The planes will fly and the City will be fine

The Bank of England has told its regulated businesses to prepare for No Deal. It has also asked them how many jobs would be lost on the worst case scenario from the City. Their answer, we are told today, is 75,000. It  is difficult to believe  their figure . What I see is companies continuing to commit to new space and new recruits in London at a time when there is no sign of a deal. I also hear from the continent that many financial businesses there are keen to keep their access to London and its large pools of talent and capital. The Bank at least has scaled back its gloom, which got all its forecasts wrong about growth and job losses for 2016-17 on the back of a No vote. UK Employment increased then when they said it would fall.

Meanwhile one of the gloomy worries  put around that the planes will not fly the day after Brexit if we leave without a deal has been refuted by someone who should know. Willie Walsh, the CEO of British Airways has said he expects the planes to fly. Will the doom mongers now stop using this absurd forecast? BA is owned by IAG who have every interest in UK planes flying to the continent and Spanish planes flying to the UK. They are right to expect that to continue, even without a UK/EU general Agreement.

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


  1. John
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 9:49 am | Permalink

    No doubt Mr Carney forgot again to ask companies on the continent how many would be forced to set up operations here is there is no deal. It works both ways.

  2. Mike Stallard
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    I do not think you quite understand Mr Redwood.
    The EU has to agree to all our plans. I do not think it is going to waive its own rules just because it wants to be friends with Mrs May and Mr Davis. I do not think they are going to try very hard either to build expensive new border posts. I do not think that trade can flow freely (forget tariffs; this is about standards) without regular EU inspections. Would you like to eat meat unchecked by any trained and accredited official? Do you remember the anti-freeze in the wine?
    The EU, for years now has fixed up all our trading, flying and shipping throughout the world. Without the EU, we need new arrangements. Otherwise we are out in the cold.
    Please may we swallow our pride and join EFTA? That way everything is settled: we leave the EU and the “Single market”. We remain trading as we do at the moment. M. Barnier has (apparently) suggested this again. He is right.

    • Beecee
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:23 am | Permalink

      EFTA members have to agree to free movement of people!

      • Mark B
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

        Immigrant into the UK from non-EU countries runs fsr higher than EU. What is more, the UK Governme can, but does not, control this.

        • NickC
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

          Mark B, A great many of the “immigrants” from non-EU countries are students who pay to come to universities here, and mostly leave after they have finished their courses.

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

          Mark B are immigrants from non-EU countries entitled to Tax Credits, Working Families tax credits, housing benefits, all the other entitlements that British nationals are entitled to from day one arriving here?

      • Mike Stallard
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

        Not so. Liechtenstein doesn’t. Remember we are not in Schengen either.

      • Andy
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 9:44 am | Permalink

        Errr nope. That comes with membership of EEA, not EFTA.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Because EFTA membership implies continuing freedom of movement and is therefore not acceptable.

      • John O'Leary
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

        You are wrong. EFTA membership itself certainly does NOT imply freedom of movement. Jointing EFTA and remaining in the EEA does imply some freedom of movement, but unlike the EU that can be unilaterally set aside by Efta/EEA members using Article 112 of the EEA agreement. This has already been invoked by Liechtenstein to halt free movement of people and by Iceland in 2008 to halt movement of capital. You can bet your bottom dollar that whatever agreement, if any, this incompetent government come up with it will be vastly inferior to EFTA/EEA and will leave us under the jurisdiction of the CJEU and all of the political stuff we could so easily have escaped from.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          John O’Leary, you’ve already been told that is wrong, weeks ago, so why do you nonetheless repeat it now?

          “Tiny Liechtenstein has not unilaterally declared any such thing, because of its peculiar, near unique, geographical circumstances it insisted on a specific derogation as part of its original accession to the EEA, and so far it has been able to maintain that protocol as part of the treaty with the agreement of all the other EEA member states.

          The suggestion that the UK could at this stage turn round and say:

          “Even though in the past we have always welcomed uncontrolled and unlimited mass immigration from the rest of the EEA with open arms, we have now decided to unilaterally impose arbitrary annual limits, so in the future we will be repeatedly invoking Article 112 for that purpose”,

          and all the other parties to the agreement including the EU will say:

          “OK, fine, we’re happy for you to stay in the EEA on that basis, even though it flatly contradicts one of the four freedoms we’re all signed up to”

          is quite laughable, as you must know.”

          And maybe you’d also care to pay attention to what EFTA itself says rather than just accepting whatever rubbish may be claimed on a certain blog:

          “Free movement of persons is one of the core freedoms of the European Internal Market. This area is covered by Article 28 of the EEA Agreement, Annex V on the Free Movement of Workers and Annex VIII on the Right of Establishment. Accordingly, nationals of the EEA EFTA States (Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein) have the same right as EU citizens to take up an economic activity anywhere in the EU/EEA without being discriminated against on the grounds of their nationality. Equally, EU citizens have the right to work and reside in the EEA EFTA States. Non-economically active persons such as pensioners, students and family members of EEA nationals are also entitled to move and reside anywhere in the EU/EEA subject to certain conditions as set out in the relevant EU legislation.”

          You must not allow yourself to be misled into believing that EFTA now is the same as EFTA when the UK was a founding member, that was under the 1960 Stockholm Convention but now it is the 2001 Vaduz Convention, as described in detail months ago here:

          I’m getting sick of you Remoaners simply ignoring facts which are inconvenient for your specious arguments.

          • John O'Leary
            Posted November 3, 2017 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

            Where in the EEA agreement does it state that Liechtenstein is a “tiny country and shall be afforded special status with regard to freedom on movement of people”? I’ll take your word for it that Liechtenstein negotiated on FoM of people before signing, but nevertheless the EU agreed to it so they aren’t hard and fast rules for the Efta/EEA members are they?

          • John O'Leary
            Posted November 3, 2017 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

            You might have told me Denis, but that doesn’t mean it is true. What happened to you? You didn’t used to be a hard Brexiteer and at one time your comments made sensse. Now they make no sense at all.

        • Peter D Gardner
          Posted November 4, 2017 at 12:56 am | Permalink

          You are wrong. Article 112 is for exceptions not the normal mode of operation. If abused the EU via the ECJ would step in because the EEA Court has jurisdiction only insofar as it follows ECJ case law and approval.

      • chris f
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

        Exactly Roy,

        We would – again – not be in ‘control’.

    • Bob
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
    • Andy
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

      So what you are saying is there wont be any more BMWs, VWs and Mercs sold in this country ? We will see no French, Spanish, Italian etc wine on the supermarket shelves and there will be lorries of rotting Spanish vegetables at Dover ?

      • John O'Leary
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Yes that could very easily happen. Except I think most of the rotting veg will be over the other side of the channel as all the ferries and the tunnel will be choked up with UK trucks waiting to disembark as the customs clearance areas are at a standstill.

        • Anonymous
          Posted October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

          And Asian cars are better than European ones now. Seriously.

    • Mike Wilson
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Yes, it is true that no planes fly into EU countries from countries that are not in the EU or EFTA.

      I have just bought a computer from an American company. It was made in China. Has it been inspected by an EU official?

      On the box recently some chap who is high up in the running of the port of Southampton pointed out that 85% of freight going through Southampton is nothing to do with the EU. Oddly, they do manage to get the odd bit of freight imported or exported. I know he must be mad but he indicated that the same procedures could easily be implemented at Dover – where most of the trade is in and out of the EU.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

      Well, Mike, I laughed out loud when I read the opening sentences of yesterday’s tedious whinge on your favourite blog:

      “It is difficult to find the exact point at which I started pointing out the problems that might arise after Brexit as a result of inadequate customs facilities on the other side of the Channel.

      However, it is certainly the case that I was in full flow September 2016 – over a year ago … ”

      Actually the answer is simple enough: it was when the author realised that the government was not going to follow his recommended multi-stage process for leaving the EU that he changed into a Remoaner, and since then he has been a Remoaner providing a platform for other Remoaners …

    • Edward2
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

      I need to repeat that UK companies export goods all over the world.
      Manufacturing industries currently meet all the standards specifications rules directives and laws appertaining to those goods wherever they are being exported to.
      They have to.

      The vast majority of checks are via electronic declarations sent to the transport or shipping companies.
      Very little physical checking is done.

      • John O'Leary
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        That is because there are compliance and customs agreements in place. When the leave the EU without a deal there will be none, nothing, nada, ziltch.

        • Edward2
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 8:46 am | Permalink

          Not correct.
          You have to meet the requirements of the nation you export into.
          And they do when they import into the UK
          Trade carries on all over the world between countries that have no formal trade deal.
          The EU has failed for decades to arrange deals with many nations yet trade carries on.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 9:42 am | Permalink

          Nobody has said we should leave without customs agreements.

        • a-tracy
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

          John, if the EU wish to get so hostile to the UK that they are virtually declaring a state of war on our Country I’m sure most people will become very hostile in return and this won’t be useful or helpful to anyone in the future. A protectionist UK striking out on its own won’t be the first time in history and when we are offering friendship, free trade, efficient customs checks, a continuation of pairing on rules and regulations of exports and our government start to talk about this belligerence to our worrying remain supporters then attitudes will harden not soften .

    • Mark B
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

      Hear hear.

      We hear and are led by the false mantra the EU is all about trade – it is not ! It is about regulation.

      Through the power of regulation it can enforce its will and raise monies through fines. Look at what tries to do to the likes of Google and Microsoft.

    • Simon Brown
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      From your hysteria anyone might deduce that Great Britain conducted no trade whatever before the advent of the……….., authoritarian, undemocratic, unelected, broke, corrupt EU.

  3. Peter
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 9:58 am | Permalink

    All very well but who is winning the battle – clean Brexiteers or Remainers intent on a fudge?

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

      We face three choices:
      1. Just walk out. The “WTO Option” is not going to work. Chaos.
      2. Stay in the EU. But it is morphing into what it has always been targeted at: complete union under a Commission. We, like every other country in the Union, would be just a “state. And our head of state would be – the EU President. Our Finance minister , foreign minister, defence chief and police chief would all be in Brussels. Nobody wants that.
      3. EFTA/EU – the least worst scenario. We keep our trade. We pay a lot less. No more CFP. No More CAP or ECJ. And we have four negotiating platforms with the EU to fix up a more permanent arrangement.

      • NickC
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

        Mike, Since the EU, its subject countries, and the UK, are members of the WTO, whatever deal is struck with the EU upon Brexit (or none), we will all still have to trade by the WTO rules anyway. We are leaving the EU, not leaving the WTO. The WTO option works already. The WTO will still work after we leave.

      • Edward2
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

        Are China USA Japan Korea Australia etc in EFTA?
        I see no shortages of their goods for sale in the UK and Europe?

      • Peter D Gardner
        Posted November 4, 2017 at 1:03 am | Permalink

        You haven’t said why the EU wouldn’t countenance option 4: a UK-EU trade deal. If UK suspended the current negotiations now the EU come up with an outline trade deal by Christmas and so long as UK continued to prepare for No Deal, a comprehensive deal could be put to parliament by March 2019. But only if UK walks now and maintains preps for No Deal.

  4. CharlesV
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    Yes, because he is working on the assumption that there will be an agreement regarding aviation. He also is also on record as saying that this needs certainty sooner rather than later.

    So are you now saying no deal is fine except for aviation?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

      And are you saying your EU friends are right to refuse to discuss this?

      • Charles v
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

        No, I think the EU is daft.

        However, it is dishonest to pretend that there is a credible walk away option on aviation or a number of other areas.

        For the record, I think that the referendum result means that we should leave the EU, single market and customs union.

        I just think it is very flawed on so many levels to suggest we as a country adopt a position that lacks any credibility. If we do so I think it maximises the chances of a damaging brexit and public opinion turning rapidly against brexit and for the result to be reversed.

        • NickC
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

          Charles V, The Remains pretend that the shorthand term “No deal” means no deals on anything, rather than no free trade deal EU-UK. That’s why I have consistently criticised the term. It is is more correctly the WTO trade rules option.

          We already use the WTO rules for trading with non-EU countries. Any trade the UK has with the EU after Brexit will have to be carried out under WTO rules anyway, whatever trade agreement we make (or don’t).

  5. Mick
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    So we loose 75000 jobs from the London bubble, so what like I’m bothered, we up north in our industrial towns and cities with jobs such as coal mining, fishing, and steel production have lost thousands more since we joined the useless eu, so I won’t shed any tears for Londons loss

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:58 am | Permalink

      …and now you have forbidden fracking and insist on closing all the coal fired power stations which need both minds and coal fired power stations..

      • chris f
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

        ..which strikes me as completely barmy

        We’re sitting on centuries of potential power generation and what do the ‘powers that be’ do…

        You couldn’t make it up

      • John
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

        Are you not pleased that with a clean Brexit we are looking at 100 thousand sea food and fishing jobs being created atleast?

        That is just one industry.

        No more Rick Stein bemoaning how the Continent have kept their fishing villages, fishermen and fish mongers when ‘we’ got rid off them. The EU took them, we did not get rid of them. Rick Stein can be happy again that he doesn’t have to import cod from the EU caught by Spanish boats in our waters.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      Let’s a lot of deceit about this. Not necessarily lies, though there may be some, but deliberate gross deceit in the partial or misleading presentation of facts.

      For example the lobby group TheCityUK tells us here:

      that “financial and related professional services” employ “over 7% of the UK workforce, producing nearly 12% of total economic output, contributing £66 billion in taxes and generating a trade surplus of £72 billion”, and “with over 2.2 million employees, two-thirds of which are outside London.”

      All of that may be true, but in reality only a small proportion of those 2.2 million workers in the financial services sector will have anything to do with the EU – that is beyond having to obey EU regulations, like the rest of us – and only a small part of that £72 billion trade surplus can be on trade in financial services with the EU, given that the exports to the EU in 2014 were only £22.7 billion and that ‘s before taking off the value of the imports from the EU:

      Then there’s the fact that with around 31.6 million jobs in the UK economy even on the worst case scenario of Brexit leading to 75,000 job losses in that sector it would be less than 0.3% of all jobs; and that also has to be seen in the perspective of the massive annual churn of jobs in the UK economy, with literally millions of jobs destroyed and new jobs created every year as previously detailed here:

      Obviously we would prefer not to lose those jobs but it would hardy be the end of the world if we did; the losses would be spread over several years while it would be a matter of weeks for most of those people to find other work.

  6. Duncan
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood

    Instead of using this blog to express your concern about the pro-EU political elite lying to incite fear is there any possibility you and your Eurosceptic colleagues could use your public platform (either the Commons or on TV) to name names, expose these lies and get these lying sh*ts sacked or sanctioned?

    I am tired of these lying, scheming pro-EU propagandists attacking my country, its people and its democracy

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      Are you certain they are lying?

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

        Yep, they’ve been lying for many years and they are still lying now …

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

        I’m almost on the verge of saying YES. A second referendum.

        The sky hasn’t fallen in.

        Since the last one we’ve had all sorts of revelations about the EU’s plans. Not one Remainer argued the exciting future that the EU had planned and this was a bigger lie (by omission) than any battle bus slogan.

      • John
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

        I assume you get turned over a lot by fraudsters.

        Try fact finding your self rather than believing the EU politicians. You have a computer and access to the internet.

        Try it!

        Google a question: EU Propaganda Funding

        I assume you are one of the ones that they have turned.

      • Oggy
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

        Lying since 1973, when we joined the common market and were told it was just about ‘trade and cooperation’.

  7. JimS
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:14 am | Permalink

    When the planes ‘stop flying’ I wonder how the EU will manage being cut off from the USA/Canada? Will they fly the ‘wrong way’ around?

    • English Pensioner
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:49 am | Permalink

      It’s interesting to watch the aircraft on a site such as “Plane Finder”. Large numbers of planes from the continent overfly the UK to Ireland or to take the great circle route to US and Canada. Other routes are longer, either more northerly over Scandinavia or southerly over France or Spain. More fuel, more costs.

      • Andrew Musson
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

        That’s an irrelevant point though. Under the 1944 Chicago Convention, all countries’ airlines are allowed to overfly, even to stop and refuel in, other countries.

        It is the running of scheduled passenger services starting from and terminating in the UK which are affected by the EU agreements.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      They already have an agreement which the EU signed.
      We will not have that agreement because we will not longer be in the EU in April 2019.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        And it would be impossible to adjust that existing agreement or make any new agreement to adapt to the new reality … you seem to think that treaties are carved on stone and can never be changed, so allow me to inform you that you are wrong, that is not the case and where there is the political will there is almost always a legal way – and in the rare cases where there really is no legal way the answer is often to turn a blind eye to the illegality.

      • alan jutson
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm | Permalink


        Last time we were told there would be a problem with air travel it never happened.

        Remember when we were informed planes would fall out of the sky due to the millennium bug !

        I had a customer at the time who was a rather very senior manager in one of the very large local Computer Companies, he said I would be in trouble if I still retained my old computer due to the Millennium bug.

        Told him I was not worried because I had already turned back the clock on my computer by a couple of years, just in case, he was dumbfounded at the simplicity of the argument.

        Computer went on working normally for years.

      • Independence Day
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

        Surely any agreement signed by the EU means the UK is a signatory!

        Therefore, the UK could claim ‘grandfather rights’. Even the pro-EU BBC accept this:

    • hefner
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

      Ever heard of direct flights between European continental capitals and the USA/Canada, usually by companies like Lufthansa, Austrian, SAS, Air France, … or United, Delta, Air Canada.
      Contrary to what you might be thinking, Britain is not the centre of the world. The EU27 is not either, nor North America.

      • Original Richard
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

        Yes, of course direct flights exist between EU and North American cities but that does not mean that the aircraft themselves just fly back and forth between the two.

        Many aircraft fly on a circuit which includes several different airports and many of these could well include a stop in the UK.

        So if the EU decide to ban all aircraft flying between the UK and the EU it would cause chaos throughout the airline industry.

    • behindthefrogs
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      The shortest route from most of Europe to Canada and the USA is the great circle route that doesn’t cross the UK or its air space. That is why for example flights to the west coast of Canada and the USA from London go north over Scotland.

      • David Price
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 7:22 am | Permalink

        But the majority of the West-East transatlantic flights appear to exploit the jetstream which takes them through Shanwick OCA (UK airspace).

  8. Nig l
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Yes the flying one was particularly absurd although a senior Tory failed to rebut it recently on a tv programme. I seem to remember Nicky Morgan telling students that European train travel would be affected, the latter seriously upsetting them in another ‘scare story’

    A senior labour man recently said the Brexiteers were not as intelligent as the Remainers because many were from university towns. The spirit of Aesop or Hans Christian Anderson lives on.

    • bigneil
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:39 am | Permalink

      I fear that Mr Sheerman’s ( or should it be Sneerman ) comment about Brexiteers lack of intelligence will come back to bite him quite soon.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

      It all depends on what treaty or relationship will emerge. For Easyjet the problem might be that it will only be able to carry intra EU traffic if it redomiciles to the EU. By itself that might not be too much of a problem, if its UK sub would have enough landing rights for UK/EU traffic. Walsh’s IAG has a different problem. His corporate structure may be problematic in that future relationship. If the EU/US treaty would be a template, control ties between national carriers would not be allowed. Hence IAG might have to split between a British and a EU (Iberia, Vuelting) entity with a fair degree of separation. Another interesting problem that will make the clock run.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      There is no doubt that the wisdom which generally comes with age tends towards support for getting out of the EU, notwithstanding a comparative lack of university degrees which were once rare but have now become two a penny …

      • eeyore
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

        Funny how those with the halfpenny degrees (and those who teach them) are so apt to confuse education with intelligence. One would assume that, being educated, they know the logical fallacy ignoratio elenchi. But apparently not.

      • Anonymous
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

        We have about ten recent ‘firsts’ walking about our small town at the moment – all in hum-drum jobs.

  9. Epikouros
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    In the event of a no deal even if the blockheads at Brussels decide to capitalise on the disruption by not make the flow of goods, services, aeroplanes and like continue on an orderly basis. Then I do not think the business community and the Leaders of the EU member states are going to sit idly by whilst the their commercial business lose billions and citizens suffer in misery. If the UK holds it’s nerve and stands firm against the outrageous demands of Brussels the others in the EU as soon as they see the game is up they will promptly knock some sense into Brussels.

    • Know-Dice
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Danish pig farmers on BBC Breakfast this morning, clearly worried about potential loss of business to the UK.

      I think we are seeing the beginnings of the EU business sector putting pressure on their politicians to have a sensible deal rather than political dogma…

    • Fedupsoutherner
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      They were interviewing pig farmers in Denmark this morning whose major buyers were the UK. I think you’re right Epikouros in that countries in the EU will not be happy without a good deal for both sides.

  10. JJE
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    Do you and Willie Walsh base your comment on the planes flying on anything other than wishful thinking?

    Reply Yes!

  11. Rien Huizer
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:00 am | Permalink

    It all depends on what deal or what “no deal” is struck. If the UK becomes a pure “third country” it will have the same access problems as its peers. I guess no one expects that and that that explains relative optimism among the city folks and other interest groups. But London is merely a “site”. Make the site unattractive and investment will shrink.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      As the UK is leaving the EU the UK will indeed then become a “third country” as far as the EU is concerned, just as the EU treats Norway as a “third country” …

      • Mark B
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

        And the rest of the planet outside the 27. The 27 that included Greece, Italy, Spain and Malta to name just a few.

        How will ever manage without them ?


  12. nigel seymour
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:06 am | Permalink

    I’m afraid the remainers and doom mongers really don’t have anything else to come up with. We have two days that kicks off the ECA WD bill with a hefty 8 eight days of debate, that will result in some members going over the same old ground and asking the same old questions. I recall IDS saying that the house will have ample time to debate and will probably get bored to death with it…

  13. BrexiteerwivMusket
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    The BoE ..” has also asked them how many jobs would be lost on the worst case scenario from the City”
    So, Remoaner BoE asks Remoaners for figures supporting their own Remoaning position. Imagine my shock when the answer comes back supporting the Remoaner position.
    It is bear hunting season in Canada. Mr Carney should pick up his musket and go get his shot off.

    • Rien Huizer
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      Carney would be well advised to leave the BoE pretty soon. He has no influence on the politics of Brexit but will be a scapegoat it it becomes too hard to handle for the politicians.

      • Timaction
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

        Are you Peter Van EU in disguise?

        • Rien Huizer
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 8:30 am | Permalink


      • a-tracy
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

        Didn’t he say he was just waiting for his children to finish school then he’d be off.

  14. Tabulazero
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Lloyd Blankfein : ” GS still investing in our big new Euro headquarters here. Expecting/hoping to fill it up, but so much outside our control.#Brexit”

    • Sir Joe Soap
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

      Actually that’s good.
      If we get our regulatory regime right London will be destination of choice.

  15. miami.mode
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    75,000? They throw these figures around and must have had some sort of basis on which to calculate them. Perhaps they would like to enlighten us with a few details. Don’t, however, hold your breath.

  16. English Pensioner
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    My daughter’s US employer in the UK has told staff that their European HQ that it will remain where it is after Brexit because they wanted to trade under UK commercial law which they considered to be impartial, unlike that in some EU countries. A point which is often overlooked.

  17. John
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Whilst I understand people not wanting the EU to intervene on Catalan and Spain surly they should. And surly it would be pro EU people and people remaining in the EU that would want to see the EU take charge.

    The EU wants to take control of National armed forces, to have one foreign policy, to take more control of its countries Treasuries and budgets. Federica Mogherini only days ago declared that the EU is a superpower and a superpower for peace. If that’s the case then why can’t it sort a domestic out in Spain and prevent it from becoming violent?

    • Mitchel
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 10:17 am | Permalink

      Wait until the EU advances into the Balkans,particularly Serbia,and comes up against Russian interests to see just how much of a “superpower for peace” it is.

      Is Mogherini aware there has been a spate of political assassinations of anti-Russian political figures in Ukraine recently?

  18. Tabulazero
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Dear Mr Redwood,

    Given your latest comment, I assume you are not opposed to the UK government releasing the 58 sectorial studies on the impact of Brexit to the wider public and Parliament.

    In your own words, there is no cliff edge and nothing to fear. If you are right, these studies should reinforce your position.

    Furthermore, the EU has in all likelihood already conducted the same analysis. There is probably nothing in those studies that it does not already know. Hence it will not weaken the UK’s hand.

    Will you use your position as a MP to have these documents released to a wider audience ?

    Best regards.

    • mickc
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

      Why do you believe those studies will be any more accurate than others produced by thinktanks/government departments/universities or other “experts”?

      • Tabulazero
        Posted November 1, 2017 at 11:39 am | Permalink

        Definitely more accurate than Mr Redwood predictions and assertions.

        Why shouldn’t they be published ?

        • David Price
          Posted November 1, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

          Why should anything be published that would help the opponent in any way?

  19. cryingoutloud
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Don’t know why you are bringing up this old talk again about planes flying or not flying. The problem if we leave on the cliffedge won’t be felt just at government level, it will be felt much more on the front line with the EU air traffic controllers, with immigration and customs and congestion in the airports, with customs in the sea ports and with the endless queues of weary passengers just trying to get by- there will be no goodwill shown from either side only bad temper and chaos- and where did I hear that one before? “there will be no cakes on the table for anyone only salt and vinegar”-Tusk, and then JR suggests we are to be guided by what Willie Walsh says and what he ‘expects’? oh dear me!

    As far as the Bank of England is concerned- lets be clear, they have no more insight into any of this than the rest of us? Carney will just pack his bags as soon as his contract is up, my guess is he already has them half packed-

    Clearly the buck stops with Mrs May and the government now, it has been spelt out clearly and on numerous times by Barnier and other EU heads.. there will be no cherry picking allowed.. we cannot have our cake and eat it- and so government knows full well by now of the seriousness of leaving without an agreement- there is no money tree either-so why go on with this talk of leaving with no deal? it would be disastrous for everyone.

  20. Soft Brexit
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    It would help if you didn’t deliberately misrepresent Mr Walsh’s comment.

    He said he expected planes to fly because he expected there to be a trade agreement, the very thing you are so happy to walk away from.

    So no, people won’t stop talking about planes not flying. Because if the Government is foolish to follow your advise, planes most certainly won’t be flying, which Mr Walsh’s comments support.

    • NickC
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      Soft, For planes to fly we need agreements to fly, not trade agreements.

    • anon
      Posted November 4, 2017 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

      Planes can be flown to many destinations.

      They will be used to fly to those countries and destinations, where it is not officially forbidden.

      In a worst case scenarios , holidays outside the rump EU will flourish.

      Its a lose lose again for the EU, if this idiotic gambit continues.

  21. hans chr iversen
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

    we all want London to continue to thrive

    • David Price
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

      You do not speak for all, I want the UK to thrive, which is not necessarily the same thing at all.

      • hans christian ivers
        Posted November 2, 2017 at 11:17 am | Permalink

        if London thrives we can invest in the Northern power house which we also need for the UK to thrive

        • David Price
          Posted November 3, 2017 at 11:25 am | Permalink

          I would rather the rest of the country were able to thrive from it’s own enterprise without the interference of London politicians and barrow boys.

  22. hefner
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    Given that we will not get to have a look at the 58 studies, one can have a look at the 60-page report prepared by the other side:
    An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27
    available on various platforms on the other side of the Channel.

  23. ian
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    Backroom deal by remoaners has been done, the EU has been assured that MPs in the UK parliament will have the last say on a deal with the EU. It’s going to be a Norway deal or similar deal, this is what the EU is going to put on the table with DD have no other choice but to take that back to the UK parliament to be voted on as being the best deal he could get. The vote in parliament will most likely take place on October next year/ and will go through with majority MPs in parliament in favour for the deal. Of cos, this is not what you voted for in the Brexit vote, but when did you ever get what you wanted from MPs you have voted into parliament.

  24. Denis Cooper
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    I was staggered to see the latest effort in the Sky Campaign Against Brexit:

    “Irish minister Michael Creed urges UK to hold second Brexit referendum”

    “Britain should take Ireland’s approach to referendums and rerun the Brexit vote because of the damage it is likely to cause, an Irish government minister has suggested.”

    This fool obviously hasn’t realised that seeing such totally anti-democratic shenanigans in Ireland was one of the things that turned a lot of Britons against the EU.

  25. The Prangwizard
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    I don’t believe the 75,000 but if it were to happen the loss of City Spivs won’t worry me overmuch. Maybe government will then decide that making things is what the country should be doing. Other countries, our direct competitors, have been doing rather well at it lately.

    Maybe, with government help, they could start up a shipbuilding business to make boats to defend our coastline and fishing grounds. Fat chance on both counts.

    • hans christian ivers
      Posted November 2, 2017 at 11:19 am | Permalink

      that would really be a waste of good tax payers money, so please do not build ships in the UK, we are not competitive

  26. Lifelogic
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    There will of course be many positives for the city in being out of the EU. Was it not only yesterday we were hearing how most of HSBC’s profits were now mainly from investing in Asia.

    Perhaps the banks might even start to treat their UK based customer with a little less contempt. Contempt as in for deposits we pay circa 0.25% but if you want to borrow (are solid and we are well secured we might lend to you at say base plus 5-6% secured on a commercial property security). In the cast of HSBC I understand the red tape means they are not really interested in lending less than a few £million in this way at all.

    Perhaps out of the EU we can have a sensible energy and farming policy, a bonfire of damaging red tape, cut the size of out bloated inept state sector and go for some decent roads instead of HS2 and other white elephant lunacies and green crap.

  27. Richard1
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    As per the exchanges yesterday it is at the very least very unclear to most people what no deal means in practical effects. Unless and until this becomes clear, public support for clean Brexit in the absence of a deal will fall. This obviously plays into the EUs hands in negotiations, which is presumably why they are spinning things out. I again suggest that the government publishes extensive analysis of what the walk away / no deal option means in practice, on best estimates. The current unclarity and obfuscation is hopeless.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      The government should send an Open Letter to the EU saying that we have formed the impression that they have no intention of ever attempting to negotiate any kind of special trade deal with UK, and asking them to say clearly whether or not that is the case. If their answer is “no” then we can both start working on the assumption that in the future trade between us will be on the standard WTO terms. If they fail to reply within thirty days we will take it that as a “no” answer.

  28. Richard1
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

    We should note that M Macron is to cut CGT and dividend taxes in France to 30%, and to abolish most of the wealth tax. Whilst CGT will still be slightly higher in France, an important moment is reached as France offers substantially lower tax on dividends to many investors than the UK. Our government better take note and make sure the UK stays tax competitive!

    • chris f
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 4:58 pm | Permalink

      But surely that would imply a ‘race to the bottom’, which – apparently – the EU can’t countenance…?

      Funny how certain countries within the EU seem to constantly step over the mark and never get called out for it.

      • Richard1
        Posted October 31, 2017 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

        Indeed the race to the bottom argument is socialist market rigging – colluding against taxpayers to fund state producer interests. Taxpayers have an interest in as much competition as possible, so governments are forced to cut waste and be competitive.

    • hefner
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

      Do not worry too much: even with Macron’s reforms, the French banks will do their utmost to prevent the overall development of platforms allowing individuals to invest outside the banks’s investment offices.

    • mickc
      Posted October 31, 2017 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      Unfortunately Hammond cannot understand that high taxes reduce business endeavour and activity. In short, he is (yet another) high tax Chancellor.

  29. Shieldsman
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    This might be bit long winded, but it explains the negotiation of Air Service Agreements.
    The triggering of Article 50 is notification to the European Union that the United Kingdom will cease to be part of the European Common Aviation Area, in which the Commission negotiates bi-lateral Air Service Agreements on behalf of the member States. EU external aviation policy briefing May 2016, EPRS_ BRI(2016) 582021_EN appears to be relevant.

    The 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (‘Chicago Convention’) is the chief regulatory framework for international civil aviation, but also the most important primary source of public international aviation law and the umbrella under which bilateral air service agreements have been developed.
    While in the early days bilateral air service agreements between states were quite restrictive, having been written with the intention of protecting their respective flag carriers, in the early 1990s the United States proposed a more flexible model of bilateral air services agreements, the so-called ‘Open Skies’ agreements. Challenged on the grounds that some of their provisions were not in conformity with Community law, these agreements led in 2002 to the European Court of Justice’s ‘Open Skies’ judgments. These judgments triggered the development of an EU external aviation policy, which has led to the conclusion of over 50 horizontal agreements as well as to the negotiation and conclusion of comprehensive EU agreements with some neighboring countries and key trading partners.

    The Chicago Convention
    Signed in 1944, the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’) is the most important primary source of public international aviation law. It is binding upon its 191 signatory states, which have pledged not to enter into any obligations or understandings that are inconsistent with the terms of the Convention.
    The Chicago Convention created the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and entrusted it, in its Article 44, with the objectives of developing the principles and techniques of international air navigation, and fostering the planning and development of international air transport, so as notably to ‘insure the safe and orderly growth of international civil aviation throughout the world’, ‘meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport’, and ‘insure that the rights of contracting States are fully respected and that every contracting State has a fair opportunity to operate international airlines’.

    Article 1 of the Convention mentions that ‘The contracting States recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory’, while Article 6 on scheduled air services states that, ‘No scheduled international air service may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting State, except with the special permission or other authorization of that State, and in accordance with the terms of such permission or authorization’.

    The United Kingdom has such sovereignty, and therefore on leaving the EU has exclusive rights to negotiate bi-lateral air service agreements under the Chicago Convention. So on leaving the EU and the ECAA the Brussels Commission will no longer be responsible for negotiating our bi-lateral air service agreements.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appears to be responsible for negotiating bi-lateral air service agreements. He must therefore confirm that the five freedoms negotiated with the EU’s so called third Countries are still valid after 29th March 2019.

    The 7th Freedom of the Air under which RyanAir operates in the UK is not an International agreement. To continue after we leave the EU it will require a bespoke agreement with the UK.

    The United Kingdoms proposal for a replacement air service agreement are set out in CBP-7633.
    The Chief Executive of the CAA, Andrew Haines, set out the UK’s options on access to the ECAA
    1.Staying in the European Common Aviation Area (i.e. UK airline treated as if part of the EU, with full access – in many ways highly desirable for both sides in this negotiation). But Aviation is likely to be caught in the crossfire. This is not to be recommended, membership of the ECAA effectively requires acceptance of EU aviation law across all areas, so where the UK might want to move away from current EU rules with which it is not entirely satisfied (e.g. state aid or compensation). Compromise would be required, leading to ransom and any final agreement involve Community Law and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

    2. A UK “Open Skies” deal with Europe? (i.e. UK treated as a third country, like the USA).
    3. Negotiating a single bilateral agreement with the EU as a whole if Member States give the EU a mandate to negotiate on their behalf. Or the UK could still negotiate bilateral agreements with individual member states; for instance, if member states wish to or find the EU-led process too slow. (Any state that wanted to go down that route would have to notify the EU and negotiate in a way that is compatible with EU law, but this is a possible scenario.) The EU cannot refuse to negotiate the ICAO 5 Freedoms of the Air with the UK. Not to do so would deny the 27 members Airlines, entry into and over the UK’s airspace.

    The negotiation of Air Service Agreements is quite separate from Trade negotiations not being subject to WTO rules. They may be negotiated separately long before we actually leave the EU and ECAA.

    The UK will remain a member of Eurocontrol. Through NATS the privately run National Air Traffic Service which provides an ATM and the United Kingdom Government controls all air traffic in its airspace extending out over the Atlantic seaboard.

    Commissioner for Transport Bulc will need before 29th March 2019 to have negotiated an Air Service Agreement with the UK based on the International Civil Aviation Organization five freedoms of the Air, if the 27 EU member states wish to continue flying into and through the United Kingdoms Airspace. Under the ICAO bi-lateral the UK will not be subject to the ECAA rules nor the ECJ.

    The following Airlines of EU member States need to fly through UK airspace to access the the North Atlantic track structure.
    Air Europa, Air France, Alitalia, Austrian Airlines, Brussels Airlines, Lufthansa, KLM, LOT, Norwegian, SAS, Swiss

    North Atlantic Skies – The gateway to Europe
    NATS Holdings, formerly National Air Traffic Services and commonly referred to as NATS, is the main Air Navigation Service Provider in the United Kingdom. It inherited the traditions of UK air traffic control, which (founded over Croydon Airport) was the world’s first air traffic control regime. It provides en-route air traffic control services to flights within the UK Fight Information Regions and the Shanwick Oceanic Control Area. As the sole provider of en route services in the UK, NATS operates from two centres at Swanwick in Hampshire, England and Prestwick in Ayrshire, Scotland.

    The operations room in Prestwick combines: Oceanic Area Control Centre (OACC), which controls the airspace over the eastern half of the North Atlantic from the Azores (45 degrees north) to a boundary with Iceland (61 degrees north).
    Up to 80% of all Oceanic traffic passes through the Shanwick Oceanic Control Area (OCA), which is airspace controlled by the United Kingdom.

    The BIG question is does the UK through NATS have any obligation to provide Air Traffic Services to Airlines of Countries (EU) to which it has no bi-lateral Air Service Agreements?

    Can you visualise a situation whereby the airlines of the rest of the World, having bi-laterals with the UK, are continuing to fly into and over the United Kingdom whilst those of the EU member States are not.

  30. miami.mode
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    One thing economists cannot quantify is the value of the English language. Wherever you go in western Europe it’s a fair bet that you will be able to meet somebody who can converse in passable English (not so much in France, perhaps). Doubtful that it would be true for Europeans travelling in the UK to find their own language in very many places (no names, of course, as I’m sure Marcel in Exeter, Otto in Barnoldswick, Valentino in Hornsey, Miguel in……. will disagree, but you get my drift).

  31. Miss Brandreth-Jones
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    Monarch , Ryanair and Flybe have all experienced problems his year , however I cannot see the connection with Brexit which will be blamed for everything.I look forward to the day when we will be able to fly short trips on smaller planes getting straight on to the plane without waiting the 2 hours at airports and make a quick day trip.

  32. G
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    Hello. I heard a radio program the other day which defended the ECJ as a very benign and quite mundane court that was mostly concerned with the day-to-day hum-drum administrative governance of matters of the single market. Quite apart from the ECHR. And quite convincing it was too.

    I would be very grateful to the Rt. Hon. JR if he would bring his considerable knowledge and experience in explain this area in detail. What is the jurisdiction of the ECJ? How does it negatively affect us? To what extent does it interfere with the setting of our own domestic law? Etc, etc….

    Illumination in this area would be most instructive thank you…

  33. cryingoutloud
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    And you tell us that there is no censorship..

  34. Caterpillar
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    I tend to agree but am very concerned that without immediately committing to a clean Brexit the possibility of some kind of cliff edge increases. Moreover, if we see the ‘secret’ reports released to publicly identify Govt areas of concern I think we will be able to conclude that the remainers are winning and the UK position is intentionally be weakened.

    As an aside, wishfully assuming the UK does rapidly move to a clean brexit position what plans do we have for deactivating free economic zones?

    • Caterpillar
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 12:53 am | Permalink

      Reactivating not deactivating

  35. Alan Joyce
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Dear Mr. Redwood,

    Today, addressing the House of Lords European Select Committee, the Brexit Secretary David Davis admitted the negotiations would go Brussels’ way when it came to the divorce bill and other issues. The withdrawal agreement on balance will probably favour the union in terms of the things like money and so on.

    He did also say to peers: In the infamous, or famous, words of the European Union nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

    The words of the Brexit Secretary are so very disappointing to hear. I wonder what he had in mind when he said ‘other issues’ and ‘so on’?

    Sooner or later I think you and other leading Brexiteers may have some explaining to do in order to square your opinions with the actions of your party – as will the conservative party itself come the general election.

    • John Soper
      Posted November 1, 2017 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

      I fully agree, Alan. I voted Leave in good faith. Mr Redwood promised no money would be paid over – Mrs May has already conceded £20 million, and that is just the start. Mr Redwood promised an easy trade deal with the EU – no sign of that. David Davis confessing yesterday that that EU will do better out of Brexit than the UK is to contradict everything we were promised. SECOND REFERENDUM NOW!

      Reply I promised no such things. I pointed out what would be possible and always said prepare for No Deal

  36. Anonymous
    Posted October 31, 2017 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    Why is the BBC allowed to say that skilled workers will be stopped from coming to the UK after Brexit ? (Farming – Countryfile and virtually every news bulletin.)

    Remainers can not stop lying.

  37. bony
    Posted November 1, 2017 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

    I would remind those parliamentarians who believe they run this country and not its people that parliament is not party to Magna Carter. Yet they act unlawfully in their attempts to festoon on us the rule of foreigners, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment without trial which are illegal – and punishable.

  38. Simon
    Posted November 5, 2017 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    The ludicrously over optimistic assertions being made by JR here about aviation have been debunked comprehensively all over the internet by those who unlike JR know what they are talking about. Yes airlines will fly. But it will take time. It will take a tremendous amount of effort, negotiation and agreement worldwide. It will cost money. Things will definitely not be the same.

    The patronising contempt with which JR casually brands truth seekers as “doom mongers” tells its own story.

  • 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