Author: johnredwood

Most of my time in Parliament and government has been spent against the background of high states of alert. We have always been told there are real threats of terrorist violence against the UK state. Can we ever look forward to a time when this is no longer true? Is there a danger that the currency of a heightened state of alert is devalued by its longstanding nature?

I took the threats very seriously when they came from the IRA. Escaping from the bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton unscathed, and avoiding the attack on Downing Street made the threats real and visible. The more generalised threat from ISIL has so far not materialised in the same way in Westminster and Whitehall, though the government would accuse people of complacency if they think its lack of success so far means it is not an effective and real future danger.

The problems with a continued heightened state of alert are how do you keep people suitably vigilant against an evil day when the threat takes on material form? How do you answer the criticism that open borders makes the threat more likely, as there are patterns of behaviour with extremists coming and going to training grounds and command groups in Middle Eastern countries before entering the UK to undertake violent assault.

The dilemma any democratic state faces when responding to a terrorist threat is how do you balance the wish to keep open your society, to preserve your freedoms of speech and assembly, without creating such easy conditions for evil to flourish. If the state tightens security too much and interrupts normal life in the interests of security it can lead to a backlash from those who cherish civil liberties and become suspicious of the extent of the threat and the best way to respond to it. If the state does too little, and there is an assault, then the converse criticism holds sway.

I come to the simple conclusion that as democrats we believe in talking through and voting on our differences, not allowing resort to violence to prosecute disagreements. That is why we need to offer diplomacy and education rather than bombs as our contribution to the various peace processes underway in the Middle East. That is why we need to ask whether violence does simply beget more violence of a kind which can damage our own social fabric. In the meantime we need to be grateful to those intelligence services that have intercepted past plots, and hope they continue to do so. We also need to improve our border controls to deal with extremists wishing to come here.

During the referendum campaign I was asked by some of Remain opponents to name a regulation or rule we would want to repeal once we left the EU. I guess it was one of their trick challenges. They expected the Leave spokesman to fail to name one so they could claim there was no point in complaining about all the requirements we did not like. Failing that response, they hoped we would demand an end to employment protections which were important to many Leave voters.

I was always grateful for this question. It enabled me to remind audiences the Leave campaign recommended keeping all the EU employment protections on leaving. It reminded us all that the Conservative and Labour parties both said they would keep the minimum requirements the EU laid down, as we often exceeded them anyway. In future Parliament will be able to decide how much further to go as we do today.

It also enabled me to start listing the requirements we would like to drop. They usually wanted to shorten the list once I started. I began with proposing the abolition of VAT on sanitary products, then recommending the abolition of VAT on green products, moving on to the abolition of VAT on domestic fuel and wanting to change the EU decisions which had led to substantial rebates of Corporation Tax for some big companies. In despair they would sometimes ask for a non tax one!

I would then get stuck into the fishing regulations, proposing a substantial reform to protect our fish stocks and give more priority to UK vessels. I followed that up with changes to the agricultural regime which had penalised parts of the UK industry in the past.

To those who now write to me and ask how the non tariff barriers and arrangements will work after Brexit, I have an easy answer. We will transfer all current EU regulations and decisions into UK law. After we have passed the EU Repeal Act we will then be free to decide which former EU laws and decisions we wish to amend. I propose we start with the tax ones and move on to create our own fishing and agricultural policies first. Repeal will not include the rules on how products and services have to be arranged to be fit to sell on the continent, as these rules then as now will still apply to anything we wish to export. What will be different after leaving is we will have the right to change the rules and specifications for the majority UK domestic trade and for non EU trade if we wish.

Charity begins at home. Self help is the best way to a better tomorrow.  We need to apply these two truths to improving our lives and economy in 2017.

The UK will continue to be supportive of those in need of help, and needs to be generous to the disabled. It also needs to do more to make it worthwhile to work, and worthwhile for UK companies to pitch for and win contracts to supply us here at home. In 2017 one of the main tasks of government should be to get the balance of payments deficit down, so we no longer have to depend on the goodwill of foreigners as the Governor of the Bank likes to say.

The two elements of the balance of payments deficit, comprising one quarter of it, are directly under government control. These  are the EU contributions and overseas aid the UK government pays away. I want the government to send the Article 50 letter soon, and then progress whatever talks are needed as quickly as possible. We want to stop making those EU payments quickly. There is not a great deal to discuss before we leave and cancel the subscription. The rest of the EU just has to decide whether they want to have tariffs imposed on their exports to us or not, not a difficult question to answer.

Overseas aid entails sending large sums of our money to the EU, and to other international bodies. Some of this in turn is spent with large companies operating from other rich countries. Let’s cut out the middlemen and just give aid direct for the good  causes we believe in. The aid money should be spent either in the region we are trying to help, or on procuring goods and services they need from UK corporations. These changes would reduce the strain of aid on the balance of payments whilst enabling us to target and improve its effectiveness at the same time.

The government’s pending new industrial strategy should have import saving at its heart. UK products are  now 12% better value compared to continental ones thanks to the devaluation of the pound since July 2015. The UK government should show a lead by insisting on a much higher UK content in all the purchases it makes. They can start immediately with defence where EU rules do  not prevent buying from home sources, and move  on to the rest once we have left and can change the procurement rules. Why are so many new Ajax armoured vehicles going to be built in Spain? Why does the steel for our new submarines come from the continent?

Where the UK government is  buying or subsidising the purchase of buses and trains they should be made in the UK. There are ways of doing this even under EU rules.  Where the government is working with Housing Associations to build more affordable housing they should be constructed from UK materials and products. In each of these markets there are competing UK companies that can compete for the work and expand capacity as needed.

Brexit offers us a great opportunity to make more for ourselves and in the process make more of ourselves. Charity begins at home, and self help is aided by good neighbourly purchasing.

By request I am republishing my May 2016 speech

Is this a puppet Parliament?
Or does it have within it the ability to take back control?
Is this puppet Parliament to remain a mere cipher for Brussels?
Or can it take back control to make our own laws and levy our taxes?

Was not this once great Parliament founded on the principle that there should be just laws
And redress of grievances before we grant taxation to government?
Was it not founded on the very principle that those who pay the taxes should have a vote and a voice over how they are imposed?
Was not this the principle that led to the foundation of the world’s greatest democracy, the United States of America,
Taking British ideas and adopting them in a neglected colony where we had foolishly ignored the public will?

Has this Parliament no collective memory?
Has it no understanding of the underpinnings of democracy?
Has it no shame?
Has it no sense of the struggles of those who went before us to establish our democratic rights?
Can they be so easily, needlessly and foolishly swept aside?

Are there no Hampdens and Miltons on the Labour front bench?
Is there no Cromwell who guiltless of our country’s blood
Can with words and votes cast off this monstrous EU intrusion on our democracy?

The Labour front bench are but marionettes, dancing to the tune of Brussels.
Many government Ministers are but players in a drama scripted and written by the EU.

This lackey Parliament tamely puts through law after law required by the EU.
The civil service instructs Ministers to implement every Court decision, regulation and directive.
Most UK governments decline to oppose things in Brussels we do not want, for fear of losing the vote.
Most UK governments seek to disguise how much power has gone.
They try to suppress debate and minimise fuss
So they use this Parliament to rubber stamp decisions made elsewhere.

Today the government accepts an amendment to the Gracious speech to stand up for the UK’s NHS
We were forced to move this because the EU does not share with us the details of the trade agreement negotiations
Why can’t this Parliament debate the terms and mandate the government?
Because these matters are initiated by unelected Commissioners
They escape proper supervision by 28 countries who disagree about what the Trade Treaty should say

Today we debate the dreadful pressures on our public services.
The Conservatives in the last general Election promised to reduce the demand by controlling migrant numbers.
How can we do this inside the EU?

To pay for our public services we need more revenue from taxation.
Where in this Gracious Speech is the measure to stop the loss of corporation tax revenue?
In the last parliament the UK had to repay companies more than £7bn of tax levied thanks to European court cases we lost.
The government forecast yet another £7bn loss this Parliament from more defeats by the EU.

You might have though the modern Labour party would show some solidarity with its sister party Syriza in Greece.
It might lift a voice if not more against the relentless and destructive austerity policies forced on that poor country.
You might have expected a demonstration or two over the mass unemployment of young people in Spain, Portugal and southern Italy.

But no. Because they are promulgated in the name of the EU the Labour front bench judge it prudent to keep quiet
To not rock the boat, to allow it go on.

I have at times in recent years think we happy band of brothers and sisters seeking to restore Uk democracy
Are fighting the English civil war again without the muskets
Just as they had to face down an unaccountable King
Taxing in ways that were unpopular, and promulgating unacceptable laws
So today we find ourselves having to fulminate against Brussels taxes
And EU laws many in our country do not want.

Will the people now speak?
Will they bring an end to this puppet Parliament?
Will they reveal the sham show. The pretend Parliament
Which strut on the stage as if in charge
But has long since given far too much power away,
The power to tax, the power to decide welfare, the power to control our own borders, the power to handle our own criminal justice system.
This is no Parliament
This is but a side show
A pale imitation of the real thing
A masque, a stooge, a lackey of the European sovereign

2017 can be a year of new beginnings on both sides of the Atlantic. The Brexit vote in the UK and the election of a new President in the USA offers  great opportunity. Between us we can promote prosperity. Faster growth, more and better paid jobs and more investment should be the watchwords in London and Washington.

The UK can develop a new foreign policy as we leave the EU. The Prime Minister has set out her wish for the UK to be a leader of free trade worldwide. That should mean we turn our backs on military interventions that can prolong or intensify civil wars and work with the new US Administration to reduce conflict and reduce tensions with Russia and Iran. I doubt that a negotiated lasting peace for all  is in sight in the troubled Middle East,but 2017 begins with a fragile truce in Syria which could be extended. 2017 could at least see the West recognise that past military engagements and regime changes have not helped stabilise the region. Everything the West does should be designed to ease the killings and help rebuild the shattered economies of the war torn countries. Many Middle Eastern countries may not be ready to settle all their disputes in the ballot box as we would recommend, but at least we can encourage them to choose jaw jaw over war war more 0ften.

The UK can also develop a new domestic policy based on generating more better paid jobs, promoting more home ownership and assisting with improvements to education and training. Welfare reform is now seeking to help the disabled into employment, and prison reform needs to concentrate on reducing re offending and equipping prisoners for regular jobs. Not all of this will be new, but it will be aided by reflationary policies in the USA. If Mr Trump goes ahead with major tax cuts and tax reform it will be even more important than the UK does something similar to keep us competitive. The UK too needs tax reform and lower tax rates on work, enterprise and investment.

I wish you all a great New Year celebration, and a successful and prosperous New Year.

 

 

 

 

I was pleased to see Yesterday  Michael Gove put out a statement saying the EU referendum was like the civil war without the muskets.

I agree. My puppet Parliament speech on 24th May published here used just such a phrase to explain we were fighting democratically for our independence.

The outgoing President is using executive (alias prerogative) powers to try to stop many of the main changes Mr Trump wants to make to US policy. He has excelled himself with his intervention with Russia at the very moment Russia brokers a ceasefire in Syria without the US being involved. If he wanted to stand up to Russia he could have chosen a more appropriate time and Russian action to oppose. He is also out to stop cheaper energy and the development of the  US industry.

 

Imagine the outrage of the establishment if it had been an outgoing President Trump using executive powers in this way. It looks like the swan song of a President who messed up his policy in the Middle  East and was outwitted by Russia most of the time. After years dithering Mr Obama at last knows what he wants to do -thwart his successor.

Like many I was fed up with what the elites of Europe and the USA were serving up during 2016. I was unhappy with the policy of half hearted and erratic military interventions in a war torn Middle East. I was hostile to the austerity policies of the EU, creating mass youth unemployment in many parts of the Eurozone and leaving much of the continent  mired in slow growth or no growth. I disliked the way the UK was dragged into many of the EU policies that were hostile to growth, enterprise and expansion.

2016 for me turned out to be a year which has made so much possible for 2017. It was a year of sharp transition, starting with a Conservative victory in the UK General election, spreading to the Leave vote in the referendum and ending with Mr Trump’s victory in the USA. As yet we have little to show for these momentous decisions by the voters. Next year will see how the change we want pans out. Voters could not have been clearer. We want change.

My main memory of 2016 will be debating endlessly with members of the economic and business establishment, who were united in their disbelief at the attitudes of voters. So many of them could see no alternative to the austerity policies of the Euro, to the military policies pursued for more than a decade in the Middle East, or to the continuing squeeze of the commercial banks which kept growth sluggish at best. They were above all lost in incomprehension about why so many people did not believe their forecasts or their remedies, and why so many of us were so frustrated at the tyranny of their conventional wisdom.

The architects of the Exchange Rate Mechanism collapse and recession did not apologise and learn enough from their mistakes. The architects of the commercial banking collapse amongst the Central Banks and Treasuries of the West did not understand their culpability for the Great Recession, nor did they learn the right lessons from their mistakes. The western co-architects of the Iraq war, the Libyan splintering, the troubles of Afghanistan did not learn from their experiences or come up with a better formula for Syria.

Instead the EU and US elites banded together to lecture the Netherlands on how to vote about Ukraine, the UK on how to vote about Brexit, the US on how to vote down Trump and the Italians on how to back a constitutional reform designed to buttress the government. The people saw through them, and made their feelings clear. That is why I am full of hope for 2017. If the elite cannot learn from past mistakes, it is time for new direction and new people in power.

 

The latest Asda discretionary income tracker shows continuing good growth in average spending power, despite the recent rise in oil prices and the knock on effects to fuel. Food, clothing and other essentials still show little or no overall inflation, whilst incomes after tax are rising. So far there has been no squeeze on real incomes from a lower pound in the way so many forecasters predicted would happen this winter.