The British Retail Consortium reported a few days ago that March retail sales overall rose by 2.3% year on year.  They said “This is above the 3 months and 12 months moving averages of 1.8% and 1.9% respectively but is positively distorted by the timing of Easter.”

Today’s more detailed news is that sales on the High Street fell by 8.6%, with a much smaller decline in shopping centres and good rises on line. None of this has anything to do with Brexit. There is a strong trend for people to buy more on line and less in shops, probably speeded up in March by the dreadful weather.  Food sales were particularly strong In March , with a rise of 5.3%.

Some people like to report part of the retail sales story, usually quoting so called like for like in shops, to give a gloomy answer.

On Thursday evening I gave a lecture at Middlesex University about the long period of the UK’s membership of what became the European Union, and why it led so many UK voters to conclude we will be better off out.

Two  things  were most  neglected in the Referendum thanks to the dominance of the Remain campaign and the Establishment behind it in driving the media agenda. These  were the economic damage that membership did  to the UK, and the plans of the EU to move onto political as well as full monetary and economic union. I will consider these today and in later posts.

We need to examine  the EU’s love of austerity policies. They are embedded in the Maastricht Treaty, and apply to the UK as well as to Euro members, though without the same enforcement mechanisms for us as for a  Euro member. Maastricht says that  no state should borrow more than 3% of GDP in any year, and all states should  bring their state debts down to 60% of GDP. This latter requirement forces a country like Greece to try to run a budget surplus, and lies behind Chancellor Osborne’s wish to repay debt in the UK. Each year the Treasury reports on our public finances against the Maastricht requirements, and each year we have a Parliamentary debate about our progress or lack of it in hitting these targets.

Our membership of the EC began badly with a deep recession in the middle 1970s. Whilst this was not directly caused by our EEC membership, it did lead some  people in the 1975 referendum to doubt there would be economic gains from membership. Our presence in the EC did not begin with a surge of new business from joining the Customs Union.  In the first decade the removal of all tariffs from manufactures where we were relatively weak allowed continental countries led by Germany  to boost their exports to us greatly, helping destroy jobs and factories here at home. Conversely a lack of market opening in services where we were stronger meant we ran perpetual large balance of payments deficits.

The worst impact of the EU on us came from their requirement that we join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. This gave us a boom/bust nightmare – entirely predictable as I wrote  in a pamphlet prior to the event. We lost 5% of National Income and Output from the slump it caused. The 2016 referendum was our first chance to vote on the EU’s role in that disaster. The UK government that was the agent of it had long since perished at the ballot box as electors removed the EU’s agent of recession in the 1997 election.

The austerity policies in Greece, Ireland, Spain and elsewhere have been of altogether much greater magnitude than in the UK where we have broken the rules by more and for longer on debt and deficit. In Greece there have been endless rounds of cuts including large cash cuts in pay and pensions which we in the UK have rightly never considered. These policies have been deeply damaging to their economies, resulting in  high unemployment and excessively high youth unemployment.

I have deleted a number of posts today, as I am short of time. I have deleted some without reading because they were very  long, and some which are  very repetitious in nature, as well as deleting many with attached links to sites I have not read.

I trust tomorrow when Parliament meets the government will update us on its thinking on Syria and give MPs every opportunity to examine the position now reached.

I assume the limited action the UK  took with allies early on Saturday morning is the end of the military intervention  planned following the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I stressed before the event that we should not fly our jets into Syrian airspace, run the risk of killing Russian personnel and damaging Russian equipment, and risking  killing civilians. It appears we have avoided all of those dangers. It is now important we show we do not intend to escalate from here. I am glad the PM did tell us she has no plan to intervene in the civil war or seek regime change as those options would require considerable and sustained force and be full of risk.

Labour will doubtless wish to explore the legal base for the action.

Many MPs will want to know how successful it was in destroying chemical weapons production facilities and chemical weapons stocks, the stated targets. We await the full Intelligence evaluation and assume Russian claims to have shot down most of the missiles are false. We will also wish to be reassured that attacking chemical weapons stocks did not lead to damaging release of any of the chemicals, or to the death or injury of people on the ground.

It will also be interesting to hear the governments evaluation of whether this will either prevent or deter future use of these munitions by the Syrian regime. Has the attack crippled their capacity to make and use these weapons? Or did it do such damage that they will conclude it is not a good idea to do it again?

There should  be no escalation of this action and a careful consideration of the results of this mission.

We constantly hear these days that there is a rules based international order which all decent states follow. Russia is condemned for not following these same rules.

Those who think like this usually divide the world up into a majority of states who follow these rules, and a minority of rogue states like North Korea who pose problems for the rest. When it is one of the world’s larger military powers who has greater diplomatic reach, some world support and a seat on the UN Security Council that does not follow the world order this analysis has its limitations.

I am no apologist for Russia, and understand the ruthless pursuit of Russian interests by that state can lead to unacceptable conduct. I condemn atrocities and illegal acts whichever state carries them out when they are reported and proved.

The truth is there is no one set of rules, no single world order that is codified in many areas of government activity which  every state should obey.  Within NATO and the advanced west there are varying rules of law.  The USA has its own set of laws and legal constraints on the actions of its President and senior officials. The EU has another set of laws and legal requirements on its member states. The EU will not accept all the US rules, and will certainly not accept US jurisdiction, nor will the USA of course accept EU rules and control.

The West does come together in some world bodies and helps shape a global approach. There are world trade rules supervised by the WTO which all members accept, though the USA currently feels those rules are not fairly administered with regards to China and Germany. There are important conventions on nuclear and chemical weapons which most countries have signed. North Korea  becoming a nuclear power and alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria causes problems under these global rules. As the current disputes reveal, the countries accused of breaking world rules often argue they have not. China and Germany pose as supporters of a world free trade order, whilst the USA cites evidence that they are not. The West rightly condemns chemical attacks in Syria, only to be told by Russia that no such attack has happened.

The main countries and blocs appeal to world rules when it suits them, and seek to interpret them in directions which fit with their national interests. Russia clearly plays by different rules to the West in several respects. In Syria it will accept more deaths as the regime seeks to  restore its control over the country, as Russia judges an Assad government to be the least bad outcome. The West is against both ISIS and Assad,  but lacks the power and commitment to enforce a different government on that country, whilst  condemning  the many deaths the current civil war is causing.

Those who protest most about the need to create and follow a rules based system need to be punctilious themselves to obey it. Any Western military intervention in Syria today will need a legal base, made more difficult by Russia’s veto of any UN Resolution which could directly support action. The UN is a world body which comes closest to providing a rules based system for the conduct of diplomacy and where unavoidable to regulate  the use of force between states. That body cannot have a clear single view or straightforward rule where the Security Council is divided and where a veto has been wielded.

On Wednesday morning the Today programme had the good idea of going to Germany to find out what they are thinking about the EU and Brexit. A few patsy interviews later we were little the wiser. There was no cross examination of how Germany is changing, with the Eurosceptic AFD now the official Opposition and the CSU moving sharply in an anti migrant direction. There was no proper examination of what the German government will now do post Brexit in response to Macron’s wish to push ahead with political Union and a common budget. There was no discussion at all about the 900 billion Euros Germany is lending the weaker members of the zone at zero interest through the ECB. I would like to have heard what Germany thinks about the pace and style of more integration, how they wish to change the budget after our departure and above all how they will tackle the need for more transfers around the Euro area to help the struggling members with high unemployment.

Instead the BBC was keen to get a few German interviewees to tell the UK what we should expect from Brexit, and keen to play up the latest approach of some senior Germans that it is such a pity the UK is leaving so they should now respond more positively to Mr Cameron’s requests for renegotiation! I find it bizarre that some intelligent Germans seem to think that maybe a concession or two on freedom of movement, and some opt out or emergency brake on benefit rules will mean the UK then changes its mind and stays in. They had their chance to keep us in by being positive about the Cameron renegotiation. Many of us thought Mr Cameron asked for too little, and clearly got a lot less even than he dared ask for. Offering more of the too little he wanted is not going to change anything. The BBC seemed pleased that maybe there will be an offer of tariff free trade after all, as if that was some surprise. Of course Germany wants tariff free trade in goods, given her huge surplus. Whether the EU as a whole can make a sensible offer on trade remains to be seen. Germany should work on the Commission. The BBC was also keen to highlight  those Germans who say that the Transition period cannot be taken for granted as they sought to help Germany squeeze more concessions from the UK to secure a Transition many of us do not want.

It was predictable to hear the Germans say that in the case of us leaving the customs union and single market, as we have said we will do, there was scope to keep us in after all despite early EU rhetoric that of course you cannot be in them if you are out of the EU. Again that boat has sailed. Leave voters voted in the knowledge we would be leaving the single market and customs union, and the EU confirmed the logic of that in all their comments. It was also amusing to learn that maybe passports should be available for financial services, as of course German companies would like them into London, when the UK had ruled them out! It just goes to show that if the UK says No firmly on items Germany is quite keen to make an offer we might still refuse.

The NATO Allies are sure that the Syrian regime unleashed chemical weapons against the civilian population and rebel fighters. Russia denies it, and Inspectors may go in to see for themselves what evidence remains from the violence some days later. President Obama made the use of chemical ordnance a red line Assad should not cross, but then decided not to take action when he did. President Trump also made it a red line, and followed a previous case of presumed chemical weapon use with a single surgical strike. This has not deterred the latest incident.

The West is now seeking to establish good evidence of what it believes has taken place, and is considering its military options. These are limited and constrained by circumstance, and by the history of the West leaving much of the Syrian theatre to a combination of Assad and Russian power to deal with Isis. No-one can credibly claim that killing more Syrians is the missing policy in this dreadful conflict that could start to put things right. There have been all too many deaths already, and the West will not wish to add to the death toll of civilians. Taking on the Assad regime and its troops is an unlikely mission, as they are strong on the ground, battle hardened, and understand the people and the terrain. It would entail a huge effort by the West including an invasion. When tried elsewhere the problem has been how to create a replacement government that is stable, has authority and is democratic in such circumstances. Supporting the rebel forces against Assad with air power would be a dangerous mission pitting the West against Russia who would continue to support Assad. There is no evidence that there is a well armed and substantial rebel force with a chance of winning against Assad and Russia who could also create a stable and good government in the end.

This seems to leave Mr Trump with using missiles and smart bombs to destroy known military installations, weapons dumps and any chemical weapons facilities that they have identified. Even this will require great precision and care not to harm people who live near to these facilities, and to deal with any attempt by the regime to organise actual or fake damage to release as bad news following any attacks. Mr Trump may like to involve France and the UK in any such attack to show this is a wider Western alliance action, undertaken by three members of the UN Security Council. It cannot however be done in the name of the UN as Russia has vetoed a proposed resolution on this Syrian atrocity.

NATO needs to ensure that if it does fly missions by fast jets, or send in drones or missiles, it does so without creating a military exchange with Russia. The military airspace over Syria is often used by Syrian and Russian planes. Events can happen quickly when fast jets from Russia and NATO are seeking to use limited airspace for different purposes, and when the fast jets can close on each other with each flying at speeds well in excess of 1000 miles an hour.

What should the UK do? It should of course work with our NATO allies. With them we have condemned any use of chemical weapons, and with them we can examine the options. I also trust the UK will be a sane voice wanting us to act effectively where we can, rather than demanding action to reveal our anger even if there is no action that is likely to have a good outcome.

On Friday 27th April at 11 am in the Old Library at All Souls College, High Street Oxford I am giving an open lecture to answer this question.

I will examine the different ways the public and private sectors work together to deliver public services, and offer a new way of analysing services for their public and private sector components.

I will remind the audience that most of the UK railway is provided by the public sector, and a lot of our current health care both within and outside the NHS is delivered by the private sector. People value the free at the point of need main proposition of the NHS but worry less about who provided what within that. They accept drugs supplied by for profit companies retailed by private pharmacies and often prescribed by GPs working as independent contractors to the NHS. I will conclude that there is no such thing as a purely public sector service in a mixed economy like the UK, and argue that a lot of what the private sector does is also public service.

Three recent posts have shown how the government has used higher taxes to stop or reduce activities that it does not approve, with considerable success. These policies have slowed the economy a bit as a result.

Given that the government knows how to do this, wouldn’t it be a good idea if it did more the other way, identifying how cutting taxes might stimulate more activity?

It does recognise that taxing work too much is a bad idea, and has been cutting the tax on work by removing more people from Income Tax altogether and raising the tax free allowance generally. This has been a helpful background to boosting employment, which has been rising steadily as Income Tax has been reduced by this method. The more that can be done to reduce the tax on work the better, as all political parties claim to believe that work is a good thing. If you want more work in any given country you need to ensure the tax rates on work are internationally competitive. The UK needs to revisit its rates in the light of the sweeping US tax cuts.

There are other examples where taxes have been raised on behaviour which the government says it favours. Most of these relate to entrepeneurship and saving. The government says it wants people to save so they have money for their old age and for any adverse event that may befall them. It says it wants to encourage more people to set up their own businesses and to venture their money to help establish and expand other people’s businesses.

If this is the case then why has the government hiked Stamp Duties? Why does it persist with a 28% Capital Gains Tax rate on property? Why has it cut pension tax reliefs?

Stamp Duties and Capital Gains tax are taxes people do not have to pay. They are easily avoided by doing nothing. Those in the fortunate position of having made past successful investments can sit on them. Those who aspire to own investments can be put off by the transaction taxes. People keep properties that may be too big for them or are no longer in the best place for them as they do not wish to pay the CGT on sale or the Stamp Duty on buying something more suitable. As we have seen Buy to let investment in new homes or conversions to provide more rented accommodation for others has been hit hard by higher taxes.

The government could and should do more to promote savings and enterprise. The best and most energetic can flourish, but we need a tax system which makes it easier for everyone, so the more marginal projects find cash and support.

This evening I have been asked to debate Brexit and our future relationship with the EU with Lord Adonis.

On the eve of this event I just want to reassure him I do know exactly how he feels. I remembered the huge misgivings and unhappiness I felt when I learned the result of the 1975 referendum. I saw years of rows, economic damage, high budget contributions and loss of sovereignty ahead for the UK as we stayed in . I had been swayed to use one of my first votes as an adult to vote to leave by looking at the costs of membership, the likely loss of industry and the impact on fishing and farming.I was also extremely worried about the progressive loss of self government as the Common market went on a continuous power grab.

That referendum was not technically binding on Parliament but the government clearly told us we the people were making the decision. Fewer people voted to stay in in 1975 than voted to leave in 2016, but it was a good majority on a lower turnout. The question was very misleading in 1975 whereas it was very clear in 2016. The question in 1975 gave In an advantage by making it the Yes answer without a balanced question.

In 1975 we were asked if we wanted to stay in the European Community ( Common Market). The European Community as defined by the existing Treaty of Rome already had ambitions much larger than a Common market, and plans were in discussion for a single currency, the Snake as a precursor for monetary union, and wide ranging additional Treaties. The Stay in campaign played all this down. Talking to people afterwards who voted to stay, all thought they had just voted for a Common market, not for the wider Community which became a Union.

Despite all this I did not spend the ten tears after the vote demanding a re run with a more accurate question, or urging Parliament to ignore the wishes of UK voters. I accepted the verdict. In the mid 1990s, twenty tears later, when I started to want a second referendum, it was because the so called Common market of 1975 had so visibly been taken over by a much vaster project.

I hope Lord Adonis can see that the same is true today. The public have made up their minds and it is Parliament’ s job to implement the decision. At least this time there is no ambiguity. We voted to leave, and voted knowing that meant leaving the single market and customs union as part of leaving.That was one of the few things both official campaigns agreed about.