Getting on with Brexit

Parliament needs to work sensibly to implement the wishes of the UK electorate. We cannot put everything on hold until Mr Cameron has gone and his replacement is in post.

Remain voters are understandably apprehensive and wish to see everything done to minimise disruption and to reassure markets, companies and investors. So do I wish to see that.

The main items which Leave voters wanted can be summarised as

  1. UK control over new law making and over our courts
  2. Cancellation of our EU contributions, with more spending on the NHS and repeal of VAT on fuel out of the cancelled contributions we do not get back
  3. A new fair system of immigration control, delivering lower overall numbers
  4. Replacement of lost EU spending by UK spending paid for out of saved contributions we do get back
  5. Maintenance of trade, tourism and other regular contacts through negotiation of the best deal for future relations


Next week Parliament will need to push the government to provide more information upon how these objectives can be secured. Many are within UK power regardless of the  views of our partners. It is a UK government matter to prepare legislation to repeal VAT and to  change the migration system. It is within the power of the Treasury to spend more on UK priorities and on replacing lost EU grants.

There are issues over future trade and investment arrangements which require  both sides to agree any changes. The UK has no proposals for changes to current trade and business arrangements. We need to discuss with the others what if any they would like us to accept.  Starting these talks does not require a new PM, merely a committed negotiating team which the current PM could appoint.

There is a legal issue over our right to break EU law on VAT and stopping contributions. Some say we can only do that if we submit to the process of the Treaties under Article 50. Others say we can do that by amending the 1972 European Communities Act ourselves. After all the UK voters voted to reject the Treaties and to re establish UK control. That is the debate we need to have at an early opportunity in parliament. Draft legislation is already prepared to take back control, but it will need government support to carry. The legislation includes transferring into UK law all current EU laws. the UK  should not seek to  vary trade and business laws and arrangements without agreement and should uphold them until both sides agree any changes. This will also reassure those who want the full range of EU employment rights to remain as good UK law.

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


    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:36 am | Permalink

    There are forces within Parliament on all sides who appear to be working to slow down, inconvenience and block headway.
    1. The SNP of course as per usual.
    2. Attempts to thwart the Brexit Referendum by Mr Lammy and co.

    Necessary: A firm statement to the House that the Referendum vote is valid and all Parliamentarians are to progress it.

    Mr Cameron is on record saying he would immediately trigger Article 50. Three months is stretching “immediately” a bridge too far.

    • Brigham
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

      Is something going to be done about the fool Lammy. How can this person remain in parliament now that he has rejected democracy. What do you think should be done about him and his ilk?

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      How long before a referendum referendum ?

      The greatest danger to our country at the moment is resistance to the referendum result.

      The big lie is from the Remain side and it is this:

      – the EU was in a steady, complete and secure state

      – the EU did not threaten us with economic crisis (it will need bailouts and redistributive taxation forever more.)

      – the working class will suffer most from the Brexit result. The working class knows that the exodus of UK firms or the importation of poverty – mass immigration – amounts to the same thing to them.

      We have made the right decision.

      Let’s get on with it.

      • Mitchel
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:08 am | Permalink

        Watching Sky News around 7/8pm yesterday it almost felt like Adam Boulton was trying to promote a counter-revolution.

        As expected,the forces of reaction are gathering;comrades,we must be prepared to defend the revolution by all means!

    • NickC
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

      We should not trigger Article 50. We have no need to do so, either practically, morally or legally.

      As John Redwood says: “The [new, prepared] legislation includes transferring into UK law all current EU laws.” Then we repeal the original ECA. The UK parliament will thus re-assert the sovereignty of the people (because we are a free, representative democracy once again).

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

        I agree. If people like Mr Schulz want a rapid exit treaty deal, we can grant him that – but it would be outside the Article 50 framework, and exclusively on our terms. We would do best anyway to work outside Article 50, which really only provides an emergency exit cord we can pull in the event that EU politicians continue to be not sensible, even though they are likely to suffer more than the UK. A process of exploring the bilateral areas of mutual benefit with each of the other EU countries would allow us to try to prevent the Commission from riding roughshod over the best mutual outcome.

        It would be in Europe’s interest if key politicians stopped the bile and invective, and the message that the EU and UK would work together with the aim of securing a mutually beneficial set of arrangements, with certainty being brought to key areas such as trade and the rights of established migrants as a priority and possibly the subject of an interim deal to be widened as other details are filled in.

      • Richard
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:56 am | Permalink

        This point of view is rubbished by Dr Richard North types etc… they say the only way it is legal to leave is through Article 50.

        I’m not saying you are wrong, or they are wrong, but someone’s wrong. Would be interested to know more.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        If Article 50 is not triggered soon then it may never be.

      • Eddie Hill
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

        Hear, hear, but isn’t it interesting that there seems to be no possible consensus as to what we need to do and when, which indicates to me that there are a lot of badly0drafted laws and treaties out there. That is why it’s going to take so long to unravel.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      Well we all knew that not much cast iron, no if no buts at heart a low tax conservative ever said was likely to be kept. Talking of porkie pies how is Osborne getting on with his (lets mug the voters if they get it wrong) budget?

      We need a new & a competent chancellor to restore confidence as soon as possible.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        The key new appointments are

        Foreign Secretary and Europe Minister – who will be in the forefront of running the negotiations along with UKREP Brussels (also new appointee needed), who will also need a team of Brexit supporting negotiators and advisors. These people have a lot of work to do, and need to get started on selecting the team and establishing the issues that need attention.

        Chancellor – we cannot have someone who talks his country down and threatens it in that role

        Probably DEFRA minister, as the ministry most affected by EU regulation, and possibly Energy /DECC.

        The rest – including the PM – can wait a short while.

    • Anthony Makara
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

      ……. Sturgeon is a woman who was on the wrong side of public opinion when Scotland chose to remain a member of the United Kingdom. ……… Sturgeon was on the wrong side of public opinion when the United Kingdom as a whole (what the ballot stated) chose to Leave the European Union. Now ………. Sturgeon thinks she is above public opinion, above the law and above the democratic process. This woman is the enemy of all who believe in the integrity of free elections and the laws that emanate from that. This woman is an autocrat and the sooner she is exposed as such the better. Shame on the BBC and Murdoch press for giving Sturgeon a free ride.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

        I must admit I cannot for the life of me see why anyone votes for N Sturgeon at all. The BBC like her, which is a very good warning to steal clear of her.

        A Salmond was at least amusing occasionally.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

        Indeed they even pretended they could keep the pound. But why would Scotland want to switch from the pound and opt for the EURO, then have to pay for all the EURO bailouts that will be needed for much of the EU.

        Why would they vote for EU serfdom and to pay for it all, when they get huge English subsidies and vast benefits from the UK deal and devolution. They will rapidly fall to pieces economically under Sturgeon and the dire socialist SDP anyway.

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      Why are the BBC holding a Dimbleby debate on Brexit ? The decision’s been made, hasn’t it ???

      • graham1946
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

        Yes, it has but the BBC don’t seem to like the answer.

        Surely a referendum is a serious thing and should not be undermined afterwards. Dimbleby was doing his BBC best to do that and even said on the question of the Petition to hold another one, that ‘3 million Leave voters have signed it’ which is patently a lie. There should be some kind of penalty, rather like that for contempt of court. It should be sacrosanct and not open to derision by the media.

        • Mark
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

          We know that the petition was hacked. Furthermore, it has been completely misreported and misrepresented in the media (including the BBC, who you might have though would have actually read it and understood it), and was originally started by a Leave campaigner. At least the Daily Mail has finally managed to piece together a more accurate story:

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

          Indeed and without all the propaganda from the BBC, project fear from Labour, Tories, Libdems, Osborne’s and Carney’s threats and the lies from all the tentacles of government and academia it would have been won by nearly two to one.

          Listen to the Week in Westminter last night to see the huge BBC bias and prophets of doom still in full flow.

        • Eddie Hill
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

          As well as being a lie, it’s totally irrelevant. How can a petition with 3 million signatures (many of which are apparently fake) possibly overturn 17.4 million Referendum votes? Also, if even 3 million people have actually signed it, doesn’t that mean that 13.1 million leavers didn’t bother?

          What possible significance could such a petition have?

          About as much significance as Lammy’s comment on the BBC that: “Lots of people didn’t vote Leave!”

          Well, er, yes, that may be true but …… should we really have to explain this to an MP? If so, he’s not very bright, is he?

      • David Price
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 8:05 am | Permalink

        Perhaps there should be a re-review of the BBC charter and funding.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

          Indeed they failed completely with their huge bias and it still continues yesterday and today.

  2. Al
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:43 am | Permalink

    It is good to hear that progress is planned. If 1972 Act can be amended, moves to remove unpopular taxes like VAT on Fuel and the Tampon Tax would go a long way towards showing that there are good sides to leaving the EU and probably draw cross-party support. We need unity right now.

    Concerning trade, I am surprised that Leave are not making more out of renegotiating trade deals with the developing world to give them a better deal. Considering how exploitative the EU’s current terms are (condemned by the UN and others for human rights abuses) it would be both a trade win and a publicity case against a second referendum.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    The best employment rights are plenty of available jobs. We need a bonfire of red tape.

    How is Osborne’s emergency (if you dare vote Brexit I will mug you) emergency budget coming on? Is it not time he went in order to restore confidence. Please replace him with a competent person in the Allister Heath mode.

    Depressing to hear even Chris Grayling defending the living wage agenda. I suppose we are stuck with this economic, job destroying, Osborne stupidity? At least minimise the damage by limiting it.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      As labour explodes we could well have many terms of real Conservative government and economic growth to come.

      What wonderful and exciting times, full of so many opportunities. Evens on Boris for PM is surely rather good odds. Who else the cowardly Theresa (we have control of our borders through Schengen) May, I think not.

      Hopefully we can now promote on ability rather than Cameron’s appalling token this and that flower arranging BBC think approach.

      Can we have Ruth Lea, NIgel Farrage, Charles Moore, Richard Littlejohn and Allister Heath not in the Lords and given jobs?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

        Sorry, now elevated to the Lords and given government jobs.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        We have the machinations of the Conservative Parliamentary Party to work through. Someone pointed out that Cameron won in 2005 by getting some of his supporters to vote for his least threatening competition to be put to the membership vote.

    • zorro
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, where is Osborne? JR will need to put a search party out for him soon to debrief on the financial situation. Gross dereliction of duty by the Etonians!

      Everything I have ever said/thought about Cameron/Osborne has been shown to be true……


      Reply Mr O did not go to Eton

      • Jerry
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        @Zorro; “where is Osborne?”

        You have knowledge that Mr Osborne is not at his ‘desk’ in his constituency home, in No.11, at either HMT or in meetings at the BoE etc, I very much doubt he is acting like the Labour deputy leader has this weekend – at or frantically trying to return from, a bl…y pop concert!

        • Anonymous
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

          Jerry – I wonder how many of those young pop concert goers organised their postal votes before they went glamping.

          Then young had two extra days granted to them for registration as well. (We all know why a two hour shutdown turned into a two DAY extension !)

          Yet now the Remainers try to stoke acrimony because the young were outvoted by fogeys.

          I’m sure Tom Watson would have been welcome at Glastonbury but isn’t it rather missing the point to have old people at such events ?

      • zorro
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

        Reply to reply -Quite right! He went to St Paul’s (independent school). In the heat of battle, I actually meant Bullingdon Club boys – my mistake…..


        • Jerry
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

          @Zorro; Your comments are saying more about yourself than they are anyone else.

          • Jagman84
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:31 pm | Permalink

            Pot and kettle, Jerry. Pot and kettle…..

          • Hope
            Posted June 27, 2016 at 8:25 pm | Permalink

            Well said Zorro, do not listen to Oh Jerry.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

        No, St Pauls and Magdalen Oxford modern history. Shame he did not do something with a few more sums, logic, risk reward and reason involved. Then perhaps he would not be passing law to prevent the low paid from working at all.

    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    The way things are looking it may be a good idea to keep intact the teams of leafleters, campaigners for Brexit.
    The Remain campaign has in practical terms refused to acknowledge the democratic will of the people. It is still actively campaigning now that the referendum vote is invalid and is busily dissecting the vote in terms of age groups, areas, sub-areas to add fake validation to the idea that democracy has not been enacted.
    A campaign to denounce these self-proclaimed enemies rather than opponents of democracy should be started. Even the dictatorial EU recognises the Brexit vote.
    It is a measure of the degradation of the Remain camp particularly in the Parliamentary Labour Party and in very high business circles that they are now against democracy and against British democracy. And say so openly. They are against our people. It should be stated rather more clearly than before.
    The media too has continued its biased coverage of the remain message and is championing dictatorship rather than those who prefer authoritarianism to consensus politics. it is promoting business leaders who convey an undemocratic message. I have previously typed a comment on one gentleman JR but you have not published it. He is very high ranking, British, and casts severe doubt on the legitimacy of the Referendum.
    We are in a new ball game. It is called dictatorship.

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

      Christopher – Are you prepared to counter-riot ?

      I say ‘counter’ because that’s what the young are being incited to do.

      The only rioting that I support is when a democratic vote is ignored.

      • Eddie Hill
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        Quite right too.

        Also, shouldn’t we ignore the bleating “Remainers?” Surely talking about some form of counter-campaign is granting them a legitimacy they shouldn’t have?

  5. Caterpillar
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    I think for point 3 and 5 it is important to recognise that ‘we’ want free trade but not to be in a free trade area, and mobility of labour not mobility of benefit seekers. I think a free trade agreement, rather than the UK being in a regulated free trade area is a chance for both UK and EU27 to demonstrate a global outlook, stopping the protectionist accusations of some media. I think movement of labour should be something like people from EU27 can work in UK if they find job with 1.5times the minimum wage, and similar for UK workers in EU27. Although the UK mean salary might not have been depressed by ‘cheap’ migrant labour, the lower quartile will have been. Putting a floor above minimum wage will limit this affect protecting some of Labour’s traditional voters. It should also offer some relief to the protesting young middle class (the Lammies?), opportunities for them in EU27 would remain. It would also help the Governor of the BoE with forward guidance, as labour tightening in the UK would be a real capacity/supply cost signal.

    As well Conservatives, the cross-party negotiation team should include Leave supporters from business, and representatives from UKIP (Carswell, Farage?) as well as Labour (Field, Stuart, Mandelson for trade negotiation experience).

    • Narrow shoulders
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

      1.5 times minimum wage with no access to any in work benefits, specifically housing benefit and access to social housing of any sort including B & B but tax credits too.

      No JSA for new arrivals until working consecutively for two years and no access for children to schools for the same period. We do not need to import costs or poverty.

      Move towards work permit system within five years.

      Those already here who can demonstrate that they were in work on 23rd June can stay on the same terms as their current tenure except child benefit which is only payable for children in full time education in England.

      The suggestion about getting some free trade deals with less developed countries quickly is a very good one.

      If the bankers do actually move we will need to tighten belts somewhat to offset lost ice tax but growth in other areas of the economy should make this up in time.

  6. Richard1
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    There seems to be a worrying paralysis. The government and civil service don’t seem to have any contingency Plans in place for a Leave vote. Certainly there needs to be a negotiating team appointed to make an early exploration of a possible deal with the EU. There should also be early talks with other countries regarding new trade deals which could be lined up to come into effect immediately on departure from the EU – that would send a positive signal to the markets.

    Is there any reason we shouldn’t apply to join NAFTA?

    • Richard1
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:41 am | Permalink

      We can’t just say we don’t want any change in trading arrangements can we – presumably we wish to get out of the CFP and re-establish independent fishing, also to disapply the EU’s external tariffs as we make new 3rd party trade agreements?

      • Dennis
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:52 am | Permalink

        ” we wish to get out of the CFP and re-establish independent fishing, ”

        This can’t be done, well completely. What was never mentioned in this referendum is that Belgium, France and Spain have traditional fishing rights in British waters from way back (don’t know how far back but before the EEC) which would have to be renegotiated (some chance!) and doesn’t anyone remember that UK fishing was privatised so many of our quotas were sold off to foreign boats? So not much of UK fishing areas left.

        Why the Remainers never mentioned this is mystery

        • Dennis
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:59 am | Permalink

          Also never mentioned in the referendum is the recent spat between the EU and the Faroe Is. They are not in the EU but sanctions were imposed over fishing quotas. From Wikipedia –

          In July 2013 EU imposed sanctions on the Faroe Islands due to a dispute over the fishing quota of herring and mackerel.[4] The boycott which started on 28 August 2013 banned Faroese vessels carrying herring or mackerel from all EU ports, including Denmark, Sweden and Finland.[5] The Faroe Islands could no longer export herring or mackerel to EU countries. The boycott was lifted on 20 August in 2014 after a breakthrough in negotiations which saw the Faroese share of the total mackerel quota jump from 4.62% to 12.6%.

        • hefner
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

          Why the Brexiteers, among them yourself, I would guess, never mentioned this?

    • getahead
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

      It’s the weekend Richard! Give them chance.

    • stred
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      re. ..civil service don’t have any contingency plans.
      Not only no plans but abandoning their duty of impartiality, assisting in the production of false economic forecasts, denying Leave ministers access to information in their own departments and co-operating in the use of taxpayers money for one side while organising the campaign for Stay.

      One way to encourage les autres functionaires to co-operate with the will of the electorate would be to demote the Sir Humphrey (sorry can’t remember his name) to the paperclip purchasing office, with a commensurate decrease in salary and give HM the Q the pleasure of de-knighting him. Verbal warnings are not necessary in cases of gross misbehaviour.

      • bluedog
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink


  7. Lifelogic
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    I see Hilary Benn has gone, it seems he has no confidence in Corbyn, well who does? But I have even less in a Hilary Benn agenda. His arguments for remain were absurd.

  8. eeyore
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:12 am | Permalink

    The first requirement of parliamentary politics is an ability to count. Have you a majority?

  9. mike Wilson
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

    What is going to happen to the huge number of ex page living in France or Spain who currently enjoy full reciprocal health care?

    Reply They have every right to stay where they are and UK taxpayers will continue to reimuburse their local health services for their use of them.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      If not they can just pay for it themselves or insure, just as they pay for their food, housing, haircuts, water and so on. It would work far more efficiently that way anyway.

    • Mark
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

      The health care arrangements are in any case not an EU matter – they are arranged via the EEA, which we have not voted to leave.

  10. Antisthenes
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    The majority of MPs are for remain in. They are going to make sensible legislation and negotiations on Brexit very difficult. As we have a large number of lefties and other assorted loons (SNP to name just one group) sitting on the benches in the commons what should be a relative easy transition from member to non member of the EU is going to be fraught with difficulties. Obstacles are going to be erected at every opportunity to try and thwart the process. David Cameron’s demeanour tells me he has no enthusiasm to sort out any problems arising with Brexit and until he is replaced only turmoil and chaos will be the order of the day. Aided and abetted by the BBC, the EU, Guardian and the like.

    • Excalibur
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      You are right, Antisthenes. The forces of disruption are already working overtime. Brexit supporters must not allow their victory to be usurped. I’m sure our host is aware of the dangers, and will be working energetically to ensure an orderly return of our sovereignty.

      • John C.
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

        Sad to say, the forces of disruption will also take comfort from any financial problems that arise from this period of uncertainty, and will point to the “warnings” they gave. They will be in no hurry to smoothe the process. Difficult times.
        They’ve started this weekend by challenging the validity of the vote, by urging a second referendum, and by blaming the out vote on a feckless Corbyn, all of which leaves uncertainty and doubt in people’s minds.

        • hefner
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

          Is Dan Hannan talking about control, not reduction of migration, is Farage “un-endorsing” the £350 m for the NHS, are they both parts of the forces of disruption?

    • Mark
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

      MPs will not be doing the negotiating. That will fall to a team of diplomats and appointed advisors at UKREP Brussels, overseen by the Europe Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Those posts need to be in the hands of people sympathetic to the Brexit cause, and who have the right skills and knowledge to negotiate effectively.

  11. Mark B
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:06 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    And I guess this is another post that will either:

    a) not see the light of day, or

    b) be posted until sometime later.

    I wish to make it perfectly clear both to our kind host and my fellow contributors and readers, that we the people, did not vote for some sort of ‘new relationship’ or deal. We voted to LEAVE the EU. That means that we take ALL our powers, cease ALL payments, and reclaim ALL that was once ours – eg Fishing grounds.

    To do this we must invoke Art.50 as stated by the PM David Cameron and required by the Treaty of Lisbon.

    There is no need to list a series of bullet points of things we would like. As the song from the rock group, Queen says; “I want it ALL, and I want it NOW !!!

    I do not believe we should be bargaining over what is ours by right. We have had our fill of, Oliver Twist type politicians. Only Lady Thatcher ever came back from the then EEC with something meaningful. That’s because she stood her ground. If we go back to the EU with a list of demands, they are going to ask for something in return. Perhaps remove our opt-out from the Euro perhaps ???

    I do not trust politicians. Especially those who are not quite under our thumb. It was the political class that led the nation into this terrible place, and it has been the political class that has kept us here. You have made the journey from servants to jailers without anyone noticing. Well done you !

    As I have said before. We need at first a plan. Once we have a plan we invoke Article 50. At the same time, we either repeal or amend the ECA 1972. We sit down with the EU and come to a deal. Once done, we leave.


    • alan jutson
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink

      Mark B

      Agree with many of your points about leaving and wanting it all, but then when all that is said and done we have to start negotiating a new deal with how we trade and Co-Operate with the EU, or individual members of the EU.

      Thus the make up of any team who negotiates with the EU and the rest of the Countries in the World needs to be carefully chosen.
      One thing for sure, we need some hard nosed negotiators to be on that team, not mealy mouthed politicians who have no experience outside of politics.

      Fishing should be simple, we just revert to our original territorial waters that we had before we joined the Common Market.
      We now need to design and build some fishery protection vessels that are capable of enforcing such.

      • David Price
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 8:13 am | Permalink

        Agree, early return of the fisheries would be a good benefit to those heavily impacted by the EU, perhaps appoint a minister of fisheries who could take the climate budget from the DECC.

        As I’ve said before we definitely need increase in FPVs and coastal patrol vessels. The Cod War demonstrated that RN frigates weren’t necessarily the best deterrent for willful fishing skippers. Even better if new vessels were built in our own yards.

    • Jerry
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      @Mark B; “Only Lady Thatcher ever came back from the then EEC with something meaningful.”

      Yes, she signed the UK up to the Single European Act, and thus got us in to this mess, ther successive Dellor’s commissions, the Maastricht Treaty, the ERM, the Euro, the Lisbon Treaty were all a result. Can we know please stop worshipping the person who helped caused the mess!

      “As I have said before. We need at first a plan. Once we have a plan we invoke Article 50.”

      “Need a plan”, Vote Leave and all the other Brexit groups should already have one, they should have had that before campaigning even started, and it is increasingly oblivious that they have no such plan – mean whilst the world carries on spinning…

      • APL
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

        Jerry: “Vote Leave and all the other Brexit groups should already have one, they should have had that before campaigning even started,”

        I find it difficult to believe someone hasn’t directed you to Richard North’s FLEXIT proposal, already. A solid worked through proposal laying out the options to extract the UK from the EU. I understand it was offered to Vote Leave and the Leave alliance, but for reasons best known to themselves they declined to base the Leave campaign on it.

        Reply Because the public does not want free movement or continued contributions. The rest of the world offers neither of those to trade with the EU.

        • APL
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

          JR: “Because the public does not want free movement ..”

          Personally, I would like to see our education system overhauled so that we don’t need to import people from overseas.

          But, what about the precedent of Lichtenstein within the EEA which has control over its migration but access to the single market.

          JR: “or continued contributions.”

          Contributions for membership of the EEA is quite different to contributions to the European Union.

          As a stepping stone to extricate ourselves and buy time to get the situation straighted out, it seems like a reasonable half way house.

      • eeyore
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

        I believe that no one was under the smallest obligation, legally, morally or factually, to provide a plan for Brexit. In fact plans were produced, but they were not of the essence.

        All that happened was that HMG, faced with a decision it felt was too important for government to take, referred it to the people. The people duly gave their instructions to government, whose job it is now to put them into effect.

        We’ve done our bit. Now please give the professionals the time and space to do theirs. If we’re not satisfied we can always sack them later.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

        Woah ! (Jerry 10.49)

        Our government and civil service should have had this contingency plan.

        This was not a general election.

        Such was the arrogance of the ruling elite that there is no plan.

        This is deliberate. I’m sure Dr Redwood and Co would implement plans if pushed to the front bench as they should because of the change in orientation of our country.

        That they are not shows how dangerous those resistant to change are.

        • Jerry
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

          APL; “This was not a general election.”

          Yeah, pass the buck why not!

          It is precisely because it is not a GE that those wanting a Brexit should have plans, not those who do not wish to have Brexit! Most people would not expect the Labour party to have a detailed plan for privatising the NHS any more than the Tory party would have been expected to have a detailed plan to nationalise the banks, simply because the another party or group wishes that course of action.

          By your logic, you should have plans on how to construct the HS4 rail link through your house and garden, not only that but you should also be ready to enact those plans, I bet you haven’t even considered the possibility.

          • Edward2
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

            You won’t get Remainers to make a plan to Leave Jerry
            And the Civil Service won’t because they love the EU
            And no one has made them plan because over the years Remainers were in positions of power.
            It’s a catch 22
            However Leave supporters have plans
            They have been planning for decades
            They just need to get into positions of power to carry them out
            This may happen very soon.

          • Anonymous
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

            Jerry – I disagree.

            I could not see HS4 coming through my house a year in advance – unlike the possibility of a Brexit result (or were they too arrogant to believe it would happen)

            Get the Brexiters into the cabinet – fast !

            If they are kept out of government where they can exercise the will of the people then we can’t blame them for not implementing plans.

          • APL
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

            Jerry:”APL; “This was not a general election.”

            Yeah, pass the buck why not!”

            I imagine you attributed that to me by accident?

          • Mark
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

            Detailed plans require the use of extensive civil service and diplomatic resources. The government did not make these available to the Leave campaign, or do any preparatory work itself. It isn’t something for the back of an envelope or even a pamphlet from Dr North.

    • David Price
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      I think the Fishing grounds must be taken back completely and quickly with alllocations established to deal fairly with the fishermen and associated industries around the whole country. This would be a clear sign of the government following the express wish of the electorate and provide a clear benefit of Brexit to those who were damaged by EU membership.

      It would also have the happy coincidence of highlighting the SDPs wish to hold the needs of the EU above those of all our citizens,

  12. Jerry
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:16 am | Permalink

    Err, but a few days ago you were objecting to the immediate use of A50, probably one of the reasons why Cameron opted to wait, now you are saying that A50 should be used forthwith, make your minds up!

    In the last two days ‘Vote Leave’ politicos have been giving very good impressions of a deer staring in the headlights of an oncoming HGV…

    Reply I wish to talk to the EU without triggering Art 50, as I have always recommended.

    • Jerry
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      Doesn’t A50 of the Lisbon Treaty make it illegal for a member country to simply modify their domestic Act of Accession (to the EEC/EU) and thus terms of membership, surly the only thing the UK parliament could do with the 1972 European Communities Act is repeal the entire Act and all amendments – and then immediately incorporate whole swaths of EU derived laws and directives into UK law as a temporary measure, perhaps with a renewable sunset clause until parliament can revisit each one individually?

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

        Jerry we have voted to leave . Article 50 is a delaying tactic designed to frustrate governments leaving.
        Parliament can I invoke the Parliament Act to get the legislation through modifying the EC act.
        We are not looking for another relationship we want out.
        Any MPs frustrating our wishes will be unemployed at the next election.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

          Likely you will regret saying that when the Article 50 notice doesn’t go in now and the bad losers make sure that it never goes in and we stay in the EU forever.

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Jerry – Stop doing down Vote Leave.

      Get behind the decision your country and the decision has made.

      It is in a powerful position if only you’d recognise it.

      Germany has become a single mother to many children and the father should now be questionning his maintenance payments.

      • Jerry
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

        @Anonymous; “Get behind the decision your country and the decision has made.”

        I have accepted the democratic decision, not difficult as my starting point was for Brexit (although only on the very narrow issue of the economy), that is why I want A50 triggered and quickly, unlike the Vote Leave group it would seem!

        “It is in a powerful position if only you’d recognise it.”

        Nonsense, and the more we wait to trigger A50 the worse our possession gets, the UK government is already getting frozen out as it is, the last thing we need is the EU to present a Take it or leave it A50 “deal” as soon as we do finally trigger A50, or worse still present it as the deal before we formally trigger A50 thus trying to get us to rethink doing so.

        Having won the argument why would any Brexiter want to stay any longer in the EU than necessary?…

        • Edward2
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

          Patience Jerry
          It’s only been a couple of days
          We’ve been in the club for over 40 years
          Divorce takes time.

        • Anonymous
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

          Sorry Jerry.

          I’ve misunderstood your position. My fault.

        • Mark
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

          Have you read Art 50? Once triggered it puts the onus on the EU to negotiate and to conclude an exit treaty, which only requires a QMV vote in Council for approval (no unanimity) as the biggest hurdle. For all that it talks of requiring unanimous approval for extension of negotiations, the reality is that the other 27 would gratefully extend our liability to make contributions, and so the cut-off is really an emergency exit cord the UK can pull.

          Art 50 is not the only way to leave the EU. Greenland managed it without.

  13. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:24 am | Permalink

    That is the debate we need to have at an early opportunity in parliament.

    What will be the situation when you have more in the chamber against you than those who voted to leave? Project fear is still rumbling around and I for one has had enough of this mothers holding their one year old child sobbing about worrying about their future. What has this country become I ask myself. Nothing has changed, you bring up children with principles good education and a work ethic and they will succeed no matter where they may go in the world. Governments and politicians sometimes make it harder for some but with drive and determination everything and anything is possible.

    This country has been given the greatest opportunity ever to really prove itself and become even more successful. For those that cannot or will not embrace this new world there is always an EU country near to you!!

  14. Bernard from Bucks
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    I’m looking forward to a cancellation of the ‘white elephant’ – HS2.
    Think of the money we would save.

    • DennisA
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      Another (hidden) EU initiative, as was the break up of the Post Office.

    • Caterpillar
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      I don’t think comments against policies that can unite London with the rest of the UK are necessarily optimum at the moment.

      Central Government with the 1965 Control of Office Employment Act stopped Birmingham developing for nearly two decades, office space is only in recent years really recovering. The treatment of Bham by central govt when it was clearly the second city and booming (fear? jealousy?) was one of several reasons now there is remaining inbalance between the UK and London. Disasterous short-sightedness that has added to the divide in the UK. It is ironic that a Conservative ex-London mayor and a German born Birmingham Labour MP that appreciate these divisions, and their relevance to the future of post Brexit UK. HS2 is one project that can start to bring the country close together and not be so London centric, the major problem is implementaion speed and possibly over-specifiying the required speed of the trains and hence the cost ballooning.

      Right project, possibly wrong spec, too slow to implement (30 to 50 years late to correct for the earlier policy error).

      The divisions in the country that can be acted on (and preparations for the rapid socio-techo changes that will soon be upon us) within operationlising Brexit are a context that should have been ideal for Camero and Corbyn, they were both on the worng side and both look to be sidelined just as, as part of a nationsl team, they could have been real players.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

        Fixing the M1, M5 and M, and providing a proper A14 link to Felixstowe are far more helpful to Birmingham.

    • stred
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink we could save.
      I am trying to find some figures on the matter of science funding for our universities and research institutes and found this. The amount to be found to make up EU funding is £1.37 bn- well within the £10bn saved. Research would still continue and we would co-operate with the EU, as do Switzerland, Israel, US, and many others. English is the language of science.

      Note that 2 of the research departments leading the complaining are leading and expensive climate change centres of zeal and one was the home of well known emails about presentation of statistics. Not all funding has to continue.

      • stred
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:35 am | Permalink

        correction. It is $1.37 bn.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm | Permalink

      Indeed and cancel the green crap energy subsidies then get some far cheaper and far more reliable energy systems sorted.

  15. alan jutson
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:31 am | Permalink

    Just returned after a couple of weeks away in the darkest depths of Cornwall, where WiFi and mobile signals are in many areas almost non existent, and whilst I always make a rule that when on holiday I am in absolute holiday mode, I have to say I found it especially frustrating this time not to be able to access the web properly for anything.

    The fact that such dead areas still exist in this day and age, in this Country, is really quite shameful, and needs addressing fast.

    For the first time in our lives our family used the postal voting system in order to do our duty and vote Out. So we are absolutely delighted with the result.

    Whilst a little later than other contributors, I would just like to say a very big thank you to you our host for your tireless work in producing a huge amount of facts, figures and inside information from credited Governmental sources, which others sought to either ignore or cover up.

    So thank you John for your efforts, hard work, and for being one of the few MP’s who have been consistent and positive in their views and thoughts for years.
    I really do hope you are rewarded with a top position in the next Government, who will need people with such financial, business, and the political experience that you possess, to now capitalise on the opportunity we have to move forward to the future.

    Chancellor would in my humble opinion be the position I think would best suit your talents.

    Clearly you will have far more inside information (than us on the outside) about the various talents, abilities and suitability of candidates for the position of our next PM, I hope you can use and share some of that knowledge to help bring about what we all hope will be the right person for our Country, now that we are going to be in very different times.

    Thanks once again.

  16. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    “committed negotiating team which the current PM could appoint”

    Well said John. I for one just hope that this means a cross party team, every party played their part in this historic victory.

    I also believe that there must be a place in it for Farage MEP even as an adviser, the man like or hate him has 4 million people behind him and his party. The team could well benefit from having a few MEPs who have experience how the Brussels system “works”

    • margaret robinson
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      could’nt agree more. We should remember that without his determination and drive we would never have gotten this referendum. It would have been easier to include him without the ridiculous bus poster, but wasn’t Osborne’s punishment budget just as bad. I think that in a confident mode, a few drinks and possibly exhausted he makes some serious mistakes but that should not depart us from the enormous effort he has given . i have followed his progress at a distance over some time and watched many of his speeches given in Brussels, strong fearless and delivered with the passion of truth. Up until the “poster” thing I saw how much he had grown as a political figure

    • Ian Wragg
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      If the government doesn’t do as we wish there will be a lot more than 4 million in UKIP.

      • hefner
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        And with First Past the Post, how many more UKIP MPs?

        • Eddie Hill
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

          That’s right – none!

          There is possibly an argument for UKIP members to join the Tory Party and vote for a leader that the mainstream party wouldn’t want, an example recently set by our truly lamentable Labour Party.

          Reply. Too late to get a vote by joining

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

        I think UKIP will benefit most from the collapse of the Labour party, currently being played out in slow motion.

    • Jagman84
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

      I believe that the former Europe minister, David Davis, should be a shoo-in on the team. In fact, I would like him as the next PM, along with our host as Chancellor. We need a period of stability to encourage confidence in the UK worldwide.

  17. gyges01
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Re the negotiating team … can we include people from the Left and Trade Unionists? Some of them did participate in the campaign and did so with honesty, conviction and sincerity. I would like to see a couple of them among the team.

    Apart from that … well done. Take your time. Get it right.

    Good to be leading in Europe again and liberating our European partners from the parasitic tapeworm of the EU.

  18. The PrangWizard
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    It will be interesting to see who opposes these plans, individuals and parties. I dare say we can be sure the SNP will vote against it; they have been trouble-makers ever since the election, predictable ‘one trick ponies’, but how about Labour, and how many Tories? It is of course time to pay less attention to Scottish demands and to put England and Wales’ interests first; we voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit and no-one should be allowed to frustrate this.

    A crisis looms if Labour votes to defy the will of the people. How many Lammys are there?

    I do also hope that there are many speeches opposing the outrageous claims from vested and elitist interests and anti-democratic voices demanding a 2nd EU referendum and a Scottish one for that matter.

    Our Brexit revolution must be defended, there will be trouble if the will of the people is denied or subverted.

    • David L
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:00 pm | Permalink


  19. Nick
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    IF the EU before the 2 years after invoking article 50, starts playing silly buggers, then I suggest withholding payments. Don’t tell them, just have some delays. Nothing like causing financial panic in Brussels.

    They would have to start laying staff off, stop having fois gras at lunch, …

  20. oldtimer
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Thank you for that sensible list of things to be done. The government could and should get on with the non contentious items and those that are wholly within its competence. Mean while let us hope that our very own real life, real time Game of Thrones is settled as expeditiously as it was in the days when the sword and axe delivered summary executions.

    • margaret robinson
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      I am hoping that the negotiating team is strong talented and understand that nothing must be left to misinterpretation. During the campaign this was a simplified and updated response to questions frequently asked by non political working class people like myself, who had for years simply trusted our politicians and accepted the outcome. The question asked was Why did Politicians sign up to free movement plus +++ etc. Just think of why successive governments signed treaties and various agreements that in the long term would be very detrimental to Britain. In the early stages they would have signed the shirt of their back just to get into the single market. But in recent years many agreements including Maastrich and Lisbon were slightly loosely worded with further minor differences lost in translation. These factors gave enormous opportunity for the EU to interrupt as they wished. Even now they are debating the meaning of the word “Shall” in article 50 All these documents were convoluted in length and content and specifically worded to cause confusion and frustration. MP’s could not keep running back every 5 minutes asking for clarification and that was a big problem. As time went on and the flow of paperwork increased so it became increasing difficult to pin down the detail so some were signed off and we failed to understand the consequences until they were implemented. We must make sure this does not happen again.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

        I’ve read Article 50 in French, German, Spanish and Dutch in addition to English. There really isn’t much room for doubt.

  21. Tedgo
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:55 am | Permalink

    I think that there is only a 50/50 chance of us leaving the EU, now that we have the attention of the rest of Europe. Many are talking about treaty change. Parties in Holland, for instance, are talking about abolishing the European Commission and bring power back to the nations.

    I think there will be a big compromise to satisfy all sides, with national parliaments and courts remaining sovereign, perhaps using the a la carte approach to EU diktats.

    I am still for leaving.

    • margaret robinson
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

      We must leave. If it was not for the internet and so many people becoming computer literate we would have carried on trusting and accepting that “it was in our best interests” and continued to allow politicians to coerce, and manipulate us all the way to a country called Europe. We must scrutinise in depth every offer and agreement. No more “behind closed doors” as the EU continue to do even now with TTIP I think we got out just in time. To end the migrant crisis in Germany I saw ahead to quota’s of migrants being imposed on member states and our inclusion in TTIP with no choice.

      • Tedgo
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        I totally agree with you.

        What really disturbs me it that the British Government is a major player in pushing for Turkey to join the EU and also for these so called free trade deals like TTIP and CETA.

        The new Canadian deal runs to 1500 pages and is about protecting the rights of big pharmacy, big agriculture, big media and big Corporations in general. Its all about intellectual property rights and foreign investor protection. Very little to do with free trade.

        One blogger described these trade agreements as “Democracy Insurance”, that is if a government decides to introduce legislation to protect health, the environment, trading terms and the like, then these foreign investors can sue those government for millions. Arbitration of the investors claims is decided by 3 person private commercial courts made up of lawyers. The outcome of these courts is binding without appeal to any higher court. Madness.

        In comparison EFTA’s free trade deal with Canada runs to about 100 pages, the main text takes 25 pages and further 17 pages relate to specific tariffs. Media and intellectual property rights are left to normal government legislation, based on WTO norms. This is how it should be.

        Internet leaks about the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), make it clear the NHS is at serious risk as is the BBC.

        A real free trade deal could be written on a few sheets of A4, any future UK trade details should be negotiated in the public domain.

  22. Paul
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    Could I ask what your view (and the views generally) are about the petition about which there is so much fuss ?

    My personal view is that it is utterly idiotic (I have more time for the protestors shouting c— at Boris who if nothing else have made some effort to actually do something).

    There is a sinking feeling at the back of my mind that this will be taken seriously.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      The petition is dishonest…it’s been shown the majority of signatures are from people not resident in the Uk. There are people on twitter sharing Uk addresses and postcodes explaining to foreign nationals how to cheat the system.

    • cosmic
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

      The petition was started on 25th May to alter the conditions of the referendum before it took place, which made sense, even if you did not agree with it. It was not intended to change the conditions of the referendum retrospectively, which makes no sense.

      The purpose of the petition has come and gone, so the fuss being made of it is ridiculous, as are the people signing something they obviously haven’t understood.

      Furthermore, it’s fairly clear that many of the signatures are fraudulent and have been produced by malicious software. Reports on the internet suggest this has been operated by a subversive group called 4Chan who go in for mischief of this sort.

      At one time there were over 33,000 signatories from the Vatican City which has a
      population of about 800. These have been removed, but the relentless and rapid rate at which it’s growing might have caused the media, especially the BBC, which gleefully and uncritically reported it, so smell a rat.

      It’s now at 3,400,000 signatures and shows no sign of slowing.

      It’s a laughing stock and I’d be very surprised if even the Remain faction in parliament took it seriously.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

        “The petition was started on 25th May to alter the conditions of the referendum before it took place”

        In the middle of a referendum campaign is not a good time to propose changes to the legislation under which a referendum is being held.

        Anybody who wanted such changes should have started campaigning for them before the Bill had been introduced into Parliament, not five months after it has passed when the referendum is already happening.

  23. Roy Grainger
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Cameron is a disgrace. First he says he will stay whatever the outcome, then within hours he resigns but tries to tie the hands of the government by saying exit talks can be postponed till October. Why ? Smells fishy.

    I like reading Matthew Parris in the Times, just to get the views of the sopping wet wing of the Conservative party who are devoted to Cameron – yesterday he was suggesting the majority of pro-Remain MPs should just vote to stay in the EU ignoring the referendum result. The great political thinker Dave Lammy has said the same – a delay till October will give fuel to nonsense like that.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      And he condemned us as “quitters” …

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

        If you are digging yourself in to an EU hole quitting and climbing out is the best policy.

  24. Old Albion
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    I smell a rat. Camerons decision to wait three months (until his successor is chosen) before implementing ‘article 50’ is a ploy.
    He and the ‘remainers’ (now known as ‘sore losers’) are going to lobby Parliament to get a vote to overturn the referendum result, mark my words.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      My fear is the referendum result will become ‘advisory’ .
      Perhaps it will be kicked into the long grass until after the next election..Labour will campaign on a platform of staying IN the Eu and claim a mandate to throw out the referendum result if they win?.
      Either that or Brexit will become so watered down that nothing much will change….

    • Jerry
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      @Old Albion; That would merely likely just delay Brexit until 2020 and a UKIP landslide!

      • John C.
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

        This has got to be right. Any clear or evident refusal to implement the verdict of the referendum must give UKIP an enormous boost at the expense of both the Conservatives and Labour. I shall not be unhappy if this is the case.

  25. Kenneth
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    I agree that transferring current eu regulations into law is the most practical thing to do.

    This will cause the least amount of disruption with or civil service and other institutions.

    We can then repeal and amend using a sensible timetable.

    It sticks in the throat to adopt these laws but it is surely the most common sense thing to do.

  26. JoeSoap
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:18 am | Permalink

    The final misjudgement of Cameron was to delay implementation of the policies voted for on Thursday. He should NOW let this happen. Get out of the way. Get the new Leader in place. Let them appoint their team.
    MOVE THIS FORWARD NOW, or be usurped by the anti-democratic forces such as Lammy in Labour, which will place the country into a state of anarchy.

  27. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Not only will the impact be challenging of leaving but in certain areas it will have a massive impact on our future, non more than the energy sector.

    Chris Gotts Energy Partner @ Burness Paul Legal Services writes in the Scottish Energy News 25th June:-

    Following the historic vote to leave the EU, there are now a wide range of possible outcomes for the UK’s energy sector in respect of its regulatory and market options, and its relationship with the EU.

    These will all have differing implications for investment and trade, and will depend on the fundamental decisions that the UK makes, including whether to seek to remain part of a Single Electricity Market (a scenario that is not dissimilar to the current position).

    Other European nations, such as Norway and Switzerland are outside the EU
    and have voluntarily adopted much of the EU legislation, yet it will be a fundamental decision as to whether the UK will follow this route.

    ****If it chooses not to, then the single electricity market and climate change
    & emissions directives could entirely cease to apply in the UK, and there
    will be significantly greater freedom for the UK to choose its energy path,
    policy and structure***

    A glimmer of hope that at long last that there is a real chance that we could end the ridiculous energy scenario we have had to endure over the last few years.

  28. SumSense
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Marr for once hammering it into Javid, but where is Osborne????
    At least Javid has the modicum of guts needed to poke his head above the parapet.
    Things at least for now have changed.

  29. David Murfin
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    There appears to be some doubt about how Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is to be dealt with.
    Article 50.2 merely says “A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.” I have read conflicting opinions on how and when such notice is to be given to the European Council.
    It seems to me that such doubts are due to failure to consider properly Article 50.1 which says:
    “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS.”

    The Referendum was advisory. As a matter of practical politics the result can hardly be ignored nor set aside as Mr Lammy suggests.
    However, the result must now be given appropriate support by parliament so that notice can be given to the European Council “in accordance with our own constitutional requirements.” Until this is done it is surely not up to Mr Cameron to give notice, and he cannot do this by making statements to the next meeting of the Council without the authority of Parliament (particularly as he has given public notice of his resignation)
    His statement to the Council should be one making clear what our constitutional requirements are before notice can be given.
    For the avoidance of doubt, it might be best for Parliament to decide to ask Her Majesty to write formally to the Council, taking the matter out of party politics.

    After the first line of Article 50.2 the remainder of Article 50 is concerned with how the EU shall negotiate and decide its position. Quite rightly Article 50 is silent on who shall represent the departing state, and how its position shall be decided. As a matter of practical politics that too should be established in UK before negotiations begin, and preferably before notice is given.
    All of the above can be done “as soon as possible” but subject to due careful consideration. Mr Cameron’s “during the next few months and before the Conservative conference” seems a reasonable timescale for such important matters.

  30. Shieldsman
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Who would be on the negotiating team?
    Although the Government currently Conservative with a departing PM in charge is responsible, eurosceptics were in the minority.
    With over 400 MP’s for Remain there is the opportunity or wrecking negotiations. Apart from London every region in England returned a leave majority.

    Let us have a few more men of integrity throw their hats in the ring.

    • Sumsense
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      Negotiating team, as a start:

      Lord Owen
      Steven Woolfe
      Gisela Stuart
      Lord Forsyth

      Get this machinery moving… please!

      • turboterrier
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

        Add to that ex tory Roger Helmer MEP UKIP and David Davies for the Welsh.

        Radical times calls upon radical minds

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

          The excellent Dan Hannan and Kwasi Kwarteng seemed very sensible too.

          Indeed the many leave Tories are far more sensible, rational and numerate in general than the Libdim BBC think wing.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:28 pm | Permalink

        A new party. Yes please !

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

        I do not think that many MPs have the beginnings of enough knowledge to be on the negotiating team which would be a full time job forcing them to leave Parliament: few of them ever bother to read the legislation from Brussels they rubber stamp. A handful of MEPs have invested the effort and have the right approach and the benefit of knowing some of the people from the Commission who will be on the other side of the table. It will take experts in EU law, international trade/WTO provisions, those with good knowledge of the preferences of EU countries, detailed understanding of the potential impact on particular economic sectors (people from industry), security implications, HMRC, etc.

  31. DaveM
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    Quite right. Can you please tell MPs to stop wringing hands and crying into their coffee?

    If there was a fire the Fire Service wouldn’t sit around moaning and fretting. Monday morning….. man up and get on with it.

  32. Cliff. Wokingham.
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Good morning John.
    May I express my concern at the level of rebel rousing across our TV media. Both the state’s broadcaster and Sky News are running scare story after scare story about how bad our lives will now be because we have democratically voted to leave the EU. They seem to still be fighting on behalf of the remain campaign and continuing with Project Fear.
    I get the impression now that they have managed to scare much of the population into having second thoughts about the way they voted and to push for a re run of the referendum; I wonder what part of democracy they don’t understand?

    Where do you think this push is coming from? Is it from Brussels? Is it from our government? Is it just from the BBC and it’s journalists?
    Why is the media and so many of the political elite so happy to try to run rough shod over the people’s democratic decision? Do you think we will still be free of the EU?
    I heard Tim Faron this morning state that his party will include in it’s manifesto a pledge that it will push to remain in the EU, which he feels will be attractive to many voters. I think given the melt down of Labour over night, he may well attract a greater share of the vote.
    I think Labour’s internal problems again mirror the anti democratic message being put out by them and the media over the referendum result ie. in both cases, the democratic decision of the people/Labour Party members is wrong and the elite knows best. I would suggest it is that very attitude and arrogance which has turned so many people off of politics.

    • a-tracy
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      Social Media is worse Cliff, Facebook is out of control and only sharing negative views into our children’s timelines hour in, hour out. I want them specifically holding responsible if some youngster agitated by the decision and inflamed by Facebook does something silly, having bias is damaging and is stoking fear.

      Liam Fox please back off, you had your chance you were rejected.

      Teresa May your best chance in my opinion is to hold on to your serious portfolio that you have the knowledge in and leave running the Conservstives to a Leave spokesperson. This isn’t about personal gain it’s not about infighting. The Remain Tories lost the argument.

      I thought IDS was very sensible this morning when he said UKIP had an MP who can be invited into the rebuilding a nice, sensible, softly spoken man.

      This big argument about the bus figure was put to bed before the vote, it was explained over and over and over again by Remain how it worked even my Remain children had that clarified to them.

    • Chris S
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:06 am | Permalink

      It’s because almost to a person, the Luvvies at the BBC have spent years believing everything they read in the Guardian. For these people Polly Toynbee is royalty.
      I wonder if she will now be applying for Italian citizenship from her Tuscan villa ?

      We saw it this morning in the extraordinary personal rant from Andrew Marr. At least Andrew Neal acted in a truly professional manner, although I suspect he was in favour of Brexit.

    • Sumsense
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

      Given the state of the Labour Party, UKIP will sweep up their votes in most constituencies between Cambridge and Carlisle. Libdems are yesterday’s problem and nobody’s solution.

  33. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    The First Minister of Scotland seemed to be totally out of her depth when confronted by Marr today.

    Fine to stick up for your country only to be expected but as we all have to do is except that the facts are the facts.

    As is, if the media is to be believed then not only the UK is heading for choppy waters but the EU is also on the same course. The number of members (possibly 5) seriously thinking about their future could well put the skids under the whole project.

    What then for Scotland? If ever should it happen that Scotland made the wrong move I only hope whoever is in power they give the English electorate a referendum to see if we want them back. The constant threat of the Scottish leaving the UK is so damaging to all the UK especially Scotland as the one thing the markets hate is uncertainty. Whether you are a winner or a loser the only thing that matters is the UK as it faces the next few years of getting divorced from the EU, is that we achieve the best for the UK electorate everyone of them

    • Horatio
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:12 am | Permalink

      It would help if Marr, the …….Evan Davies and the rest of the BBC, with the exception of A Neil, stopped trying to fuel panic. Maybe they should highlight all the calming, non aggressive things the German’s are saying. The spite will come from the French who are very worried about Frexit. Is Anna Soubury the most out of touch MP in Westminster? Other candidates; David Lammys and Emily thornbury..

      • Jerry
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        @Horatio; Stop trying to vilify the BBC, do you write for the Daily Maul?… Sky News is just as bad, Ch4 is worse than those two put together, then of course there are the world-wide media news sites and broadcasters.

        The spite is coming from the eurocrats in the EU, not the national governments so much, and what the nationals governments wish is not necessarily what the EU want. Also do not be taken in by the nice country-bad country routine (good cop-bad cop routine in other words).

        As for out of touch politicos in Westminster, that surely goes to the anti Corbyn factions, they are all jumping around enacting a pre-planed coup without first understanding that many traditional Labour heartland (and Blairite/Miliband) areas voted for Brexit, yet they are citing Corbyn’s lack of campaigning for Remain as the reason he should be ousted – fat chance on those votes!

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

      I’d very much prefer that the Scots stayed with us, but if the price for that is the continued imprisonment of the English in the EU the price is too high.

      • Gary C
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

        I’m with you DC.

        Plus remaining in the EU would eventually mean getting into bed with Turkey which like you say is a price too high, we have voted to leave and leave we must. If Scotland insists on going it alone then let them go.

      • turboterrier
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        The white settlers here in dictatorship Scotland totally agree with you

      • eeyore
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

        Scots won’t go. They may be noisy but they’re not stupid. Their negotiating hand is empty. They won’t have a currency, they won’t have adequate income, and the EU won’t take them. Germany bankrolls enough countries already without adding another one that costs £1800 in subsidy per head per year.

        Give them their referendum. Give them whatever they want, and give it with a smile, but never, never give them the pound. “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws.”

        • Mockbeggar
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

          Late, I know, but your last line quote is interesting. Do you have a source or is it your own?

      • Lindsay McDougall
        Posted June 27, 2016 at 2:11 am | Permalink

        If the Scot Nats want another referendum, they must first explain to their electorate what that means:

        – No sharing of our monarchy; they can become a republic or have their own monarch. They can choose between Sean Connery, Billy Connelly, the descendents of Bonnie Prince Charle and the decendents of Idi Amin

        – No sharing of our currency. They must choose between the Euro and the Poont (if they ask Angela Merkel very nicely)

        – No Barnett formula and no fiscal transfers

        – They can create a Scottish National Oil & Gas corporation to own those assets north of Berwick

        – Our Nukes to leave Scotland. No Anglo-Scottish defence pact.

        – The Scotland-England border to become a frontier in order to stop illegal immigration to England.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

      The Scots will perfect the Quebec model of permanent grievance, blackmail and brinkmanship, never leaving but perpetually threatening to do so.

  34. Wingsovertheworld
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:13 am | Permalink

    Your peers should be reminded, at the earliest convenience, that the people’s voice has spoken and they are there to represent us, the people. It is not their role to seek to sabotage the future prospects of the UK now the referendum is done; it is not their role to seek ways of staying in the EU regardless of the will of the people they supposedly represent. Their job – your job – now, is to secure the best future for an independent UK outside the EU. The referendum is a not so humble reminder of who you all should be working for.

    A more optimistic pitch is that your peers in the House, mostly Remainians, now have an opportunity like never before, to shape the future of this country. It is in their interest to participate in its new direction.

  35. David
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    We really need to add a list item, and that is consideration for our role in the world beyond Brexit. We need to establish a team to start negotiating free trade deals very soon, not to wait until Brexit is completed to start trade talks with non-EU countries.
    Secondly, item 2, cancellation of our EU contributions is probably a bad idea in the short term. Our contributions serve as a bargaining chip in future exit negotiations. It would be wise for us to set a date when they will stop eg. two years, and work to that. Why? Because continuing to pay contributions for the length of the negotiations, incentivises the prolonging of negotiations. Cutting off contributions immediately makes our negotiating position weaker.
    I can understand that some UK politicians will take a view that cancelling our contributions now means that they can claim to the British people that we have got early results from Brexit, even if that means a worse deal for Britain as a result of negotiations. This is because they can easily claim that any negotiated deal was the best that could be obtained, even if it is terrible for the UK. I would hope that the British people would not be made victims of such a high degree of cynicism. For clarity, I do not believe that you would take an unnecessarily cynical position, so this paragraph is not a criticism of yourself.

  36. Kevin
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Beyond the EU refusing to negotiate any trade deals with us, what is the worst that could happen if we decide to break EU law on contributions?
    Is there any legal recourse they can take beyond the EU?
    Could they break WTO rules and block trade (an unlikely nuclear option presumably)?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      The worst is that other countries will mistrust our word for a long time in the future, and when we propose some agreement, maybe on trade, they could say “What is the point when you cannot be trusted to stick to any agreement that you make?”

  37. Brigham
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

    There seems to be much talk now about a general election to give the new tory PM a mandate to negotiate conditions for Brexit. In the same way as the unpreparedness of the government for Brexit, why take a chance on losing, and letting a labour party idiot do our negotiations. Get a new leader as soon as possible. Trigger article 50, and sort out the leaving conditions in our favour.

  38. Vanessa
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    I don’t think anything should be rushed. Government has never debated anything properly for the last 43 years, you seem to have lost the art of constructive debate. This is too big a change to be hurried and debated over a few days. We need proper considered discussion about how we go about disentangling ourselves from the “Everest” of legislation which now needs a decision on whether we keep some or change it.
    Cameron has shown himself to be utterly incapable of negotiation and therefore should be kept out of the equation at all costs.

    • John C.
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      It’s not so much that Cameron has proved a poor negotiator as that he has been more on the other side than his own.

  39. Bert Young
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    Making a positive contribution at this time is an important psychological stimulant to the voters ; stopping the VAT content on household fuel would be a good start . I also believe that another stimulant to the business community is essential ; reducing taxes is the right way to go . Yesterday I witnessed someone in Sheffield who had voted “leave” say he now had a strong fear that he might have voted the wrong way ; I think most voters had negative feelings of one sort or another and it is for this reason that an immediate “benefit” ought to be thrown their way .

    The procedures John has suggested this morning I fully support ; Article 50 is something we signed up to but it is not the be and end all to the approach we need to take . After all , Article 5o is EU manufacture and was designed to keep the bureaucracy busy . We have turned our backs on the restrictions from Brussels and should demonstrate this asap ; as signatures to a document we do however need to show that we can be trusted with the agreements we make ; stopping payments to Brussels immediately is the most dramatic thing to do and the sort of response the electorate needs .

    As things are now – with disarray in the Labour ranks as well , the Conservatives have to show an orderly and speedy discipline in the election of the leadership and other positions of responsibility . The calm and sensible management in the running of this country is now of the utmost importance ; we do not need youth and inexperience any more in these appointments ; level heads -( grey ones included ) who have their feet firmly on the ground , are essential . I will be disappointed if John does not emerge as Chancellor .

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      Excellent comment, Bert. This writer entirely agrees with you. The petition campaign to overturn the referendum is an absolute disgrace and should be summarily dismissed. The Remainians had their chance, blew it, and do not deserve a free option to subvert the democratic will of the British people as expressed last Thursday. If Lammy has his way, should we then run each General Election twice, or three times? Once is clearly not enough.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      “Article 50 is something we signed up to”

      It is, and the normal rule is “pacta sunt servanda”, and the world will not be at all impressed if we set aside that rule without any convincing justification.

      • Roy Grainger
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        Plenty of people think Boris and Gove have no intention of ever invoking Article 50 – the 3 month wait is to get more concessions from EU. Germans already suggesting UK should “reconsider”

        Reply That’s not what the public voted for

        • Jerry
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

          Roy Grainger; But the EU27 are saying that there will be no more concessions, indeed I think some are even saying that Cameron’s own deal is now off the table too, so if we do not leave then nothing will have changed and indeed it is also possible that our existing opt-outs will be vulnerable – not to mention the ‘carnage’ there will be in the UK at the next election, there will be no safe seats other than perhaps some very left wing Labour and the SNP of course.

          • Edward2
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

            No the Commission is saying that.
            Germany has been saying it does not want trade disruption
            And what Germany wants in the EU It usually gets.

        • Roy Grainger
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

          I agree, but when Dan Hannan says there will still have to be be uncontrolled free movement of EU nationals after Brexit one starts to question some of the Leave Campaigners.

          • Anonymous
            Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

            And when Bo Jo says the Remain vote has to be considered because it was so close (Telegraph article) then we can expect Brexit very Lite.

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

          Dear Roy–I hope you are wrong–Conceivably more, and more importantly more significant, concessions could indeed be wrung out now they realise it has been voted for but once that was done and dusted, we would be well and truly cemented into the EU (having never left) and would be resented in such spadefuls that life would be forever unbearable. We should quit overnight before the die-hard Remainiacs regroup and devise obstruction strategies. Did anyone else just hear Farron (not sure that’s his name–Leader of the Liberals now I understand) on the News hoping to recharge his membership be promising to find a way to Remain or if not to apply to Rejoin. Had to believe it because I just heard it myself.

    • turboterrier
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Bert Young.

      most voters had negative feelings of one sort or another and it is for this reason that an immediate “benefit” ought to be thrown their way .

      Totally agree. A good place to start would be repeal the Climate Change Act,remove subsidies on wind turbines and reduce energy costs helping not only domestic customers but also more importantly industrial users

  40. stred
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    This morning, while having my bath, I put LBC on for the M25 warnings. There was some northern (person ed) on saying that everyone who voted out would soon find out that migration would not reduce and the country would be economically up the creek. He sounded as if he was nearly in tears. I thought- LBC does get some daft contributors but they must have to maintain a balance. At the end they said thanks for the call to the leader of the Libdums.

    Oddly, the other side of the argument has been put out by the BBC.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

      Bath? Save water and power, shower with a friend.

  41. Matt Cronin
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:59 am | Permalink


    Out of interest, how do you see the process of this working given that a majority of sitting MPs don’t want to leave the EU, surely they will never vote in favour of anything that pushes towards an exit?
    Do you think it likely, given the need for a general election in order to get a mandate, other parties will stand (as Tim Farron says the Lib Dems will) on a manifesto of reversing the decision (another referendum by proxy, perhaps!) and possibly even win?

    Whilst ‘we’ won the referendum, it really doesn’t feel anything like a certainty that brexit will be allowed to happen, one way or another…

  42. Horatio
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    I am very frustrated by a jacket if clarity shenanigans discussing the result. We are constantly told that Scotland voted overwhelming out as did N.Ireland that Wales voted in. Yet it therefore follows that the English vote was overwhelmingly leave, but I cannot find any English stats that have not been balkanised into regions. Does anyone know the English percentage?

    • Horatio
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:14 am | Permalink

      Amusingly meant to say *a lack of clarity!

    • Jagman84
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:37 am | Permalink
    • James Matthews
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

      Results for England : Remain 46.8% Leave 53.2%. Skewed towards remain by (several very ethnically and culturally mixed boroughs in) London.

      • Jerry
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

        @James Matthews; The London results were skewed towards remain by several boroughs in London that have large numbers of people working in the City and Canary Wharf that are going to be directly affected by Brexit, from banks moving to the EU27 and the now likely shift away from a London-centric services sector back to hard a industrial sector, nothing what so ever to do with peoples ethnicity and culture.

        • bluedog
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

          The banks won’t be moving to Paris. Under Hollande’s socialist regime the personal tax rates are prohibitive for bonus driven bankers with expensive lifestyles.

          • Jerry
            Posted June 27, 2016 at 10:45 pm | Permalink

            @bluedog; Who said anything about Paris?!…

        • James Matthews
          Posted June 28, 2016 at 9:58 am | Permalink

          @ Jerry.
          As it is now more than 36 hours since I sent a response to your post I assume it did not find favour with our host, though I don’t believe it contained anything particularly controversial.

          No matter. It gives me the opportunity to send a more comprehensive reply and hope that it will be published.

          The London Boroughs that voted most strongly for remain were:

          Total Of which
          Population White British Remain Vote
          Hackney 246K 36% 78.6%
          Lambeth 318K 39% 78.5%
          Haringey 267K 35% 75.6%
          Islington 221K 48% 75.2%
          Camden 234K 44% 75.3%
          City of London 7.5K 58% 75.3%

          The average remain vote across London was 60%.

          Except amongst the tiny population of the City Of London itself, the votes of those employed in in financial services (many of whom commute from the outer London Boroughs or from outside London) could not possibility account for the 15% discrepancy.

          Ethnicity and culture, on the other hand, can. A survey by Lord Ashcroft:

          Provides the following results:

          Asian Voters 67% Remain 33% Leave
          Black Voters 73% Remain 27% Leave
          Muslim Voters 70% Remain 30% Leave

          These compare with the average across the UK for white British Voters of 53% Leave, 47% Remain

          Even the BBC accepts the association between Remain sympathy and non white-British origin, having done a piece on the results in Lambeth, Hackney and Haringey including extensive vox pops in which they asked such people for their views on the matter and the reasons for them.

          I live in one of the aforesaid boroughs. A straw poll amongst my mostly non white-British neighbours produced much the same result as the vote (though with some encouraging exceptions amongst the young). None of them had any inhibitions in expressing their views.

          It really isn’t very surprising that recent migrants and their descendants are more likely to be in favour of migration than the “host” population. There seems little point in denying it.

          Financial services workers may also, to some degree, show the same tendency (though there is no single market in financial services) but they are not in the same league as an electoral force.

      • John C.
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        I’d love to know ratio for England excluding London. In other words ratio for England.

        • James Matthews
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

          England without London 44% Remain 56% Leave

    • miami.mode
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

      H. According to the Telegraph the ratio was 53.2/46.8. Scotland 38/62, Wales 51.7/48.3, NI 44.3/55.7.

  43. graham1946
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    You would like a debate in Parliament. Seems you are more likely to get one on having a referendum re-run. Cameron said this was a once and for all referendum, no ifs no buts, a cast iron result…….oh, wait a minute.

    Why does it take so long to get a new PM.? Politicians take us to war in half the time. This is urgent. Surely something can be done a bit quicker, especially as the result is already known. I think I heard (unless my bed-time brandy was a bit bigger than usual) Nicky Morgan on telly putting herself up as a female candidate. Really? As Littlejohn says, ‘You couldn’t make it up’.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      The Backbench Committee decides whether the subject of a petition will be debated, in this case apart from the likelihood that many of the signatories should be struck out as ineligible or fraudulent it was already a silly petition when it was started on May 23rd and is even more silly now. It is not open to the government to introduce new conditions for a referendum which has already taken place on the basis on an Act of Parliament which did not encompass those conditions, in fact even when the petition was started it was too late as the Act had completed all its stages in both Houses and received Royal Assent five months before.

      “The Procedure Committee has said that it expects the Petitions Committee to take the existing threshold of 100,000 signatures for a petition to be considered for debate in the House as a starting-point. But it also noted that there may be occasions when a debate is not appropriate – such as when a debate has already taken place in the House on the same subject.”

      • graham1946
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink


        Not for the first time, I thank you for your knowledge and research which helps us with lesser knowledge out.

        Just a pity it is not widely known by the media. Even today, the BBC was saying that this debate is likely to happen. It surprises me to find out since my earlier post that most of the signatories are not even of this country and only about 400,000 were actually eligible. Just shows that this petition thing is badly constructed and open to abuse.

        Thanks again.

  44. Bob
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Mr Redwood,
    Does the govt need authority from Parliament to commence the Brexit process?

    • Bob
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:37 am | Permalink

      oh! should I take the absence of response as an ominous sign?

      • Bob
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

        OMG – David Cameron has conned us all again.
        Who could have known this would happen?

    • David Price
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps not outside the context of Article 50?

  45. Christopher Hudson
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    It’s high stakes poker now

    I hope we’re ready

    • Jerry
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      @Christopher Hudson; I get the feeling that the Brexit side are not even ready to play a game of Snap! First they wished for A50 not to be triggered, because they seem to not have a road map ready themselves (just wild LibDem style election promises…), but now they wish for it to be triggered because any delay plays into the hands of those in the UK who wish to kick the referendum result into the very long grass, if not the giant hogweed…

      • APL
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        Jerry: “First they wished for A50 not to be triggered, .. ”

        Richard North suggests there is not much point triggering A50 before we have a new Prime Minister, nor before elections in Germany or France, since both those are likely to see a change in premier.

        But if you want a plan …


        might do in the absence of anything else. It does rather look like LEAVE are surprised by their sucess.

        • Jerry
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

          @APL; Except FLEXIT is not Brexit, it is in principle a significant degree of membership by another name. If we are going to have to accept EU directives etc then I would prefer to be in the room, influencing such directives, not standing outside the locked door asking how high we need to jump. You also assume that the EU 27 would accept it, and again why would the eurocrats do so, allow the UK to create a road map for others to Frexit etc?…

          Brexit should mean exit.

          • APL
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: “it is in principle a significant degree of membership by another name.”

            It is a phased withdrawal, we get access to the single market which buys us time to negotiate any other bilateral agreements we may need.

            But we don’t have the political interference in our internal affairs.

            Seems win win to me.

          • APL
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: ” I would prefer to be in the room, influencing such directives, not standing outside the locked door asking how high we need to jump. ”

            ‘The room’ is not the EU, it’s the UN. We are already in the UN.

            We can influence the EU from the UN which in he hierarchy of international bodies above the EU.

      • Christopher Hudson
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm | Permalink


        I think they’re ready to go Jerry
        John Redwood
        Chris Grayling

        Johnson and Gove were the face of the campaign, the nuts and bolts guys, the second wave, are ready

        • Jerry
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

          @CH; If they had a road map and were ready to go then they would have wanted A50 activated on the morning of the 24th, JR has said in a reply to me that he wants to talk with the EU, but isn’t that what A50 is intended for?!

          • Edward2
            Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            Maybe there is a plan and they are not telling you and the world Jerry.
            If you are entering into negotiations in business or politics best not to publish your road map.

        • Anonymous
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:30 pm | Permalink

          Add Denis Cooper to that list.

  46. Christopher Hudson
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Clear heads and minds required

  47. Ken Moore
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I read this comment today :-

    ‘The irony is beautiful. Not having learnt that Britain wants out of the EU because it is anti-democratic, the supporters of the EU want to void the referendum result, and have another vote, and keep doing this until the “correct” result is achieved. These pathetic anti-democrats are classic EU clones’.

    Mr Redwood, can you offer reassurance that the referendum result will be respected ?.
    Is the resolve of fellow colleagues strong enough to defeat those that effectively say because the ‘wrong sort’ of people got the result they wanted the referendum doesn’t count?
    Already dirty tricks are being tried – the petition calling for another referendum has been signed by about 2 million people that aren’t resident in this country – a fact not mentioned by Andrew Marr this morning.

    • graham1946
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      What is also disturbing is that the Remainers are trying to pit the young against the old and are still campaigning – this is very dangerous and totally wrong. They are saying that the older people have stolen the youngs’ future. No doubt this is all of a piece which Boy George started with his ’emergency budget’ nonsense but which did contain one piece of their thinking which means eventually they will shaft the pensioners. It’s coming. I’ve said it several times. Next parliament, sooner than 2020, probably even as early as next year it will happen.

      They young may yet realise they have actually been saved from a calamity when the EU finally implodes, as I think it will, sooner than maybe expected. Germany is the only one with money now and I can’t see her people putting up with footing the bills for bailouts alone. It is bad enough with Greece, but when Italy collapses it will be catastrophic. Trouble is that by then the young will be despising the old.

      • Ken Moore
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

        Indeed, most societies are built on the belief that the older generation are to be respected for their age, wisdom and experience. They remember the many bogus claims that Europe is ‘coming the Uk’s way’ or that it’s ‘game set and match’ for Britain etc. They remember a gentler, safer, more confident and self assured Britain that built a vast array of goods that the whole world admired and wanted to buy.

        What the Remainers are saying is that the old are so selfish and stupid that they voted purely for selfish reasons and ignored they’re own children and grandchildren’s welfare.
        A disgusting slur – I sincerely hope this view gets no traction amongst the majority of MP’s but I suspect I might be disappointed…

        • John C.
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

          I imagine that the anger against older people will soon dissipate as the younger generation lose interest (as children do) and move onto some new fashion.
          When it comes to a general election, it will again become important to any party to make sure the older generation is not disadvantaged.

  48. Chris S
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    There has to be a serious, but low risk, that the House of Commons and the Lords could frustrate Brexit, or, at least go against the wishes of the people and vote to retain FOM and EU budget contributions by insisting we remain in the single market.

    This has to be prepared for and resisted. The best way to do this is to move quickly and get Boris installed as PM as soon as possible. Leaving it to October is simply to long.

    If that is not possible, Cameron needs to move very quickly and set up a Brexit sub-committee which should be led by one of the leading Brexiteers. I would suggest Michael Gove as he has already ruled himself out of the leadership contest. A good alternative would, of course, be our host.

    Hopefully Juncker will follow through on his wish to progress things quickly and rapidly inform Sturgeon what the EU view is on her attempts to get continuing EU membership for Scotland.

    Hopefully she will be told that Scotland will have to go to the back of the line (or should it be queue in Eurospeak ? ), She will also have to accept the Euro and therefore meet the convergency rules before accession, crucially including a maximum deficit of 3% of GDP. This would entail a reduction in public spending of at least £10bn pa.

    In these circumstances she would surely bottle it because she would never be able to sell such a degree of austerity to voters. Especially in the knowledge that there would have to be a border between Scotland and England with all the ramifications that would entail.

    I suspect she already knows this only too well and all her protestations are designed for internal Scottish consumption only.

    She is almost certainly setting things up this way to deflect the argument so that later she can blame Europe and more importantly, England for the situation Scotland finds itself in.

    If I were the Prime Minister I would call her bluff by immediately offering agreement to a new independence referendum as long as at the same time Stergeon names the exact date on which it will be held. She won’t go for it.

  49. Elliot Kane
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    Smart, sensible & right.

    Very well said, John.

  50. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    If Cameron had stood back from the referendum, saying “It’s now up to the voters to decide”, then it would have been possible for him to continue as Prime Minister to implement their decision. But he didn’t, and he’s said that he is resigning but not for months during which crucial actions will have to be taken. I don’t find that satisfactory, I think he should advise the Queen to appoint a caretaker Prime Minister, who could also act as the caretaker leader of the Tory party, until such time as a new leader and Prime Minister emerges. Who? Well I think it has to somebody with some gravitas and also experience of dealing with the EU who can be at least half-trusted to try to do their best for the country rather than for the EU. Obviously not Osborne, possibly Hammond or May from the losing side, probably best not Johnson but perhaps Gove from the winning side. I would say Gisela Stuart except I cannot see even the Labour MPs being willing to go along with that let alone the Tory MPs.

    • John C.
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      I doubt if Cameron could observe the referendum from some lofty impartial height. There would have been calls for Leadership.
      His fatal mistake was simply dishonesty. He should have returned from his negotiations, declared that the E.U. was not for turning, and led an Out campaign. The Leave majority would I imagine have been rather greater.
      He would now be a sort of hero, and the natural leader to negotiate our withdrawal.

  51. Sean
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:46 am | Permalink

    I don’t want another Eu referendum, I voted out and that is final.

    I think Cameron should just start article 50 but I think he us trying delay tactics to hopefully buy time for another Eu referendum. We voted out don’t make me vote again.

    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    “The next day after the vote for Brexit” was when Mr Cameron promised in Parliament that Article 50 would triggered. No-one from either Campaign questioned the date. No-one said : “Oh we’ll wait for October” .Now, as on Daily Politics a senior Remainer favours November.
    We also have Mr Blair saying to Andrew Neil that immigration has always been a concern in the UK for over 40 years and that it only takes a few newspapers to whip up a commotion about it. As though immigration is a natural event like the weather and regular annual household flooding as in the centre of York
    Clear evidence from the Establishment including elements of the Remain Camp that we the people just need our expectations managed and massaged then we’ll be OK just so long as we have time to settle down a bit and if the newspapers do not drive us to hysteria. No recognition or any knowledge by the two speakers of “life in the street” so to speak.

    Actually, and don’t think I promote violence or terrorism, but an excellent though too small a book by Mr Gerry Adams of Sinn Féin” The Street and Other Stories” is an eye-opener for those who tend to speak from a pedestal and do not have their noses rubbed regularly into the dirt by everyday life. It’s a must read.

    Well immigration is not something we should expect.Perhaps governments despite the referendum still expect us to expect it.

    The Far Right parties and groups in the UK, better called Populist Parties for their politics hardly fit the mould of right-wing at all, are ready to sit out whilst mainstream politicians dawdle.
    These parties make hay while the clock ticks:
    #Mr Adams’ book, does not mix metaphors

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      “19 (1) No court may entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast in the referendum as certified by the Chief Counting Officer or a Regional Counting Officer or counting officer unless –

      (a) the proceedings are brought by a claim for judicial review, and
      (b) the claim form is filed before the end of the permitted period.

      (2) In sub-paragraph (1) “the permitted period” means the period of 6 weeks beginning with –

      (a) the day on which the officer in question gives a certificate as to the number of ballot papers counted and votes cast in the referendum, or

      (b) if the officer gives more than one such certificate, the day on which the last is given …”

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

      “These parties make hay while the clock ticks”

      And the EU sausage meat machine grinds away at us in the meantime.

  53. ian
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Parliament works for the people and head of state, there needs to be queens speech and bill put forward on what the people thought was on offer like the deportation of foreign criminals and terrorists, a point system for immigration and to stop handing out passports in liberal manner, free trade area with quotas things like steel, 60 mile limit and the English channel controlled by are navy and so on.

    People business needs to take place over party business and the party manifesto.
    It Mr Gove job to see that this done on behalf of the people without a vote in parliament and the queens subjects wishes implemented.

  54. Pete
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    Cameron should go now. Form a Brexit government and get on with the job. Delay allows time for the Brussels elite and their lackeys in parliament and the city to work against this vote. The Remainers do not respect democracy unless it gives them the result they want. To fail to act speedily is to lose all that we have gained. Work should have started on Friday not in 3 months time and definitely not according to schedules imposed by anyone uncommitted to Brexit. If this opportunity is lost Britain will be forced into the Euro, overwhelmed by violent and illiterate immigrants and have it’s economy entirely ruined by Brussels decrees. The fight is not won, if Leave MPs fail us and allow the EU to win they will not be kindly remembered.

    • Maureen Turner
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      I agree three months is far too long before activating A50. In calmer times it might have been OK but this is anything but normal times and if you leave a vacuum it is highly likely both Brussels and Remain will find plenty of ways to lessen the tremendous achievement of Leave. I get the impression Remain is still on the campaign trail as is the BBC and Sky.

  55. fedupsoutherner
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

    If the Conservatives don’t deliver what the people voted for and get their act together quickly and the Labour party don’t stop behaving like a load of spoilt brats then watch the general electorate vote UKIP as in their minds there will be no party that represents their needs other than UKIP. British politics could change beyond any recognition. Come on John, the Conservative party owe it to the people now to rally round and get things done. If this referendum is not allowed then there will be riots on the streets.

  56. fedupsoutherner
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Whoever is chosen to lead the Tory party they must be for leaving. Nicky Chapman – you’re having a laugh. Cannot believe a General Election is even being considered. We could end up with someone leading the country who doesn’t want out and then brings in another referendum. The situation would be dire. Why does it seem like politicians think this is all about them? It’s not. It’s about us – the country and we pay politicians to do what we ask and vote for. GET ON WITH IT.

  57. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    JR, once again I strongly urge you to give Article 5o TEU a try rather than rushing to unilaterally abrogate the EU treaties or disapply EU laws.

    By all means prepare for the latter course, start passing legislation, but keep it in reserve in case the other EU governments start to muck us about.

    The American revolutionaries understood that their chances of success would be greatly diminished if all the world turned away in disgust from what they were doing; that is why they started the Declaration of Independence with a justification of their actions:

    “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Before the Lisbon Treaty came into force the EU treaties made no provision for a member state to withdraw, but Brown signed the Lisbon Treaty to amend the existing treaties, including this:

    “58) The following new Article 49 A shall be inserted:

    ‘Article 49 A

    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention … “,

    etc, and Parliament passed an Act to approve that treaty, and the UK as a state then formally ratified that treaty, saying that it consented to be bound by it.

    Yes, that was all done without the direct approval of the British people in a referendum, but nonetheless it was done and thereby we told the world that if we wanted to leave the EU then Article 50 is the agreed procedure we would follow, and potentially it would do great damage to our international reputation as a trustworthy party to treaties and other agreements if we now went back on that without good cause.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm | Permalink


      I think Frau Merkel will pull a “rabbit out of a hat next week” and some sort of trade negotiation needs to be in place before triggering Article 50. Whether it all will be good enough for the majority of Brexiteers only time will tell…

      A replacement for CMD needs to be in place asap even if it’s just a “caretaker” leader -who- I would go for Michael Grove, Chris Grayling, IDS or Andrea Leadsom or may be even Theresa May.

      Junker needs to go, in reality he needs to be sacked for the extra instability in the markets that he caused on Friday.

    • APL
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      Denis Cooper: ” I strongly urge you to give Article 5o TEU a try rather than rushing to unilaterally abrogate the EU treaties or disapply EU laws. ”

      It would also have the benefit of removing the threat in future that we didn’t leave the EU through legal means ( by their rules ) consequently leading to some future bogus claim against the UK.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

        Any route agreed by the UK and the EU would be legal. It doesn’t have to be Art 50. Those provisions are there in case we can’t find a better exit though agreement.

        • APL
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

          Mark: “Any route agreed by the UK and the EU would be legal. It doesn’t have to be Art 50. ”

          Maybe. But we signed up to it ( The Lisbon treaty), even if it were under duress by a Prime minister who wasn’t too bright.

          And thus, agreed the exit route. I don’t think it in our interests to be seen to be undermining International law.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

      Excellent comment, as ever.

  58. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Watching the BBC politics programme the right wing parties must be clasping their hands together and looking at the heavens and saying thank you.

    If parliament doesn’t get it act together then it will be at the price of the demise of real democracy in this country.

    The people have voted and whether it be for Leave or the Labour leader their decision must be respected.

    The night of the long knives will have nothing on what appears to be happening with all the talk of petitions wanting a re-run, our next PM or shadow politicians resigning. What signals are we sending out into the world?

    Sign on or ship out and by out I mean out. In business you resign pick up your P45 and go off and do what you really want to. You don’t stick around sabotaging the company progress to the detriment of your fellow workers. Acting like bad losers is a big vote loser and is playing straight into the hands of UKIP.

    With all this going on the last thing we need is an early General Election lets do and finish the job that we voted for, then we will have something to present to the people. A day or week is along time in politics within two years a fault line could well be opening through the EU as other countries fail to pay their debts and are collapsing and countries with elections coming up start to change colour.

    • Jerry
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:19 pm | Permalink

      @turboterrier; “What signals are we sending out into the world?”

      I have to agree, we have a democratically elected PM who, having promised a referendum, has refused to enact the peoples choice.

      We have a group of politicos who having asked for an exit from the EU and got a mandate from the people now seem to have largely vanished into the Ether as soon as Article 50 was mentioned, not to mention that those who have stuck their heads above the parapet appear to be distancing themselves from what was said during the campaign or indeed the message on the side of the official campaign bus.

      Now we appear to have the democratically elected (by party members) leader of the official opposition party who now has significant members of his parliamentary party refusing to serve under him.

      Whilst the next largest party at Westminster (the SNP) is busy promising the Scottish electorate what they must know they have little or no legal right to deliver.

      This behaviour by elected politicos, taking the electorate for fools, can only end in an even more disillusioned electorate, who will start looking for other solutions, we all hope that is not direct action and no one could condone such behaviour but who could blame them if significant numbers walk off either towards the Socialist labour Party on the left or a revived BNP to the right.

  59. Andrew Tettenborn
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    Strictly speaking, as I see it the Govt doesn’t need parliamentary authority to trigger Art.50: DC could do it tomorrow.

    What I fear is an effort to kick the issue into the long grass and thereby avoid Brexit altogether (as a majority of Tory MPs seem to want). The scenario might run like this. Delay invoking Art.50 till we have a new PM; delay further while we have (unhurried) negotiations; precipitate a GE; you can’t negotiate during a GE campaign; if we’re having a GE, then Brexit might as well depend on the policies of whichever party wins it; after the GE the referendum is irrelevant because the people have had a chance to have their say …

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      I believe it could be a matter of Royal Prerogative, just as successive Prime Ministers signing the treaties was an exercise of Royal Prerogative. However I repeat that we are now in a six week period when legal challenges to the result can be lodged and it would be better to wait until it was absolutely certain that there were no viable and material challenges which could lead to the courts overturning the result.

    • John C.
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

      A very possible scenario. And of course, the present uncertainty and general mood of chaos is favourable to Remainers: they can say, “Look, we told you so. If you voted Remain, none of this would have happened. How about having a total rethink?”

  60. William Long
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    The chaos in the Labour Party gives the Government a golden opportunity to get its act together and get things moving. Lets hope it takes it and is not distracted by similar in fighting in the Conservative party.
    I understand the attractions of the ‘Amend the 1972 Act’ approach but is there any widespread support for that approach in Parliament or knowledge of its possibilities outside? I do not remember any significant mention of it from either Leave campaign.
    The Labour Party situation, with an apparent total disconnect between the Parliamentary Party and the membership, with the latter having the real voting power, can only result in Mr Corbyn being re-elected, or total melt down with a new parliamentary labour party separated from the existing Party membership. Either way Labour seems to be likely to find it very difficult to be elected, with the possibility of UKIP making real progress in the ‘Labour Heartland’ that won the referendum for Leave. I would say that the sooner we have a General election the more likely this is to happen.
    Incidentally, I think Leave should recognise the part that Mr Farage played in getting us a Referendum in the first place; I do not think we would have had it without him.

  61. bratwurst
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    The constitution allows parliament to overturn the referendum result & it seems there is a very real danger that parliament might do so.

  62. adam
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Of course you don’t have to cancel financial contributions to the EU just yet. Probably not a good idea for a while, you know. National security people like the idea of financial payments to keep Europe bound together and prevent war, if its in our national security interest we should really consider continuing payments for many years to come

    • anon
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      Possibly but time limited and in decreasing amounts and only as overseas aid direct to countries which have exited the EU.

      The EU has its own central bank does it not? it can arrange fiscal transfers to regions with lower gdp etc.

  63. David Eteson
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    DHE Wokingham
    So the disgruntled losers want a rerun! If Remain should then win, could Leave in its turn demand a rerun? We could waste a lot of time and money on such a game. It might become our national sport.

  64. Dioclese
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    The will of the people must be obeyed. Simple.

    MPs of all persuasions need to remember that they do what we want, not the other way around…

    • hefner
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

      Ah, ah, ah. Do you really believe this?
      From the winning camp, we have already heard back-pedalling on the £350 m for the NHS (Nigel F), on the migration (Boris J, Daniel H), on whether or when article 50 will be called (various). Unfortunately, even without any Remainers’ effort, the Brexiteer “elite” is quite able to mess it up all by itself.

  65. Ian B
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    So far: no Article 50, Hannan declaring no migration controls before the last votes were even in, narrative of staying in the Single Market (requiring payments to Brussels a la Switzerland) and leaving taking years and years, back-pedalling on NHS funding, Ukippers derided and the Vote Leave Cabal acting as if we voted for them, rather than for an action (leaving the EU) and they thus “own” the leaving process.

    Getting to this stage has taken constant pressure from millions of ordinary Britons and, whether you like them or not, Farage and UKIP pushing on when things seemed hopeless, not least delivering many “Old Labour” type votes that swung the referendum. Suddenly everything has switched to party leadership battles which are frankly irrelevant to most of us compared to the issue.

    Anyone with political understanding must realise that with the Remainers organising fast, we are in a perilous condition. We could find ourselves in a snap General Election which can then be used to nullify the Referendum vote (as being a later “mandate”). And I repeat that we did not vote for the people in Vote Leave, we voted for the choice on the ballot paper.

    I cannot be the only long term EUsceptic who has waited for this for years and years who is feeling more and more disturbed by unfolding events.

    Are we watching a bait and switch in operation John?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

      I cannot defend Daniel Hannan’s latest pronouncement, which in my view is totally idiotic, I can only point that out he is only an MEP and will not be deciding what our immigration policy will be once we have regained complete control over it.

      • Richard1
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

        I thought Hannans comment was perfectly sensible. He said people will not expect immediate results like a 3 year old, it will take time. He also said that the key thing is for the UK govt / parliament to have the power to control immigration. I agree with all this. Unfortunately Farage & Co were walking around talking about getting down to 30-50k p.a., a 90% reduction. This would seem to be inconceivable given the UKs skills shortage and the lack of willingness of much of the indigenous population to do low paid low skilled work. Disillusion is probably coming on this issue.

    • stred
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

      Ian B. Your summary explains the delays and monopolising of the process by the Leave team and the statements by Daniel Hannan. There may be a move to dilute or reverse the referendum in order to preserve the unity of the Party. Hannan has now made his inclusion in any negotiating team impossible because, as JR says, the electorate voted to reduce mass immigration and not to continue paying into the EU.

      Possibly A50 would allow us to negotiate these requirements but still access the EU market at zero tariffs. In which case it should be declared quickly, especially as Junker says he also wants a swift exit. The Commission may be planning to punish us with tariffs and bans but they may have underestimated the power of EU business which sells much more to us. Commissioners are unpopular in other countries too and will be put in their place.

      MPs need to comply with the decision and recognise that they won with the great contribution of Labour MPs and UKIP. A council for Brexit could number as many as 10 including members from Labour and UKIP : otherwise it will be mistrusted.

      The negotiation might go as follows:-
      EU. We can offer you a Norway solution if you agree to pay and free movement.
      UK. But the referendum required otherwise.
      EU. Then you must leave, but we will impose tariffs on all manufacturing and farming
      UK. OK. When? We must inform alternative sources and step up dairy and fruit production. Please inform BMW, VW, Danone and the French and Dutch farmers.
      EU. But you will not be able to as you will not allow EU workers.
      UK. Oh no, we still intend to ask essential workers but they will have to commute home when finished. And we would like to allow UK workers and students the same access to the EU. We just want to avoid increasing the population by millions.
      EU. But you can’t discriminate on who you allow in. We will not allow free movement.
      UK. So you are doing what you say we should not.We also would like people to be able to marry EU partners and settle in the UK or EU.
      EU. You surely don’t expect us to allow inter- trading block marriage.
      UK. Why don’t you explain this to MEPs so they can tell their voters how popular this will be. Let’s leave it for a week then get back to us.
      EU. Don’t forget to leave this week’s £350m before you leave.
      UK. We will settle up when we know your answer.

      • stred
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

        + if allowed.
        EU. Pass the Cognac bitte.

    • David
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      I have to agree with you. Now that the referendum has been won, almost all urgency seems to have evaporated. Mr Redwood is still pushing for progress, but David Cameron wants to leave activating Article 50 for months. The Foreign Secretary has said that there is no hurry to activate Article 50, and Boris Johnson is now saying that we have plenty of time. Dr Liam Fox has stated he wants Brexit to occur in 2019…
      I think its clear that people realise that the longer little to no progress happens, the more likely the Brexit process will never complete, and can then be cancelled by a parliamentary party standing at a general election on a ticket of setting aside the referendum result.
      The Liberal Democrats have come out and said that they will always oppose exiting the EU and will campaign to rejoin, and David Lammy MP has called on Parliament to ignore the referendum result.
      The longer little to no progress is made the more impact on our economy the uncertainty will have.
      The disarray that seems to be surrounding the government at the moment, is causing concern for Brexiteers and is starting to take the shine off the referendum result.

    Posted June 26, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    The vote for Brexit in rock solid Labour areas was despite a deluge of Remain propaganda. . They voted on the issue of immigration. An almost pure issue on an almost pure non-party basis. The Labour Party “right-wing” career-politicians may wish it otherwise, but few of them if any….would get a personal vote in an election without a Labour Party nomination. They and not Corbyn are in fact an electoral disability . People can tolerate and actually love a dreamer like Corbyn but not intelligent people wide-awake who de-house, de-school, de-health them with clever multicultural rhetoric which their academic intelligence obviously forbids they themselves to actually believe. Whatever the faults of Corbyn, people believe he believes what he says, absolutely. People vote for that. Not liars.

    Maybe it was not thought cricket or appropriate or legal, but national identity is important to individuals. Brexit was powered by it whether the Leave Camp recognise it or not. The Remain Camp and cloudy thinking could well have caused massive damage to our society.

  67. James Matthews
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    The political and broadcasting establishment is moving very rapidly to try to neutralise the referendum result (the ground for this having been prepared by Cameron’s reckless determination to make no contingency plans). If they can’t frighten enough people into changing their minds and then engineer a second vote, some of them will obstruct Parliament’s attempts to implement it and if that fails they will do their best to ensure that none of the actions which people hoped for when the voted for it are actually carried out.

    We have a very long way to go before we get what we voted for and, as Mr Redwood says, must try to maintain some momentum.

    I see that Nicola Sturgeon believes that the Scottish Parliament can veto any attempt to leave. It seems incredible that this could be constitutionally possible, but devolution has been an exercise in unintended (or at least unpublicised) consequences, so who knows?

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      Yes, James. It will be so wrong if Scotland can affect the results. They are part of the UK, like it or not, and many in Scotland (me included) voted to come out. We want our democratic rights upheld just as you in England do. We had a vote and we won so now deliver.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

      If the Scottish parliament vetoes any attempt to Leave, the UK Parliament can repeal the Scotland Act 1996 and thus dis-establish the Scottish parliament. Then there’s the great bounty paid to Scotland by the UK. Should that continue in the face of Scottish obstruction to the settled opinion of the majority of the UK? The Scots seem to want it both ways; they need to understand that the UK cannot work like that.

      Once Brexit returns the fishing grounds to Scotland, the SNP may find that its popular support for joining the EU evaporates. Getting the fishing back via the UK only to see it returned to the EU via Scotland would not impress the Scottish electorate, one imagines.

  68. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

    This is amusing:

    “Some 39,411 residents of Vatican City, home to Pope Francis, appeared to have signed the petition by Sunday morning, despite the tiny city state having a total population of just 800.”

    “In isolationist North Korea, one of the least internet-connected countries in the world, 23,778 people had apparently gone online to express their frustration at the UK’s decision to quit the EU.

    Located 800 miles south east of the Falklands, and with a permanent population of zero, the South Atlantic British Overseas Territory of South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands was responsible for more than 3,000 signatures.”

    And so forth.

    As I suggested might the case, this petition was actually started by a Leaver:

    “The petition was started, ironically, by Leave voter William Oliver Healey more than a month ago, when polls suggested a win for Remain.

    On Sunday he posted a statement on his Facebook page which attempted to distance himself from it.

    He wrote: “Due to the result, the petition has been hijacked by the remain campaign. Admittedly, my actions were premature however, my intentions were as stated above.

    “THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE OF A LEAVE VICTORY AT THAT TIME!!! Having said that, if it had not been mine, it would have been orchestrated by someone on the remain campaign.

    “I believe what we need to do now for the good of the country; is get behind the will of the British people, unite, issue Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon and move forward, with the process of leaving the European Union”.”

    I suppose as originator he could ask for it be taken down.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for this Denis. Have copied and passed to all my contacts. Disgraceful!

  69. Peter Stroud
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    I am very disappointed with David Cameron’s behaviour post referendum. He was silly to play such a prominent role in the Remain campaign. It would have been better if he had merely stated his preference, and took a back seat: then he need not have resigned.

    I hear that Mathew Parris is most unhappy with the result of the referendum. Frankly I think his suggestion that the vote of the majority of ordinary folk be ignored is a disgrace. Similarly the views of David Lammy, who was once considered the bright young man of the Labour Party. Our ancestors fought and died for our democracy: their struggle cannot be ignored.

    • fedupsoutherner
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

      Cameron couldn’t have just sat back and said nothing. That would not be good for a leader of a party. Look at what they are saying about Corbyn and his lack of participation. If Remain had won those on the leave side would have demanded Cameron resign for lack of leadership. The mistake he made was to tell too many porkies and try to frighten the electorate too many times. Instead of being frank and honest he tried to pull the wool over our eyes and went into a little club with Osborne to try and get the vote to go his way. He is not in touch with the people of his own country. We need someone down to earth who has had experience of work and life. Cameron does not.

  70. forthurst
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:12 pm | Permalink

    There are two main issues for our future relationship with Europe, firstly the result of the US Presidential election, and second with whom we negotiate in Europe. Donald Trump would be the right person to win and Clinton would the wrong person. Trump has made his position abundantly clear so he would do everything in his power to restrain dark forces within his own country as well advising the Brussels regime to be co-operative with our national aspirations. Clinton, of course, is (more pro EU ed) so she could cause severe problems as a consequence. As our future relationship with Europe should be based on nothing more than trade and co-operation on matters of agreed mutual interest, it is vital to ignore the pack of cards in Brussels and enter into negotiations with our main national trading partners in Europe in order to negotiate a continuance of mutual free access to each others’ markets. Only the matter of fishing would be non-negotiable since that pertains to our territorial waters and therefore of no legitimate concern to Europe; whether we need to issue short term licences to continental trawlers whilst we build up our own fleet with generous grants is a matter of detail.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      “enter into negotiations with our main national trading partners in Europe”

      The EU treaties forbid any of the member states doing that, including the UK while we are still a member, trade being an exclusive competence of the EU.

      • forthurst
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

        OK, Denis, ‘discussions’, if you prefer, but with the objective of ultimately presenting the Brussels regime with a fait accomplis. In practice, countries like France and Germany are constantly holding bilateral talks with the objective of bouncing the Brussels regime into aligning with their conclusions; it’s not a new game.

        • Mark
          Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

          It’s exactly the right diplomatic tactic. Diplomats should be encouraged to discuss these things with local politicians including opposition parties, and to float ideas in local media about agreements that would be beneficial to the UK and the country they are in. They also need to be able to defend against wilder accusations of potential harm.

  71. ian
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    The people were told that if the vote went for out they would get a pro-brexit prime minster and cabinet, I think law makes are over stepping their powers and now we even got people like teflon tony and Heseltine trying to over turn the will of the people.

    • Chris S
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

      To be fair, Blair did say that the result has to be respected.

  72. Chris S
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    They just might convince me to believe all the platitudes from a small minority of Europhiles in Brussels and elsewhere that are now saying that they “get it” and things have to change.

    But I will only believe it if I hear even one big EU player come out and say we need to start again with a fresh attitude towards the primacy of the Nation State and the introduction of true subsidiarity. Oh, and forget Strasbourg as well.

    I think everyone posting here knows that it ain’t gonna happen. Juncker is already saying that we were never serious about membership and it’s perhaps best if we do leave.

    Until another founder member nation votes to leave like the Netherlands or France, nothing will change. If it were to be France or Italy, by then it would be too late to save the whole edifice from crumbling down.

    In the meantime Sturgeon will waste a huge amount of political energy in trying to cobble up a deal to stay IN only to find, even if she is allowed into the Euro, that it breaks down before her very eyes.

    England and Wales need to make it very clear that if Scotland Leaves the UK it really does means Leave and that a referendum in our two countries would be needed to readmit them and then, it would only be on the basis of them running a balanced budget without subsidies from our taxpayers. And No More Whinging !!!!

    I suspect that we won’t need another project fear to win that one !

  73. Graham Wood
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I suggest that the final paragraph of John’s comment today is the important one, and I find it surprising that so many of the posters on this blog fail to understand the significance of the vote on the 23rd June.

    As John affirms we voted to reject the EU and with that rejection all the EU treaties from Rome to Lisbon. De facto, by a sovereign decision of the people we have already left the EU and all its works. That historic decision has yet to be give legal status de jure by our parliament. That should not be difficult for those MPs wishing to honour the mandate given by the people.
    As JR rightly asserts: “Draft legislation is already prepared to take back control, but it will need government support to carry. The legislation includes transferring into UK law all current EU laws”.

    Indeed so, and that is why it is strongly necessary that amendment and then repeal of the 1972 Act should take place at the earliest opportunity – and not an automatic invoking of Article 50, otherwise the 5 steps he has outlined cannot happen.

    The BBC and most of the MSM all assume that it is somehow obligatory for the UK to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, possibly for a maximum period of two years, in order to finally de-couple from the EU and to secure a new trading relationship.

    I and others do not believe this to be the case and that to become embroiled in a process which continues to bind us legally to conform to the EU’s own construct in complex and interminable ‘negotiations’ would not only be an admission of defeat for us, but also entirely contrary to the referendum result, and unnecessary.
    I agree therefore with those who affirm:
    “Article 50 is not really a process designed to facilitate the exit of a nation state from the EU – it is an attempt to build a process that is so risky, politically and economically, that no country would dare invoke it’.”
    The reason being that at the end of such a process a new relationship must be worked out within the framework of the Lisbon Treaty and then subject to agreement by 27 other member states via qualified majority voting. Do we really want that, particularly when we habitually lose in QMV votes in the EU “parliament”?

    I join with those who argue therefore that to amend and then repeal the 1972 European Communities Act is a top priority, a right way forward, and ‘short circuits’ the Article 50 route, and then enables the UK to engage with the EU, unconstrained, and from a position of strength .
    For a simple illustration. Would a prisoner found “not guilty” and released from the court refuse to go pleading he really loves his handcuffs?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      “De facto, by a sovereign decision of the people we have already left the EU and all its works.”

      Absolutely not. The Acts to approve the EU treaties are still on the statute book and are law, and the UK’s instruments of ratification of those treaties are still with the depositary, the government of Italy, and are still valid.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      “The BBC and most of the MSM all assume that it is somehow obligatory for the UK to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty,”

      It is obligatory, it is an international obligation that the UK freely accepted. As a sovereign state the UK can certainly throw off that obligation, but at the price of damaging its global reputation for trustworthiness.

      • Mark
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:29 pm | Permalink

        We and the EU are free to agree what ever we choose to agree. Art 50 is no more than a fallback in the event of failure to achieve that.

        • APL
          Posted June 27, 2016 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

          Mark: “We and the EU are free to agree what ever we choose to agree.”

          Well yes. But we intend to negotiate new treaties, how would it look if we try that having just broken our word by abrogating our obligation under the TEU.

          I’ve waited 43 years for this moment, two or three years to get out legally, is not too long.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

      Exactly. If we are an independent state the EU hath no jurisdiction in this land.

    Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Scotland’s only Labour MP on Sky TV says its his duty as a Parliamentarian to prevent the Leave vote from gaining traction as we the people have made an error. He’d be failing us if he and others didn’t set thing to rights. Can’t remember his exact words. Bit of a shock how someone so grand as himself would stoop so low to our infinite humbleness.
    The latest from Ms Sturgeon is a one-up on her Independence proposal for Scotland. She now says she is going to try to legally BLOCK our Referendum and Brexit.
    Has the Establishment gone barking mad?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      The Scots are just a bit behind the times, that’s all. They were behind the times when a majority of the English wanted the UK in the EEC while a majority of the Scots did not want that. Now forty years on the English have seen sense and a majority want to get the UK out of the EU while the Scots are lagging behind, again, and a majority want to keep the UK in the EU. I guess that part of it has been that the party whose members have turned against the EU project has largely collapsed in Scotland.

      This came up on google, about a survey conducted in October 1977:

      “As expected, the level of support for Britain’s membership was lower in the Scottish sample – with 50 per cent opposed, 37 per cent in favour and 13 per cent undecided. Even in the English sample, however, the level of support was surprisingly low – with only 55 per cent in favour, 32 per cent against and again 13 per cent undecided. There was no relationship with political party preference in England but in Scotland opposition was significantly associated with SNP vote …”

      Then that was opposition to staying in the EEC, not opposition to leaving the EU as now.

    • John C.
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

      Oddly, I feel the Scots have a point, and that they should should determine their own fate. The results would be favourable, however they voted.
      If they voted out, we would be rid of a troublesome and expensive neighbour which seems to be opposed to everything that England wishes.
      If they voted for a second time to stay in the UK, Sturgeon would have to vanish from the scene, and the issue would die for the foreseeable future.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:10 pm | Permalink

        John C – I disagree. The Scots voted in a referendum to remain British. As British we collectively voted in a government which promised a referendum. As British we voted to leave the EU.

        I calculate that 55% of Scots did NOT vote to Remain in the EU.

        But the issue of breaking down the referendum vote into regions (and demographic) is mischief by the BBC and MSM.

        This was not a general election. Scotland is Britain.

        We may see them go (and we should not resist) but don’t let it be said that this is Brexit’s fault. It is Sturgeonist opportunism.

  75. ian
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

    The remain camp keep telling the out camp to get on with it, so it your job to pick a prime minster and cabinet and bring out a queens speech.

    The remain side is wasting their time calling for a second ref because the EU dozes not want one, they have got rid of the UK now and are wanting to move quickly to a united states of Europe to try to save themselves from financial melt down, your nine billion pounds is of no interest to them now, nor is your 30 thousand men of arms and few boats.
    If something doze happen financial you might not able to save yourselves let alone help out the EU and they know it.

  76. David Murfin
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    At around 9.00am I posted a comment which “went into moderation”
    It has not appeared. Could you please explain why?

    • Ian George
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

      It is up there David (8:46am: “There appears to be some doubt about how Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is to be dealt with…”)

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

      David Murfin

      Dr Redwood is a volunteer and a volunteer doesn’t have to explain anything.

      He is not your lackey.

  77. Bazman
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

    Same immigration levels maybe more, same Eton elite to be PM, less money for NHS and welfare the main complaints of the out voter, more ‘flexibility’ of labour markets meaning less rights and holidays for the same people. No more housing and more problems travelling abroad, banks fleeing to name just some of what the leave got us. Remind me again why you voted out?
    The look on the leave leaders face was c coffin like as they now have to come good on their deluded ding bat laying promises. Take Back Control? The population might well do after this and there maybe more ‘jobs’ created for the disaffected voter but not what they had in mind..
    Will my the company my Russian wife works for selling into Europe employing mainly Europeans for an American company get a better deal. Or my own selling gas pipe systems to the French? You know the answer.
    Gove had the best ding bat response saying “We have had enough of experts”. Showing for years what I have been saying on this site that it is a religious disease held by many right wing people that belief is enough to solve all problems. Ignorance does not trump knowledge. He can be first across the Scrounging Garden bridge built by amateurs and cowboy builder in that case, but like the bridge he will not face any of the consequences of this folly.
    It will be interesting to see how funny Boris is too when you have to take this vacuous journalist seriously.

  78. a-tracy
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    What a strange day. I’ve read:
    David Miliband has hot footed it over to the UK, only hours after H Benn was sacked by Corbyn and all the ladies from the shadow cabinet have started to quit? I agree with Corbyn,he shouldn’t go, but the daggers are drawn and he knew he was just the caretaker until Miliband D returned maybe to the Cox vacant position!
    Then I saw on Guido that Boris and Blair yep Blair were in a meeting with one leaving shortly after the other looking quite suspicious.
    The successful Leave MPs are letting the remain MPs to make the running on the media, although IDS was on Marr chewing his gum and Fox saying we should kick the timetable into the long grass!!
    Boris won London for you Tories twice.
    He deserves his chance.
    As for Junker, his “……….mouth just completely sums up everything wrong about the EU and one of the main reasons most of us wanted to leave. These unelected people like him and Mandelson telling us what to do and they’re just appointed by God knows who! The referendum was an internal UK matter, we will quit,when we want to, it’s not your decision, like any leaving employee, whose legislation the EU is so proud of, we have time and protection. They wrote the bloody document, we’re nothing if not gold plated rule followers! If they break treaties we can seek compensation surely, the EU commissioner coward and traitor to the Uk needs replacing with another from the UK I suggest Nigel Farage.
    Why are they allowed to meet up without a uk commissioner st the table, where does it say they can do that, we’re still a fully paid up member.

    • bluedog
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

      Hopefully the electorate of Batley and Spen will reject an imposed Labour luvvie and pick an independent with local following. There is of course nothing to stop UKIP from standing either.

  79. Jumeirah
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    Despite what some politicians say and some of the media and press write we have very able very experienced and very tough people to lead and be part of the Team laying down the Terms to Brussels , the French, the Germans, the Italians , Dutch and anyone else who have decided to make things tough for us. We are controlling this not them as it THEY not us that want to get this over and done with in the shortest possible time for no other reason than the longer it goes on the more opportunity it gives for the people in their own and other Countries to agitate and push for their own Referendum. So for that reason WE control the timetable if they want to be difficult. The Team we pick we will move on it quickly not because of what Europe wants but because we want to open worldwide markets and trade and leave POLITICAL DRIFTWOOD BEHIND to die a natural. Scotland is a diversion and a joke frankly and NI even more pathetic with division and segregation.
    We dont fear the future ahead however as I understand it the Referendum is not legally binding which means that the result can be overturned by MP’s vote in the House of Commons ? IF MPs suddenly lose their bottle and waiver and vote against in that there is more ‘against’ than ‘for’ will ‘the will of the people’ still be carried through? I am not afraid of the Europeans I am afraid of ourselves!

  80. The Prangwizard
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    I have read the piece again and am left with impression that Mr Redwood is pushing for compromise; that we need not fully leave the EU.

    The words on the ballot paper were Leave or Remain, not leave just some of it. The people want out, all the way out.

  81. bluedog
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

    Dr JR, the ambiguities of the current situation, in particular the role of the devolved areas of the UK once again highlight the need for a redrawn constitution of the UK. It may be Labour policy, but the idea of a constitutional convention is a good one, and it should lead to an English parliament with the same powers as the other devolved parliaments.

    The current fudge entailed by EVEL may not survive in the face of SNP intransigence as the Brexit matter drags through the parliament.

    David Steel prepared a constitutional document in 2005 which represents a viable way forward for an independent UK. His recommendations need to implemented, with the Republic of Ireland invited to attend any UK constitutional convention.

  82. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

    Somebody asked precisely how Article 50 TEU would be triggered.

    This is how, just a letter:

    “Dear Donald

    As you will know the British people voted to leave the European Union in the national referendum we held on June 23rd.

    It is therefore my sad duty to notify you, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, that the United Kingdom intends to withdraw from the Union.

    I would be obliged if you could take this letter as being the formal notification mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

    I very much regret that these unfortunate circumstances have arisen, and I earnestly hope that all concerned will be able to negotiate a new settlement ensuring that the United Kingdom and the member states remaining in the Union will continue to enjoy excellent and productive relations to our mutual advantage.

    With my very best wishes


    • Mark
      Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:33 pm | Permalink

      The letter would have to be addressed to all the members of the EU Council, not just Donald Tusk, but the text would be fine.

  83. Chris S
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    It is essential that this week parliament is asked to vote on a motion confirming that the referendum outcome is valid and that the house will support the government when it decides the time is right to trigger Article 50.

    Nothing less than an overwhelming vote will do to shut down the uncertainty over the fraudulent petition and comments by undemocratic MPs such as Lammy.

    I don’t believe that there will be any problem in obtaining a larger majority – Even Diane Abbott has come out very strongly stating that the vote has to be respected and Brexit implemented.

  84. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

    By the way, my wife got a circular email from Imperial College on Friday reassuring everybody that it will still be a European university after we leave the EU.

  85. Chris S
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Yet again we had the dubious pleasure of seeing Anna Soubry on Queston Time this evening.

    As a business minister she should have been making encouraging statements about the future, Instead, just like yesterday morning alongside our host and Andrew Neal, she was doing exactly the opposite.

    This evening it was again the case that Brexit is going to be a disaster for the Country and she painted a very gloomy picture, mentioning that a business she knew had had two contracts cancelled on Friday morning because of Brexit. Turns out that the firm is a building contractor and the contracts concerned were construction projects within the UK.

    Seems highly unlikely that building contracts in the UK would have been cancelled on Friday morning just because of Brexit. No doubt journalists will track down the company involved and check it out.

    However, irrespective of the truth of her statement, Soubry clearly has no idea of her role in Government and has to be replaced with someone prepared to be positive and forward looking. Her boss, Sajid Javid, also a Remainer, has clearly put the campaign behind him and managed this very well on Andrew Marr.

    The government cannot be saddled with any negative influences, particularly at this critical time. Clearly there has to be a cabinet reshuffle, not least to replace the Chancellor, who has mysteriously gone AWOL. Soubry needs to go to the back benches immediately before she does any more damage.

  86. turboterrier
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    With all that is going on it is sad to see that QT hasn’t changed.

    Salmond has got some neck in that he forgot to mention in his referendum the English Scots couldn’t vote.

    Sorry to hear that Dominic Rabb announced he will not be putting his name in the hat.

  87. Chris S
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

    It will be tempting for the Government to do nothing, sit back and watch Labour implode However this would be a mistake.

    The government is looking rudderless with no chancellor, apparently, and Cameron largely keeping out of sight. Rightly Boris and Gove are keeping quiet in case they are seen as trying to take over but Cameron needs to get a grip.

    A limited reshuffle is essential together with the formation of a cabinet Brexit sub-committee tasked with shaping the outline of a deal prior in preparation for the triggering of Article 50 as soon as the new PM is in place in the Autumn.

    The Brexit sub-committee is essential in order to put some momentum into the process.

    Posted June 26, 2016 at 10:31 pm | Permalink

    Ms Lagarde, IMF, LIVE as I write is speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival. She has already criticised Rt Hon Mr Gove. Has trawled through the Brexit Campaign making jollities rather than jokes about our procedure time-wise for instigating Article 50.
    As always she’s offering lots of doom-laden advice to the UK, our government. She emphasised in her very adequate English that it was an ADVISORY Referendum to the UK government.
    It seems we fought a war 1939-1945 against the enemies of democracy. We didn’t get ’em all.

  89. ian
    Posted June 26, 2016 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

    I have one name to put forward ADAM AFRIYIE.

  90. REPay
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    I am about to lose my UK/EU passport which gave me the right to live and work in 27 countries. I do not need benefits. What is the likely impact on me and UK citizens currently abroad in the UK?

    Posted June 27, 2016 at 1:32 am | Permalink

    I was listening to Mr Jin Liqun, President of the Chinese Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) a few hours ago. He was pushed to give an opinion on Brexit.

    He said “..The English ( workers ) should stop thinking as individuals…” His face was dead-pan. His words monotone.

    British car workers “up north”, having been deluged with propaganda from their favourite political parties, football celebrities, BoE, experts enough to fill a good sized slurry-pit, their employers via TV and by letter, their bosses in person, their trades unions, were in no doubt as far as they knew that to vote Remain was to lose their jobs, homes, and ultimately their families. Nevertheless, without an authoritative order, without being drilled, without having a sergeant-major and a court-martial looming, without uniforms and completely unarmed they marched directly into the Remain guns and overwhelmed them sticking a Leave vote down their barrels.

    I shall not study the Chinese humour of persons like Mr Jin Liqun. My old stomach muscles and rib cage are not strong enough. He knows us very well it seems. Better than we know ourselves.

  92. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    If we repeal the Lisbon Treaty unilaterally, the Article 50 two year wait constraint will disappear. We can then be out of the EU by the end of this calendar year.

    An acceptable trade deal would be zero tariffs by UK on imports from EU-27, i.e. no change, and £3 billion pa charges by EU on UK exports of goods and services. These charges would include both tariffs and the costs incurred by UK exporters in complying with non-tariff barriers.

    That trade deal is not perfect but if we cease paying £14 billion pa net to the EU then it is cheap at the price.

  93. Ian B
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 4:14 am | Permalink

    “Darling, I’m going to ask you for a divorce, no earlier than three months from now”.

    We need to start moving. Cameron needs to officially advise the EU that we’re leaving. Now. Not leave it to some future leader. That is actually his duty as Prime Minister. He can’t put government on hold for three months. If he won’t do his job, the Queen must call him to the Palace and tell him his services are no longer required.

    A week is a long time in politics; three months is an aeon. Britain needs to set a confident, straight course ahead, not spend three months going around in circles like a ship of fools.

    Please, somebody in our corridors of power actually step up and do something.

  94. Ian George
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    It was pleasing to note that George Osborne struck the right notes in his speech ahead of the days trading this morning.

    As someone who will lose out if the pound drops too much I suppose I buck the trend a little in actually wanting the UK out of the clutches of the Eurocrats. I confess to not knowing as much about British politics and politicians as I did when I still lived there but I am very familiar with the people in Brussels and I am deeply suspicious of them.

    I can only hope, now the vote has been taken to leave, that there are a sufficient number of British politicians who will choose to put aside all their differences and be 100% committed (as Mr Osborne has just said he will be) to making this work.

    I think David Cameron could do both himself and the country a lot of good by adopting a more conciliatory stance and get on with the job of doing the right thing for his country, and for his Monarch and her people. He could yet come out of this with great credit… it’s up to him to hold his hands in the air.

    Regarding Article 50 and the possibility of negating it by amending the European Communities Act of 1972 my take is that Juncker is so keen to push us into pressing the Article 50 button because he knows that it’s probably not worth the paper its written on, but wants us to go that route in order to reinforce all those other countries misconceptions that it is.

  95. Ian George
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    It was pleasing to note that George Osborne struck the right notes in his speech ahead of the days trading this morning, though the pound seems to be taking a bashing this morning.

    As someone who will lose out if the pound drops too much I suppose I buck the trend a little in actually wanting the UK out of the clutches of the Eurocrats. I confess to not knowing as much about British politics and politicians as I did when I still lived there but I am very familiar with the people in Brussels and I am deeply suspicious of them.

    I can only hope, now the vote has been taken to leave, that there are a sufficient number of British politicians who will choose to put aside all their differences and be 100% committed (as Mr Osborne has just said he will be) to making this work.

    I think David Cameron could do both himself and the country a lot of good by adopting a more conciliatory stance and get on with the job of doing the right thing for his country, and for his Monarch and her people. He could yet come out of this with great credit… it’s up to him to hold his hands in the air.

    Regarding Article 50 and the possibility of negating it by amending the European Communities Act of 1972 my take is that Juncker is so keen to push us into pressing the Article 50 button because he knows that it’s probably not worth the paper its written on, but wants us to go that route in order to reinforce all those other countries misconceptions that it is.

  96. Ian George
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    Sorry, I double posted not realising I’d already done so. The 2nd one is more up to date – looking at the GBPUSD rate just now 🙁

  97. Lord Welby
    Posted June 27, 2016 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    The ONS suppressed the rise in population in 2015 by 513,000 (wasn’t released until after campaigning had finished). I am in no doubt, that this would have brought many more to leave. As it is, the unsustainable increases of the past decade MUST be arrested. Therefore, No deal with the EU should exclude ending the ‘Free Movement’ of people ! I would like to see a reciprocal one in – one out arrangement (calculated (say) quarterly. This would not only allay fears about ‘deportations’, which are emanating from the scaremongers on the Remain side, but would also go someway to appeasing EU requirements – however, THIS MUST BE THE FULL EXTENT OF OUR CONCESSION !

  • 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