No Deal is a good outcome for the UK. It means we take back control of our borders, our money, our laws and our fish as promised by the Leave campaign. The deals on offer from the EU fell well short of improving on No Deal. They want to continue overfishing our seas with their huge industrial trawlers. They want to control our law making in any area related in any way to business and trade. They want their Court to adjudicate disputes between us in a clear violation of usual international practice where an impartial Arbitrator is used or the two sides need to argue it through to agreement. Their every word and action signalled that they do not wish to accept the fact that we have voted to be an independent country and intend to be one.  

               When Mrs May  with senior civil servants foolishly sought to recreate many of the features of our EU membership under cover of a so called comprehensive partnership the EU implied if we just wanted a Free Trade Agreement like Canada or Japan that would be easy to do. Once a new UK government offered to do just that the EU decided to impede and prevent it, and to pretend the UK still really wanted special access to the single market which required in turn subservience to their laws. There was little good faith in trying to implement the Political Agreement by the EU , given that it said at the heart of a new relationship between the EU and the UK would be a free trade agreement. The EU has always behaved with discipline and severity in its negotiating stance, assuming it can have its cake and eat it, whilst repeating its mantra that you cannot have access to the single market without accepting many limitations on your freedoms. This of course is simply not true for the rest of the world who trade with the EU without having to obey their laws, and who are happy to see their trade governed by World Trade Organisation rules. The EU as a member of the WTO also  has to accept their rules and accept their disputes  resolution. The EU has a  history of  some violations of WTO rules with penalties, as with the subsidies to Airbus.

               I was asked to give many speeches during the Referendum campaign to business audiences. I always said No Deal was the only outcome we could guarantee. It was an outcome which would give a good answer for the UK, achieving all our aims to be independent. I used to go on to say it would be very easy – if there was political will – to add a Free Trade Agreement on top of No deal, which would be beneficial to both sides. In  most free trade deals there are delays and problems with each side wishing to defend a tariff here and a non tariff barrier there. In the case of the UK and EU we start from a position where there are  no tariffs and untowards barriers to goods trade, so it would just be a question of rolling over what we have.  I also sometimes added that some thought the EU would not behave well or want to do that. In  that event surely it shows how right we are to leave, if EU our neighbours,friends and allies behave in such a silly way towards us, to the point of hurting their own access to our own lucrative market. To the EU the UK has indeed been Treasure Island. They have taken large payments from us in the form of our net contributions to the EU, and have run a huge surplus on goods  and food trade through tariff free entry.

               The Prime Minister has been right and crystal clear in saying we will leave the single market and customs union. We want our own international trade policy, and will be a more powerful and consistent voice for freer trade than the EU. To do this we need to have full control of all matters relating to trade and business. The single market has been damaging to the UK overall. In our first decade in the Common market as it was then erroneously  called  we lost half our motor manufacturing capacity as tariffs were removed. Over the years we have seen the loss of most of our steel industry and aluminium output, serial damage to textile and ceramic manufacture, the mass closure of foundries and the break up and contraction of our chemical industry. Our market share in temperate food production has fallen sharply, and we have gone from being a net exporter of fish to a shrunken industry with consumers reliant on imports for much of our demand. EU grants and subsidies have bid some  business investment away from the UK. EU rules have often been based around the needs and methods of large scale continental producers at the expense of our firms. The EU has failed to negotiate trade deals at all with two of our largest trading partners, the USA and China, and has not bothered about proper service sector  access in other deals despite the UK’s strong position in many service areas. Our average growth rate was faster before entry into the Common market post war than in the twenty years of Common market membership, which in turn was faster than our average growth rate in the years which followed 1992 and the so called completion of the single market. The UK establishment has never been willing to analyse the data and understand what was truly happening. They visited upon us the disaster of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, whose predictable impact caused a major recession at the very point there was meant to be a boost from completing the single market!

                     So how can now use our freedoms as we leave with No Deal, assuming there is no last minute wish to be sensible by the EU and agree a Free Trade deal?   We should be up and running with tax cuts – at last we can take VAT off all those green products from insulation to boiler controls the EU insists on, and lift tariffs from South African oranges and other tropical fruit and food that we cannot grow for ourselves. We should pursue our offer to the USA of removing EU retaliatory tariffs on their goods if they will drop their tariff on Scotch whisky, which was an unwelcome hit from an EU trade spat. We should  set up Freeports and Enterprise Zones to marshal new investment and make more in the UK. We should reorient farm subsidies to slash the food miles and grow more of our own salads, fruits,and vegetables.We should land more of our fish at home and add fish processing to create meals and products that we want to eat or which we can export. We should put in more electricity capacity and end our growing dependence on imported EU power.As the government encourages the planting of many more trees we should ensure more sustainable forestry to cut the massive timber imports.

                      These are all good reasons to press for the No Deal Brexit. The best reason of all is to be free, living in an independent country. I want to help pass on a country that is self governing, a beacon for democracy. Brexit means taking back control of our laws, our borders and our money. That way we will be better governed. If any given government lets us down we can sack them and get the answer we want from another. That is something we could never do as members of the EU. They gave us the laws and we did not control the government.

(Now published by Conservative Home who asked for it)

The recent world figures for deaths from the virus show Belgium continuing to lead the grisly table with 1516 deaths per million people, followed by Peru at 1099, Italy at 1052 and Spain at 1005. All of these countries have followed World Health Organisation advice and had extensive lock downs. Sweden which did allow a little more freedom rests below average for advanced countries at 720. Germany has done much better than most at 247. Brazil at 840 is below the worst despite taking a more sceptical approach to the consensus.

Most of the Asian countries have done much better with very few deaths in Taiwan, South Korea, China and Japan. Taiwan had to develop its own response early as it is not allowed by China to be a member of the WHO.It used its island position well to keep the virus at bay. Maybe the Asian SARS outbreak left better immune responses or maybe these societies were more disciplined over track and trace follow up.

I would like to see an explanation of why Belgium has suffered so much more, along with more understanding of the much better experiences of many Asian countries. It is possible the world tables are distorted by different definitions of what is a Covid death, and different levels of CV 19 testing. Clearly the U.K. and USA have found many more cases since they introduced Mass testing on a large scale. Sone other countries have not tested so much and may have attributed more elderly deaths to something other than Covid.

In the UK The devolved Administrations have from time to time varied their approach from the U.K. and English one. Wales thought that a so called circuit breaker of two weeks would do well, but it did not turn out that way. Scotland was talking about eradicating the virus in the summer by being a little bit tougher, but that did not work either. It has demonstrated there is no easy answer to controlling the spread.

I would be interested in your thoughts on what has worked best, and on why there are such big differences between most of Europe and most of Asia. We still have some months to go of containment, preferably without doing too much more damage to the economy.

The main conclusion to come out of the Summit was the new target of 55% carbon dioxide reduction compared to 1990 levels by 2030. This was reached despite opposition from Poland, seeking to defend its coal industry.

This is tough target for the EU, as the EU remains more dependent on coal for direct and for electrical power than the UK, and cruelly dependent on imported Russian gas. Germany also has a much bigger reliance on carbon fuel related engineered products than the UK, and these are now more at risk. The reliance on Russian gas is a strategic vulnerability as well as a carbon infringement of their green aspirations. I will be looking again at what the new range of carbon reduction targets will mean for western economies and societies in future posts. What is clear from the EU’s attempted rapprochement with Joe Biden’s USA is they plan a strong green tie across the Atlantic. The EU has a long way to go to get to its new targets, and has various interests unhappy about the direction.

The top down green revolution will now be pressed heavily from both the USA and the EU, assuming the US courts do not change their mind about the Presidential election. Everything the EU says and does is driven by the overriding priority of cutting emissions, and their whole offer to the member states is they will lead Build Back better as top down green growth. They will be looking at a carbon border tax, beefed up emissions trading taxes and a raft of regulations, taxes and subsidies to tilt the playing field in various sectors towards the green alternative.

The Summit also considered the developing conflict between the EU and Turkey. The EU complained about the aggressive language of Mr Erdogan particularly about President Macron. The EU seeks to restrain Turkish offshore drilling in the Eastern Mediterranean and use of warships to protect their activities. Meanwhile Turkey has a lever over the EU, as Turkey is housing 3.6 million Syrian refugees, with financial help from the EU who would prefer the people to stay in Turkey.

The Treasury and other pro Remain economic institutions told us before the vote that if we voted to leave the following would happen. There would be a big loss of jobs. House prices would tumble. There would be a large loss of output. The pound would fall. This would happen as a result of the vote – they did not say it would only happen after we had left. When their forecasts proved to be wildly wrong., they then shifted their ground and said some of these same effects on a smaller scale would happen after we have left.

So what did happen and what will happen next year?

Employment surged from 2016 to early 2020, with employment rising from 74% to 76.5% of the potential workforce, with continuing inward migration increasing the size of the workforce at the same time. The CV 19 hit still leaves it higher than in 2016 prior to the vote.

House prices continued to rise in cash terms throughout the period post the vote.

GPD growth remained satisfactory from mid 2016 until the CV 19 disaster this year

The pound fell from $1.42 to $1.31 shortly after the vote, but went back up to $1.42 by April 2018. It has fluctuated since and is currently at $1.33.

What will happen after we have left the single market and customs union?

According to official forecasts from forecasters known for their belief in the advantages of the single market, the UK economy will experience the sharpest rate of improvement in 2021 it has seen for decades. The CBI thinks we will grow a lively 6% in 2021 and a further 5.2% in 2022. Oxford Economics thinks we will grow by more than 10% next year and outgrow other European economies and the USA by a large margin.

So our first year as an independent nation will likely see a great growth rate, contrary to expectations. Of course the pandemic has a lot to do with this, but it just shows how wrong the pessimistic forecasts of the Remain forecasters proved to be. They themselves are now forecasting a much better outcome in 2021.

The EU negotiations have been made deliberately complex by the EU. Beneath all the obfuscation and deliberate efforts to dilute, delay or cancel Brexit, there is a simple disagreement. The U.K. says we will be an independent country like Australia or Canada. We offer a Free Trade Agreement which helps both, offering more to the EU as they are in huge surplus on trade.

The EU says we need to be bound into their laws and controls, and surrender our fish if we want a Free Trade Agreement. In that case the answer must be No Deal. We should not compromise our independence.

I came to this debate expecting to hear the Minister set out a vision of post-Brexit Britain, how the taxation system will be transformed and how VAT will be changed to encourage our businesses and give our consumers a better time. Instead, we have six resolutions that are mainly about trying to make sure that the Government can get even more VAT out of people after we have left than before. The Government could have done that at any time. Where is the vision that we will have a much better tax system after Brexit?

We are taking back control of VAT, which was almost entirely under EU control. The Government say, for example, they wish to be a green Government, but these measures will not even take VAT off a whole series of green products, which should not have VAT on them if the Government are trying to encourage people to insulate their homes, change their boiler controls or put in more fuel-efficient ways of heating their homes. The Minister has failed this very simple test.

We have six resolutions about a piece of legislation which we are not allowed to see until after the debate. It is a piece of legislation that will be very complex, because it is mainly about the techniques of raising revenue and making sure that no revenue escapes. However, the Brexit voters out there—the majority in the country—have had to vote three times now for Brexit to make it clear to the House of Commons that they want even this House of Commons to be in charge, even though there are still too many MPs on the Opposition Benches who hate the idea of this country legislating for and governing itself and think that every law that comes from Europe is wise and necessary and every law that is made here is somehow inappropriate.

We want our Ministers to say, “No, we are the people’s representatives. We had the majority in the election and we are going to transform our country’s economy, recover the economy from covid-19 and level up the country.” That requires bold and visionary leadership and it certainly requires pretty fundamental tax changes. VAT rates on some things are too high. VAT should not be imposed on some things at all.

We need to remodel that tax. We need to look again at our corporate taxes, where a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice prevented this country levying all the corporate taxes that it wished to raise.

Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP): I probably should not rise to the bait, but does the right hon. Gentleman honestly think that the way the Government are treating the House tonight is an expression of parliamentary sovereignty? Is this what he really campaigned for over all these years, so that the Government could fast-track major financial legislation, bounce it through the House of Commons, not give us the information we are looking for and not subject it to proper debate? Is that what he campaigned for all these years?

John Redwood: The answer is that I campaigned for this Parliament to take control and use it in the interests of the people, which is why I am making the speech that I am making. Why does the hon. Gentleman not listen to it instead of planning an intervention for a speech I am not making? I am urging the Government to take back control and use it in the way that the public would like to see them use it.

I must take up the point of sovereignty. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is quite right to go back to that. The simple truth about Brexit is that Brexit voters knew exactly what we were voting for. We understood the slogan “Take back control”, and we think control—the right of self-government, the right to trust people in these Houses of Parliament to make decisions for us or the right to throw them out if they are useless—is fundamental to our freedoms and living in a democracy. You do not bargain those away in some kind of dispute about tariffs. You do not argue about those in the context of making compromises.

This is the fundamental truth of Brexit. Like practically every other country in the world that is not a member of the EU, we just want to be free to make those decisions and laws that we can make and have representative institutions—a great Parliament—in order to do that. We clearly need to train some of the parliamentarians in the idea that we can make better laws here than people can make for us abroad and that we can modify European laws that we currently have so that they work in our interests better.

Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP): Does making better laws not start with letting MPs see a Bill before it exists?

John Redwood: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. I have said that I want to debate a real Bill. I am giving ideas to the Minister because I do not think what he has in mind for this Bill is going to quite suit me. I want to pep it up. I want to make it more exciting so that we can go out to the public and say, “This is the party that is going to level up. This is the party that knows how to recover an economy that has been damaged by covid”, and that requires lower taxes and different taxes and requires that we use the powers that only the House of Commons has. The House of Lords has very limited abilities to intervene, and on this occasion I am very pleased about that, because it nearly always wants to take the European answer, and the European answer is the high unemployment answer, the high taxation answer and the very complicated taxation answer.

VAT is an extremely complicated tax. We had to adopt its complications and we are now trying to add to those complications to try to avoid items slipping through. We are trying in these proposals to deal with small transactions that sometimes escape the net. They try to find ways of making online organisations, for example, responsible for levying tax between two people trading with each other.

Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levelling-up agenda. On rough figures, we have had 50 years of the EU, 20 years of devolution and over 300 years of the Union. Why are devolution and the EU to blame for the requirement to level up when, quite clearly, the Union is at the heart of the problem?

John Redwood: I do not agree, and nor did Scottish voters when they were asked this question. We do have a great democratic country and I was a great enthusiast for the people of Scotland deciding whether they liked our Union or not. They said, yes, they liked our Union. Then the people of the United Kingdom were asked whether they liked the European Union and they said they did not. So I found myself in the happy position of agreeing in two big referendums with the winning side. It is such a pity that the Scottish National party lost both and has never understood the democratic principle that it then has to accept the verdict. I was on the losing side in a former referendum; like my whole party, I was against the principle of Scottish devolution, and we got that wrong. We lost that referendum and from the day after that we did not fight it, delay it or dilute it. We said, “Yes, devolution is the wish of the Scottish people.” We got on and implemented it.

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can recall this, but when that Bill was introduced by the late Donald Dewar in 1997 I put forward a proposal that the devolution settlement should be decided by a referendum of the entire UK. Perhaps it is some encouragement for him to know that despite a three-line Whip half the Conservative Back Benchers went through the Lobby behind me on that question of having a referendum for the whole UK on this devolution issue, about which he is being so extremely articulate.

John Redwood: We are probably straying a little away from the resolutions before us, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not try your patience any more. I have made my two main points, but just to summarise: we need more vision from the Government to use our power to tax in our own way, because our current tax system is ill fitting and not yet geared to promoting that recovery we want—we need greater simplicity, lower taxes and a lower incidence of taxes to get that recovery going; and we need reassurances from the Government that sovereignty is not something one can bargain away or compromise over, but is fundamental. We either have a free trade agreement between an independent UK and the EU, which is our preferred model, or we have no deal. It is as simple as that. The choice is theirs.

In 2019 the UK ran a trade deficit with the EU and a trade surplus with the rest of the world. The deficit in goods traded with the EU was particularly large, at £96.7bn. This large trade deficit has been going for many years during our membership. A trade partner like the US shows we are competitive on World Trade terms where we ran a surplus in goods as well as total trade. The US is our largest single export market, accounting for two thirds more export value than Germany, our largest market in Europe.

Our trade deficit in food is particularly large with the EU where they enjoy tariff free access to the UK whilst the rest of the world faces some high tariffs on some important items. UK farming has suffered a loss of market share during our time in the EU.

These large goods deficits need paying for, as they are debts incurred in a foreign currency. The UK has been selling off foreign assets to pay the bills. In 2019 the UK sold £165bn of foreign assets. We now run a deficit on investment income, as we have to pay a lot more interest and dividend out to foreign owners of UK assets than we receive on overseas assets owned by UK residents. The UK now has a net liability of £579 billion on investment account, following years of large trade deficits.

This is why it will be good to regain control of our trade policy, and set out tariffs that make more sense for the UK . We need, for example, to help our consumers by taking tariffs off items we cannot grow or make for ourselves, and take tariffs off intermediate and raw materials needed for added value manufacture at home. We need to regain market share in areas like food to reduce the deficit. Being part of the EU single market, fishing and food policy has been bad for the U.K. economy.

I made the mistake of listening to Radio 4 yesterday lunchtime. They went on and on about alleged problems for trade with the EU if we do not sign a deal, with plenty of speakers including the interviewers pushing the negatives. The ignorance of how trade works was as before.

We were told trade between the UK and the continent is currently as border and friction free as it is between two English counties. Do they not realise goods coming across the Channel have go through VAT adjustments as we have a different set of rates and incidence, Excise payment and currency changes? As this is usually carried out through pre logged computer manifests and settled electronically away from the border. The truck driver does not have to work out the VAT and pay in banknotes at a kiosk. Why cannot we do the same thing for any tariffs that need to be imposed? We will of course.

Why do they never point that their worry about imports is a nonsense, because the UK will control the incoming borders, and has no interest in trying to prevent imports coming in that companies and people in the UK want to buy. Indeed, the UK government has already said there will be a relaxed arrangement for the first six months as importers get used to the new trading regime. EU products will switch over the to the tried and tested system used for imports from all non EU countries, which our Border authorities usually handle well without causing hold ups and bottlenecks.

Some Remain commentators claim the EU will seek to slow or prevent UK exports into their single market by zealous implementation of rules. This shows they have a very low estimate of how our neighbours behave, and ignores the fact that the EU like the UK is a member of the WTO and has to follow WTO rules to expedite traffic at borders and have in place decent systems for handling the volume of goods. As Remain advocates are always extolling the virtue of the international rules based system, surely the EU will want to obey or will have to obey its rules on these matters? The EU will also note that their citizens and companies need those products we are selling and will take a dim view if they are impeded in getting them on time.

Brexiteers are fed up with the endless Project Fear material. We can trade well under WTO rules if the EU really does not want a Free Trade Agreement with us. We will decide what tariffs if any to impose on their goods along with goods from the rest of the world, to get the right balance between helping domestic producers and looking after out customers. No Deal is fine. We should only negotiate a deal if it is clearly better than No Deal. What the EU wants is worse.

We voted to make our own laws, spend our money, pursue our own trade interests, to take a global rather than a European view of the world, control our own borders, settle our own taxes and regain our own place on major international bodies. The EU and their Remain friends in the UK have set out for four and half years now to thwart these aims and to recreate legal controls and barriers over our actions. It is time to break free.

The government should explain how we will

1. Take VAT off items like green products and female hygiene products. Set Corporation Tax definitions and rates to make the UK competitive globally
2. Operate the points based migration system which meets the needs of the UK and controls numbers of economic migrants
3. Reform our benefits system to help people here more, and reduce incentives to come here to try to settle
4. As a full member of the WTO pursue more great trade deals, including one with the Trans Pacific Partnership and including services
5. Controlling all our own fish and creating a much bigger fishing and fish processing industry at home
6. Cutting food miles by redirecting farm subsidies to promote UK food production
7. Using public procurement to help UK based production of goods and services, whilst continuing with competitive tendering
8. Reducing harmful or needless regulation to make the UK more responsive and business friendly, whilst maintaining or enhancing high standards in areas like employment law and health and safety
9. Raising animal welfare standards, starting by removing export of live animals or transit of live animals through the UK to other destinations.