positions clear for the General Election.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:42 am | Permalink

      I was once a member of CAFE (Conservatives Against a Federal Europe). I wonder if Mike Penning has joined ‘Conservatives for Britain’ yet?


  13. Atlas
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    Out of the EU ? – not if Cameron or Osbourne can help it!

    I think my late father would despair at such a leader who wants so cravenly to bend the knee to “European Powers” when he and his generation fought and died to avoid that.

  14. Iain Moore
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    This morning I heard the EU fanatic Ms Soubry MP , our Business Secretary, attempt explain why gold plating EU rules to the detriment of our industries, like steel, was such a brilliant strategy. Her logic was based on the theory that if we bankrupted our industrial base abiding by the EU rules, it would give us a righteous place within the EU.

    On hearing that I can only presume our competitors in Germany and Italy fell about laughing , who will be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of taking our steel market share that will cost them nothing more than selling the British political establishment a line about having some ‘influence’ . Of course influence and rules about industry will have even less meaning to the Germans than the Dublin Convention.

    Reply Ms Soubry is not the Business Secretary. She is a junior Minister. Mr Javed is the Business Secretary.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      We know who’s who John, but perhaps this would be a good time to spell out the government’s official policy.


    • Iain Moore
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      She is not just a non de-script Junior Minister , she is Minister of State (Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise) for the Department for Business., which makes her utterances on business an issue.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      Is that the same dreadful and unpleasant Ms Soubry who said of Farage:- “I always think he looks like somebody has put their finger up his bottom and he really rather likes it”? Why on earth does he hold any position at all?

  15. Anonymous
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    What business might dislike, however, is an end to subsidised imported labour.

    It would mean it having to pay a real living wage and it playing a more active part in demanding that education in Britain returned to its proper role of turning out useful individuals.

    However. What it lost in paying real living wages would be more than compensated for in its customers having to pay less tax (for welfare) and its own workers having more money to spend on its goods.

    • Mitchel
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      I totally agree with you.Wages have to rise in real terms,even if that means a reduction in overall corporate profits and/or a reduction in low value-added employment in the economy.The government simply cannot continue to subsidize wages and housing costs through the benefit system the way it has been if we are to get the deficit under control before the next downturn arrives.Fortunately,through voluntary and coercive measures this,at last, does seem to be happening gradually.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:47 am | Permalink



  16. NickW
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    France and Germany dominate the EU and ensure that EU business policy quashes their competitors within the EU.

    It is no accident that EU policy is detrimental to the UK’s business interests. It is no accident that business in Southern Europe struggles to survive.

    Someone has to be on the other end of Germany’s trade surplus.

  17. Tad Davison
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Again a quote from Open Europe, and one that supports what John rightly says:

    ‘Vauxhall Chairman says Brexit would not be bad for the automotive sector

    ‘Tim Tozer, Chairman and Managing Director of Vauxhall, has said he does not believe Brexit would significantly impact the automotive sector as its “unthinkable” that there wouldn’t be a free trade agreement struck between the UK and the rest of the EU. Open Europe’s Raoul Ruparel appeared on BBC Radio Five Live’s Wake up to Money show arguing that a trade deal is indeed likely and that in general services sectors could be more vulnerable than the goods sectors in the case of Brexit.’

    Whilst that is encouraging, this quote from Open Europe is disturbing:

    ‘US lobbies EU not to grant China market economy status under WTO rules

    Politico reports that the Anthony Gardner, the US Ambassador to the EU, has warned that TTIP, the EU-US free trade agreement currently under negotiation would be threatened if the EU grants China “market economy status” under WTO rules. The news comes as the Economic Policy Institute, a US based think tank with links to trade unions, warns in a new report that such a move would “curb the ability to impose tariffs on dumped goods” and put over 3 million manufacturing jobs across the EU at risk.’

    Given their history in the past one hundred years, and particularly in the last sixty, I have very grave reservations about the intentions of the United States. The beacon of freedom and democracy is not what it seems or indeed, what they want everyone to believe. Their system of government has failed the very people it supposed to serve. Visitors to the USA are often astounded by the levels of abject poverty, whilst those at the top are massively rich, and that cannot be right. My idea of capitalism would see everyone have a stake in their own future. It is perhaps the UK that needs to be free from foreign entanglements.

    Tad Davison


    • forthurst
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      “he US Ambassador to the EU, has warned that TTIP, the EU-US free trade agreement currently under negotiation would be threatened if the EU grants China “market economy status” under WTO rules.”

      Oh, good. We do not need the USA or its monstrous TTIP scam whilst under the control of banksters, neocon warmongers or untrammelled corporate producers of toxic commestibles.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      Tad – Even if Brexit was bad for the automotive industry…

      … we simply cannot afford to have an automotive industry if the price for it is open borders and millions upon millions of ‘refugees’ pouring in.

      The Tory party can work as hard as it likes on cutting and creating. On the ground all the people will be seeing and feeling is a relentless, frightening and irreversible decline.

      Some seriously harsh and brave decisions need to be made and made fast.

      We need someone of even greater capabilities than Margaret Thatcher and I see quite the reverse of this in David Cameron.

      • Anonymous
        Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        I also believe the US to be behind us being tethered to the EU. Too many politicians have gone native on achieving office. As though they’ve had a good talking to in a back office somewhere.

        • Tad Davison
          Posted September 20, 2015 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          For what it’s worth Anon, I get that impression too. One William Hague springs immediately to mind. Some outside influence seems to be at work, and it’s not one that augers well for the UK’s best interest, more for the benefit and furtherance of a certain very dubious geo-political strategy.


          • Chris
            Posted September 20, 2015 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

            Agree with you both, Tad and Anon. It is so striking. Again it illustrates the point that either the politicians think we are so lacking in intelligence that we will not realise that direction is coming “from above”, or, (and much more likely) they do not care if we realise i.e. arrogance and a contempt for the electorate seems to be the order of the day.

  18. forthurst
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    “Doesn’t EU sanctions against Russia show EU can cut off nose to spite face?”

    Brussels is the soft underbelly of Europe; whether it’s the neocons with their vile warmongering and hypocritical sanctions or the UN with its SavingthePlanet™or obligating us to welcome invaders, the Brussels machine will do their best to do their worst.

  19. Bert Young
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    I have never believed that membership of the EU was an advantage to us . The restrictions we have experienced and the constant interference in our day to day lives is unacceptable . The BBC the CBI and certain media have over-influenced some of the public thinking on this matter ; they should be obliged to remain “silent” during the run up period of the “in/out” referendum .

    There is only one clear decision for now and forever , it is “OUT”.

  20. Tad Davison
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:08 am | Permalink

    Absolutely! But I wonder who is putting them up to it?


  21. Mitchel
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Going off topic but I read something so alarming in the DT yesterday that I would welcome our host’s view on the matter.

    Andy Haldane,Chief Economist at the BoE says that “on a two year horizon the balance of risk is skewed to the downside” ( I fully agree with that) and that,come the next downturn,not only might negative interest rates be necessary but that “cash might need to be abolished” to counter hoarding.

    Has the ghost of Lenin taken a seat on the BoE’s board?Are we savers to be considered vile hoarders with our digitized assets potentially subject to sequestration (or bail in)at the touch of a button should the deficit spin out of control again?

  22. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    Yes, and there could be spite directed against the UK when it leaves the EU. On the other hand, why then should we want to stay in the EU and increasingly be governed by such stupid and spiteful people? It wouldn’t make a huge economic difference anyway, even if there are any economic benefits with the EU Single Market they are greatly exaggerated.

  23. Mark
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

    Whilst we would be better off out, it appears that being in doesn’t stop us from shooting ourselves in the foot with a unique carbon floor price that is now claiming its next steelmaking victim in Redcar. Northern Powerhouse, Chancellor? or Northen industrial desert? Lose steel making and the motor business loses a key local supply chain.

  24. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    If we weren’t already in the EU I doubt many people would be urging that we join it, the question is how many are prepared to vote for wrenching ourselves out of it.

    • Qubus
      Posted September 19, 2015 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. We are in so deep, can we really disentangle ourselves? That is what will worry people.

  25. petermartin2001
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure it will make that much difference to business. The benefit to the UK is largely derived from having its own currency. If the UK had joined the eurozone the economy would be in a far worse state than it is. It might be helpful if someone would list all pro-EU politicians who were ever in favour of joining the euro and asking them about that again. If they’ve changed their mind permanently then that’s good.

    But what if they haven’t changed their mind at all? What if they’re just biding their time?

  26. Peter
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    Here here, the advantages far exceed any disadvantage s so let’s have that referendum and vote out

  27. Lifelogic
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    JR what are you views on the expressed views of the Chief Economist of Bank of England?

  28. M Davis
    Posted September 19, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

    This sounds so sensible, why cannot David Cameron not see it? Unless he has an agenda of his own which, I very much suspect that he has. Why cannot the people at the top of Government spell it out honestly to us ‘plebs’ exactly as it is and then we know exactly what we’re up against? We need to be fully informed of ALL facts before we make an informed decision on anything. Because of all the dishonesty from the British Governing body and because I feel it instinctly, I WILL be voting to leave! I am absolutely disgusted with this CONservative Government and their inability, or will, to see further than their own future political lives.

  29. yosarion
    Posted September 20, 2015 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Ask the dairy farmers who have been swamped by cheap EUSSR milk because of the import sanctions to Russia imposed by the short sighted expansionist loons in Brussels

  • 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