Martin Howe, Richard Aikens and T Grant have written an excellent guide to the draft Withdrawal Treaty, published by Politeia.

They remind us that the whole Withdrawal Treaty, not just the Irish backstop, contains problems for the UK were we to sign it.

In particular they cite

1. It reaffirms the supremacy of EU law in specified  areas, requiring UK courts to strike down any UK legislation which contradicts EU law.
2. It gives the European Court of Justice an important role in settling disputes by referring them to the ECJ, a court of one of the two parties to the dispute. International Treaties usually go to third party independent appeal
3. It imposes stringent penalty payments  on the UK for non compliance and allows the EU to suspend its own Treaty obligations if they argue the UK has failed to comply
4. There is no exit clause for the UK without the permission of the EU

I wrote a letter to the Attorney General about various problems with the draft Treaty including  the long tail financial liabilities it would commit us to.

It is good the new PM has said this draft Treaty is “dead”.

In an era of ultra low interest rates some savers complain that they do not get a sufficient return on their savings. Anyone who wishes to keep their savings secure and not at risk of capital losses from price fluctuations of financial assets is left with a low income return on a deposit or a low yield on a secure bond with a specified later repayment date.

It is not true to say that all savers have suffered from the era of ultra low rates. Those savers who decided to run the risk of losing money have often done very well. Those who bought government bonds have seen them rise strongly over the last decade as rates fell and stayed down. Those who bought world shares have also seen good gains. Those who had property in the right places are sitting on capital gains on their property. Indeed, most savers own property, and many directly or indirectly own financial assets through their pension funds. This  blog is not offering investment advice or commenting on what  might happen next in markets but describing the past.

Japan has lived now with these ultra low rates for several decades. The big crash in Japan  did far more damage to property values, share prices and banks there at the end of the 1980s than the western crash of 2007-9. It  ushered in a long era of money creation and extra borrowing by the Japanese state. We can see in Japan what these distortions do if sustained. The state can make many investments at little cost, and may make investments that are highly marginal in more normal times. Some savers decide they need more savings because the return on safe investments is so low. The Japanese state has bought up around half of all the outstanding quoted state debt, and is also buying up substantial quantities of exchange traded funds that hold Japanese shares.

Japan’s economy grows but slowly, though if you adjust the numbers for a falling population they look  better. The high gross state debt at 250% of GSDP is far higher than anything in the west, but it is no great burden given the interest rates around zero and the state ownership of so much of that debt following Central Bank purchases. A policy of money creation which should have induced inflation has not done so, given the pressures against credit and inflation in the rest of the system.

Some will argue that giving states so much access to cheap capital will distort markets too much and lead to too many ill advised investments by governments. The alternative way through the current situation is a more concerted attempt to strengthen the banks and to encourage more private lending so there is more of a market test on new investment. The mood globally is once again to lower interest rates, with the Fed this week likely to cut rates. Australia has recently cut her rate from 1.5%  down to 1%. Many EU government and Japanese government bonds  now offer a negative interest rate, yet still people and institutions buy them.

Today I expect Boris Johnson  to be elected Leader of the Conservative party. Tomorrow he will take over as Prime Minister.

He will intensify so called No deal planning and get ready to implement his promise to leave the EU on 31 October.

The media is running the view that he will not be getting on planes to go to see EU leaders asking for a renegotiation. The Cameron/May style of European negotiation travelling as a supplicant to the capitals of Europe did not work for them or the UK. The UK should accept the EU often expressed view that they cannot re open the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU then has to understand the UK cannot sign the Withdrawal Agreement.

Once this has been understood it is then possible to discuss a potential free trade agreement and work on more improvements to trade arrangements for our departure. The EU Brexit officials would be welcome in London for positive talks on mutually advantageous trade arrangements . In the meantime WTO rules, a new lower UK tariff schedule and the WTO Facilitation of Trade Agreement will ensure trade continues.

In 1804 there were 572 fighting ships in  the Royal Navy. The UK was  engaged in a series of wars at the time which encouraged government to keep the force strong. In 1939 as war broke out the UK navy had 332 naval vessels. During the war there was a large expansion  in  the fleet, with 553 new ships added both to replace lost ships and to expand the size of the force. 58 new aircraft carriers were produced during the war years, for example.

Today in  a period of relative peace there are just 67 fighting ships in the navy, including 18 small patrol boats with guns.

At 11 pm on 31 October the UK becomes an independent nation again, promised by our likely next Prime Minister. Many of us will wish to celebrate this much heralded and delayed event.

You would expect national media to show the countdown to the moment through the movement of the hands on the clock on the Elizabeth Tower at Westminster, known as Big Ben. It is perhaps symbolic that this Parliament which has done so much to try to stop us becoming independent again, and so much to thwart the results of the referendum, should have decided the clock is unavailable on the stated date. We need to find a good alternative to look at.

There are many great public clocks around the UK. Should we turn to Big Brum on the Council House in Birmingham? Or to Manchester Town Hall clock, or Leeds Town Hall, or the Liver building? I invite your thoughts.

It is time for us to be confident as a nation, proud of our democratic traditions and keen to be an outward looking global influence for the good. We will regain our votes and voices on international bodies and be better able to shape our future as we wish.

I wrote shortly after the Gibraltar authorities seized the Iranian oil tanker about the need for the UK to protect other vessels going through the Straits from retaliatory attack, and asked about the possible prosecution of the Captain and senior officers of the vessel who had been detained with allegations of EU sanctions busting.

We now see a British flagged tanker has been detained by the Iranians with allegations of a collision with a fishing vessel which is denied by those on the tanker, and see that the Captain and officers of the Iranian tanker have been released on  bail.

This gives rise to  various questions for the UK government

1. Given the very public threat made by Iran to UK shipping in  the area, what measures were taken to give protection  to British flagged vessels?

2. It is said there are four minesweepers and an amphibious armed naval vessel as well as HMS Montrose in  the area, with a destroyer on the way.  What if anything can these vessels do to help?

3. What support will the UK receive from the carrier group and amphibious assault ship group the US navy has in the region?

4. When will the Captain and officers of the Iranian tanker  be charged?  What more can be published concerning the allegations against the Iranian tanker?

5. As we were told this seizure was made to enforce EU sanctions over oil to Syria, what support is the EU offering? Has the EU proposed a joint naval initiative to protect western shipping in the Straits?

6. Why is the advice now given to avoid the Straits for commercial shipping, when this advice was not given so clearly   before the tanker seizure?

It is entirely in keeping with Mrs May’s calamitous handling of government that her parting gift as PM should include Northern Ireland legislation which stokes up controversy between Leave and Remain  and is disliked by the DUP, the representatives of the majority in Northern Ireland.

She claimed to be a committed supporter of the  Union yet her words and actions gave heart to those who oppose the Union. In Scotland she seemed to encourage the SNP, out to use Brexit to weaken the Union. She rarely made the case that Brexit is a UK matter based on a UK wide referendum. She took SNP objections to  Brexit more seriously than the many Scottish voices who support Brexit.

In Northern Ireland Mrs May accepted the Republic view that the border is a problem against the view of her own allies, the DUP. She almost lost her government by agreeing to the Irish backstop in the Withdrawal Treaty without their consent.

So here is the irony. Mrs May claimed to be the champion  of the Union yet she sided with the Union’s strongest critics, Sinn Fein and the  SNP, on the EU question. Mrs May  put her loyalty to the EU above her alleged love of the Union, just as she put her enthusiasm for the EU above her democratic promise to get us out

Yesterday the Opposition parties and 17 Remain Conservatives voted for amendments to legislation to try to ensure Parliament has to meet in September and October to give them more time to try to  delay or cancel Brexit. They call this taking back control and advocating Parliamentary democracy!  It is of course the opposite. Labour and Conservative MPs were elected in 2017 on a manifesto for each party that promised to implement Brexit. Parliament voted by a large majority to send the Article 50 Notification of our exit, which means in European law we will leave on 31 October. I remember explaining to the Commons then that was the decision point, the moment Parliament legislated to leave.  Now they wish to tear up their promises and refuse to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders despite the referendum.

I do not think even this discredited Parliament full of Labour  MPs  and a few Conservatives who have ratted on their promise to implement the decision of the people will find a way and a majority to revoke our exit letter. Short of doing that we will leave on 31 October, as promised by the likely next Prime Minister. We are due to leave according to European law. The UK Parliament cannot overturn European law, and only the PM can ask for a delay and seek agreement to changes to EU law to delay our official exit date.

The people made clear in the European election what they thought of the decision of the two major parties to delay our exit. They rejected both. They made it even clearer what they thought of Mrs May’s Withdrawal Treaty, which got less than 9% support from the electorate in that election. The Conservative government must press on with preparations for our departure in October. Only such an exit can save this Parliament from driving itself even further from the electors it is meant to serve, and only such an exit can provide a platform for the two main  parties to start to rebuild the trust of voters which has been undermined by the delay to Brexit.

The desperate idea this morning that a Remain majority should ask the Queen to override the PM taking us out is absurd.

Meanwhile Project Fear is in an extreme stage. Yesterday the OBR gave us a very pessimistic “scenario” – not a forecast – for a so called No Deal exit. If we just leave and have a Brexit bonus budget as outlined here we will grow faster next year as a result. All the time we stay in  the EU as today with a combined monetary and fiscal squeeze we will grow  slowly at best against a difficult world background for trade and manufacturing activity. The right fiscal boost, facilitated by saving our budget contributions to the EU, coupled with a more positive money policy could deliver considerably better growth than in  the Euro area for us next year. The UK economy has proved very resilient considering the anti growth and anti enterprise policies being pursued.

Mr Barnier’s refusal to re open the Withdrawal Agreement makes it clear. We leave without signing it, and offer a free trade agreement on the way out.

We do not need  months of more uncertainty trying to unpick a small amount of the unpalatable things about the draft Withdrawal Treaty. We voted to take back control of our money, our laws and our borders, and must do so by 31 October.

There is substantial joint working between the defence industries, the Commanders of the armed forces  and the government. With technology playing an ever more important role problems are analysed and resolved by manufacturers of equipment and programmers of software. As we enter the era of cyber warfare more of the combatants are civilian computer experts, or service personnel with special training turning up at an office or command centre well away from the adversaries.

It was always the case that to win a war the country fighting it had to produce sufficient weaponry, make available plenty of supplies to fighting personnel, and innovate to outwit enemy weapons and defences. In the two world wars of the last century large amounts of the country’s production capacity had to be made over to war work to support the fighting personnel. The UK had to be much more self sufficient in food for home supplies, given the attempt of the Germans to sink inbound products coming by sea.

The UK in the second world war achieved amazing results at gearing the economy to war output.  At the peak the country was manufacturing over 26,000 planes a year, and replacing millions of tonnes of sunk shipping. The navy was expanded massively from its peacetime lows. It added 553 new ships to the 332 that started the war, including 58 new aircraft carriers.  There was a constant flow of innovations, from the world’s first code cracking computer through  jet planes to mobile harbours, bridges and an oil pipeline.

Today the UK needs to review its strategic capability to manufacture planes, ships and munitions. We trust there will not be another terrifying global scale war of the big powers, but even for interventions in lesser conflicts a country may not be able to pursue the course it wishes if it is dependent on imported weapons or components. Mr Trump is demanding that the USA keeps the ability to produce all the steel it needs for military and other domestic purposes as a strategic industry. He is also keen to protect US intellectual property and the security of US communications systems as the best protection against cyber attack. It is time the UK was more insistent that UK weapons, tanks and naval ships of all kinds are made in  the UK, and that we have the necessary capability to make the components for them.