Author: johnredwood

During the campaign there has been a deafening silence from Remain over the EU changes planned on the continent once the referendum is out of the way. Remain never seems proud of the unifying impulses of the EU, and spends its time in denial about the substantial moves to full economic, monetary, banking and political union which the EU institutions and many continental governments seek.

The European Peoples party Manifesto is a good starting point. This grouping of the main centre right parties of the EU, which the Conservatives under Mr Cameron left as it is federalist, state

“We want a European political union.” They envisage pan European elections with “a direct election by the people of a President of the European Commission”. They see the Euro and free movement of people as two central pillars of their new Europe. They seek a common defence, and majority voting to form a single foreign policy view.

Meanwhile at the practical day to day level the EU Commission is currently hammering out a more integrationist agenda. In full knowledge of the UK’s wish to have more flexibility on VAT, and written after the so called UK/EU deal,EU comment on the latest VAT Action Plan says

“Any such uncoordinated stand alone measures (different rates etc) would shift the focus from the overriding objective of putting in place a definitive regime at the first available opportunity. It would create additional distortions within the single market and thereby also increase opportunities for fraud”

So even in the crucial area of taxation where the UK government implied it had won new freedoms for us to tax as we wish, the EU is already planning detailed legislation to centralise and to limit such freedoms.

I want us to trade with the continent, be friends with them, have plenty of student exchanges, free tourist travel, plenty of joint ventures and commercial agreements. We wish to enjoy the varied cultures of the European peoples, to share food and fellowship, and to ally together in common causes. None of this will cease if we leave the EU.

I also want us to be good Europeans. Many European people and most EU governments want to move more quickly and purposefully towards a governmental union. The UK does not wish to tread that path. That is why we should leave now. We are getting in their way, we are an obstacle to the completion of their single currency driven  border free state they wish to create. It is not fair of us to slow them down and to complain of the cost, and not fair of the EU to imply the UK can keep her freedom and democracy whilst going along with the grand European project.

Some say the rest of the EU will not want to trade with us if we leave. This is absurd. All the senior contacts I have made over the years on the continent have no wish to impose new barriers against their lucrative exports to us, and understand that has to be a two way process. What need have either side of any new barriers when we leave? How would they be imposed under international law and WTO rules anyway?

Some say we could  no longer travel freely and enjoy each other’s countries. That never stopped us before we joined the EU and I see no reason why it would when we leave. I see plenty of US and Japanese tourists on the continent though neither state is a member of the EU. Universities on both sides of the Channel will still be free to attract cross border students, and to undertake collaborative research, as we do with US universities today.

Some say the world will be a more dangerous place if we leave the EU. That is offensive to our partners. Germany will be no more likely to invade France or vice versa if we leave the EU than they are likely to with us in it. They are  both peace loving democracies with post war habits of working together and avoiding new conflict. The worry is the EU’s wish to be a force in foreign policy with an ambition to build some kind of military presence could reduce stability. The EU’s record in eastern Europe is not encouraging.

Our balance of payments will improve on exit, as we cease the contributions we pay away. Our economy will be boosted by spending the net contributions we surrender on jobs and priorities here at home.

Above all we will become a free people with an independent democracy again.

The EU can often be an unpopular cause on a ballot paper.

In 1997 and 2001 Switzerland voted against its government’s wishes to join the EU.
In 1972 Norway voted against its government’s advice to join.
In 1973 Greenland voted to leave the EU, and eventually did leave.
Denmark voted down the Maastricht Treaty favoured by its government. This led to major opt outs from the Treaty including from the Euro before the Danes would consent.
In 2001 Ireland voted against the Nice Treaty. The EU had to grant opt outs from the military union and other matters.
In 2000 Denmark voted against joining the Euro, confirming its earlier vote against Maastricht. Its government still hadn’t got the message.
In 2000 Sweden voted down joining the Euro, and to this day violates the Treaty by not joining.
In 2005 France and the Netherlands voted down the European Constitution. This was rebranded as Lisbon, despite the popular dissent.
In 2008 Ireland voted against Lisbon, but was persuaded to change the view following some changes to their text.
In 2015 Greece voted against the Euro austerity policies, but subsequently gave in
In 2016 The Netherlands, against its government wishes, voted against the EU/Ukraine Agreement, which the EU has ignored.

None of the dire economic predictions made at the time of some of these votes came true. Norway and Switzerland are the two richest countries in Europe per head, despite not being members or because they are not members. Nor did the rosy forecasts of the pro EU sides come true where they prevailed. Greece who did as she was told by the EU lives to this day with a deeply damaging long recession.

If Brexit wins we wish the transition to be smooth and straightforward. There is no need for any disruption of trade or investment, and no need to change trading rules and product regulations.

It is vitally important that the government does not make an Article 50 request to leave the EU under the current treaties. Government lawyers and Remain campaigners just assume that is what they would do. Vote Leave is equally clear that is exactly what we should not do.

A vote for Brexit is a vote to restore UK democracy and leave the legal controls of the Treaties. The easiest way to implement the popular will if that is the result is to pass a short Act of Parliament. This Act would do two main things. It would remove the support for Treaty based European law afforded by the 1972 European Communities Act. It would confirm all current EU rules and regulations remain in place as good UK law.

The UK government should then open discussions with the EU over what if any changes they wish to see in our bilateral relationship. The UK government can also then take the necessary actions to implement the two main pledges of the Vote Leave campaign. We cancel the payments to the EU, and we establish a points based system of border control which does not distinguish between EU and non EU migrants.

Legislating first but not wishing to change any business arrangements with the EU is the best combination of strength and friendship. Thereafter we have our veto back over any new EU proposal, and can in the years ahead seek improvements or domestic UK changes as we wish. The EU for its part is unlikely to reach agreement amongst the members to impose any tariffs or other additional barriers to our trade unilaterally.

This referendum is our chance to restore our democracy and to take back control. It may be our only chance to vote on how we have lost control of our borders, our money, our taxes and our laws.

If we stay in we will belong to an EU that is on a wild ride to political Union. The UK will be dragged into paying more of the bills and pushed into more laws,taxes and restrictions than we want. The issue of Turkish membership is on the agenda. We will not be allowed a vote on it now terms are agreed on borders and migration through Association Agreement and later on membership.

Remain have done their best to complicate and confuse the issues of this referendum. They have wasted our time and our patience with a series of negative and false forecasts of what could go wrong if we leave. On Brexit the rest of the EU will not want to put new tariffs and barriers on their trade with us. Nor will there be some Brexit recession. The day after we vote to leave trade and investment will continue. The UK will still be the world’s fifth largest economy, and the world will want us as a partner.

The question anyone who is undecided needs to ask is just this

Do you want to elect those who make your laws, influence them, have access to them and be able to sack them if they cease to please?
Or do you want to promote European Union, where we have to agree our laws and taxes with others and live with free movement and EU expansion?

In the run up to the new millennium a vast array of experts told us that our computers would not work and civilisation as we know it would come to a halt unless we took expensive and massive remedial actions. Many of us ignored this advice and did nothing. When we came to turn on our computers on 1 st January 200 they worked fine, as did all the main public systems.

The so called expert opinion that if we vote to leave the EU we will see a plunging pound, soaring interest rates and a recession has all the potency of the Millennium bug scares. So far despite the probability of Brexit rising, UK interest rates have fallen and the pound has held its value against the dollar. The experts have been wrong again.

I keep getting asked how can I think I am right about no Brexit recession when I am up against the Treasury, the Bank of England and the IMF amongst others? I reply, because they have been wrong about these big matters so often before. Look at the track records.

I opposed the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, on the grounds it would badly damage our economy. The Treasury, Bank and IMF recommended it. It gave us a very bad recession in the early 1990s, destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs and many businesses.

I wrote books and took a campaign around the country to explain how damaging joining the Euro would be for the UK. It was voters, not the institutions, who kept us out of a very dangerous project. The damage I feared was visited instead on Greece, Southern Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. They were plunged into deep recessions, made to cut spending drastically, and ended up with very high unemployment.

I with the whole Opposition in Parliament told the Bank and the Treasury that they were too lax in expanding credit before the 2008 bust. They did it nonetheless.

I warned against excessive tightening in 2007-8. They ignored the warnings and brought several major banks down, creating the biggest post war recession of them all.

These so called experts did not forecast the biggest two recessions of recent years, and did not understand how their policies created them. Why then should we think their current forecasts have any probability of being right?

There will be no recession from Brexit. Our trade is not at risk. We start our negotiations with the rest of the EU from the position of having common rules and standards and no tariffs. Who wants to change that? Certainly not Germany, who sells us so much more than we buy from them.

A future recession is possible, in or out of the EU but it will have nothing to do with Brexit. It is more likely to be caused by bad Central banking, as last time, or by a crisis in some other major economy of the world knocking on to us. It could even come about if the Eurozone has a crash owing to the poor design of their currency. Out of the EU we will have a bit more flexibility to cushion the blows.

Yesterday I honoured my speaking commitments which had been planned with the referendum in mind but talked about other matters. The student debate became a discussion of our democracy, and a business audience were happy to think about the global economy. Today Vote Leave and I have cancelled the walkabout and speech by Michael Gove planned for Wokingham Town centre.

My newspapers tell me that the IMF despite the change of mood in the UK has decided to release its assessment of the UK economy. It has produced a flagrantly political intervention, claiming a bleak future if we leave the EU and a continuing good future if we stay in. I read its own website, which flags the UK report with a picture of Westminster in the rain at its mast head. This is a most unfortunate decision, which demeans the institution.

The forecast assumes that the rest of the EU will be willing and able to impose new barriers on their trade with us in an act of self harm, at a time when the IMF thinks the Euro area economy is weaker and more exposed to troubles than the UK one. I think this very unlikely. No-one explains exactly how and why they will do this. The German government has never said it wants any new tariffs or non tariff barriers, and they tend to lead the EU’s response to such issues.

It assumes there will be a confidence affect as well, when the leading inward investors to the UK with factories here have made clear they are going to stay as the UK workforce, domestic market and export base suits them. They have the contacts they need with the rest of the world through our airports, seaports, the English language, our liquid financial markets, and high standards of corporate governance and dispute resolution. So far the various short term forecasts cited by the IMF to talk down the pound, to talk interest rates up and to talk the UK into an early recession have failed. Sterling is a bit higher against the dollar than at the end of February when the referendum campaigns got into gear, and government borrowing rates are well down on the opening levels of 2016.

The IMF rightly highlights the weak UK balance of payments position as a negative for the economy. It does, however, point out that part of the reason for this is low returns on UK investments abroad, which it thinks might improve in due course. The IMF does not point out the UK’s large net contributions to the EU are also an important part of the balance of payments deficit which would immediately improve once we cancel the contributions, as we will if the country decides to leave. Nor does it stress that the UK enjoys a trade surplus with the rest of the world, but a large deficit with the rest of the EU. This again underlines how any new barriers to trade would be more damaging for the EU than for the UK.