Getting out of the EU is not a negotiation. It is a  decision. We do not need Germany’s permission. Mrs Merkel does not have a veto. It is about taking back control. We should get on with it. We should continue trading tariff free, as I expect the other EU states to cone round to wanting.

The Prime Minister moved the language on yesterday with her opening statement to the Chequers meeting. She made clear that there are positive opportunities from Brexit which she wishes the Departments to work on. She does not want to backslide into some watered down membership.  Meanwhile it appears the mood in the country is shifting more towards people wanting the government to get on with implementing the decision of the referendum.

The latest ICM poll shows support for the Lib Dems at just 9%, the one national party that is very clear it disagrees with the verdict of the referendum and wishes to prevent it happening. It shows Labour on 27%, where the position under Mr Corbyn is that the verdict of the referendum has to be respected but with a party that is still in Remain mode, and a challenger who wants a second referendum on the negotiation. The Conservatives who now have the policy of implementing the referendum are on 41% and UKIP who also want to implement the vote on 13%. In England the Conservative advantage over Labour is 45% to 28%.

This polling backs up specific polling on how people now think about the vote, and shows that a majority of the country do want to get on with it. Of course it is important that the government, in advancing Brexit, does so in ways which respect the worries of many Remain voters. The government does need to do all it can to protect trade, build economic confidence and ensure a smooth transition. As uncertainty is the alleged villain, moving more quickly to resolve the situation should help reduce the threat from delay and the unknown.

If people had had second thoughts about their leave vote on a big scale as some suggest, you would expect the polls to look  rather different to this pattern.

I would like the government to send an Article 50 letter now . I am reissuing my draft letter which I published here before, in expanded form, as the media now seem a bit more interested in the Article and some have now read it.

Dear Sirs

The UK as a result of  a referendum has decided to withdraw from the European Union. In accordance with Article 50 we hereby notify the Council of our intention to leave.

Article 50 of the Treaty states clearly that “any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” In the case of the UK this means passing an Act of Parliament. The UK government has always confirmed when asked about the loss of sovereignty involved in EU membership that the UK Parliament remains sovereign because it can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. The government is introducing a Bill to effect this change, and to transfer all EU law into UK law to provide immediate continuity.

The UK wishes to continue with strong trading, investment, business and other links with our friends and former partners on the continent. The UK is not proposing any new barriers to our mutual trade, and will be happy to continue with all the business and trade arrangements and business rules currently in place. These will be confirmed in UK law as we make the necessary constitutional changes. If the rest of the current EU does wish to consider placing new tariffs and barriers on our mutual trade, then we will be willing to come to talks to discuss how these might work. They would of course need to be compatible with World Trade Organisation Rules, and with Article  8  of the Lisbon Treaty which states that “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness.”

The UK has voted to withdraw from the Treaty and is doing so in accordance with Article 50. It also does so under the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties by invoking a “fundamental change of circumstances” compared to those when the UK consented to the Treaty.

Yours faithfully

I do not of course get a vote in the Labour leadership election and do not think they wish to follow  my thoughts on their two candidates. However, I felt I should let it be known that as a Conservative who does not want to see a Labour government in 2020 I would love it if Owen Smith won the leadership and tried to lead Labour into the 2020 election.

It is his hatred of democracy which  I think shines through so admirably which would curse any party led by him. Just a short few months after Mr Corbyn won the labour leadership by a landslide he thinks he has the right to overthrow the elected and popular leader who did not himself want or see the need for a leadership election.

That is an internal matter for Labour, but given Mr Corbyn’s unique ability to enroll new members of his party on a huge scale, it might be a matter of some concern to Labour supporters.

More crucial is Mr Smith’s obvious distaste for national democracy. He seriously suggests an Opposition led by him should dedicate itself this Parliament to thwarting the wishes of the people as expressed  in a referendum, despite the Remain campaign saying throughout the referendum period that a vote to Leave would have to mean we left the EU with all the dire consequences they wrongly forecast,

Apparently Mr Smith thinks they should block any efforts to leave in Parliament and should demand a second referendum, in the vain hope that that might produce a different result.

Were Mr Smith to pull off the unlikely feat of winning the Labour leadership, would he think it right that the members who lost should soon demand a second vote, on the grounds that others may have changed  their minds?

Elections and referendums are important for the public to stay in charge and instruct their parties and governments from time to time. If however all we do is have votes and second votes, in a permanent state of indecision, government can never get on and do anything and the country drifts.

Mr Smith has a strange notion that he is some kind of unity candidate. His main policy, of blocking Brexit, would drive Leave voters  who used to vote Labour in their droves to Eurosceptic parties who do accept the verdict of the British people.  He has adopted most of Mr Corbyns left agenda as a convenient cloak as he sees how popular the real wearer is. He makes no attempt to say or do things that woo wavering Conservative or UKIP voters., who have over half the vote in the polls at the moment. That’ s why he is my favourite for Labour leader. I dont expect to see my dream come true.

I was pleased to read that each department is being asked to plan how it will assist with Brexit. The plans we need from them are not a series of pessimistic forecasts and lists of risks that are most unlikely to come true. What we need is a serious assessment of how we can use the new freedoms we gain by taking back control to make things in their areas better, without violating standards and rules that currently apply to our exports to the rest of the EU which we should wish to continue on the same basis.

The fishing industry is an obvious case in point where work is needed. A UK based fishing policy, where we decide how to conserve the fish and whether and on what scale to licence foreign vessels will work considerably better than  the Common Fishing Policy. Just look at the superior performance of the Norwegian,  Icelandic and eastern seaboard US/Canadian fisheries  than our UK industry under the control of the EU. There are outstanding obligations to current rest of the EU vessels and neighbours which need thinking through. At the very least we should announce no new quota and permits for non UK vessels whilst we sort out the present unsatisfactory shares and arrangements.

Another is energy. When the UK detaches from EU energy regulation, what new regime do we want? Will we take a new look at how we can secure affordable power in sufficient quantities to match the new government’s ambitions for industrial revival and to spread economic activity more widely around the country? Cheap power is one of the main drivers of any successful industrial policy.

In trade and industry it would be good to hear from business what they would like as priorities for new trade deals around the world, and how they would like to improve on the kind of trade deals the EU has been doing for us. They have often been lacking ambition on services, for example.

The country was united during the referendum campaign in not wanting to lose trade, business and market access over any possible Brexit. Many who voted Remain will be relieved as and when we can show that Brexit is no threat to jobs or trade, as we should be able to do.  It requires some drive and thought to grasp all of the opportunities taking back control can bring. Is Whitehall up for that important task?

In the March budget the Treasury forecast 2% growth for the UK in 2016 and 2.2% growth in 2017.  The Bank of England and many private sector forecasters were there or there abouts.

Then along came the Brexit vote. Many of these official and professional forecasters wanted to remain. Their original forecasts assumed we would vote for in, as it turned out their political forecasting was hopeless. So now they want to make sure their economic forecasting is equally hopeless. They mostly have slashed their 2017 forecast to negative, or a maximum of plus 0.8% which is where the Bank of England has reached after its third  re forecast of the year.

So we have to ask why? They say they now think the UK will flirt with recession in the 3rd and fourth quarters of 2016 as a result of the shock of Brexit, and will continue to stumble next year. Apparently confidence is going to collapse, and with it consumer spending, investment and property. You may remember the Treasury talking about house prices tumbling 18% in due course, and the Bank in May telling us we could well enter a recession.

If confidence is going to be that badly hit as they say, you would expect the hit to be at its worst immediately after the vote. For those who are shocked into negative thoughts by a Leave vote, the pain is clearly greatest as soon as you learn. Like most sad knocks in life, time heals or eases the worries. That’s why it is important that in July retail sales were 5.9% above July 2015 and well up on June 2016;car output was 7.1% up; Persimmon’s reservations of new homes were 17% up on July 2015; and house prices generally are about the same on average, with falls largely confined to expensive parts of London which have been falling since the new Stamp Duties came in in April.

When I was on the losing side in the previous European referendum I remember being unhappy for a bit, but I did not stop buying the things I needed. I thought the country would be poorer as a result of the EU contributions and the costs of the system, but I did not think this would be the main influence on economic activity.

I am sticking with over 2% growth for 2017. I suspect the only question is, how long before other forecasters get back there, after a period of wearing  their Brexit glasses of doom in denial of the evidence.

Geert Bourgeois, the Flemish Prime Minister recently said:

“There is a growing consensus in EU capitals that it would be fatal mistake to try to ‘punish’ Britain… More and more people now agree that there has to be a ‘soft Brexit.’

“I can’t imagine a situation where we have more barriers on trade in both directions. You [Britain] are our fourth biggest export market. It is in our mutual interest to find a solution, and the majority of the EU now agrees that anything other than a soft Brexit would have a huge cost.

“We will be able to negotiate a trade agreement. It may be sui generis but it can be done.”

He speaks for more and more on the continent, building on what the President of the European parliament said about wanting warm relations with the UK post the vote.

I hear the cost of the NHS and how to pay for it is back on some people’s agendas. Let’s make it clear once more. We Conservatives fought the last election on a pledge to keep NHS treatment free (other than the cross party prescription charges and charges for eye and teeth treatments already introduced). I do not expect the new government to deviate from that promise. Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems still also support this approach.

I heard an interesting interview with the Labour Shadow Health Secretary where she made a number of good suggestions. She recommended buying out some of the very expensive PFI schemes the NHS is struggling to pay for. Labour should know about them, as they negotiated many of them. Now could be a good time, given low interest rates, to buy out future obligations. She wanted less use of agency staff. That’s a policy she shares with the Health Secretary. All governments have found it difficult to deliver, but that’s no reason not to try again. She proposed more use of generic pharmacueticals, with lower medicine prices. That too is cross party commonsense, but it is always worthwhile having another push.

I think a Conservative government can add to that list of helpful ideas. I will relaunch my proposal that the NHS should get better at collecting equipment when people  no longer need it, and recycling it for future use. It may need maintaining or checking, but it should be cheaper if the former patient or their family drops the item back after use. The NHS should get better at charging visitors from overseas for all non urgent treatments, as they are meant to do. I am quite prepared to give them my NI number or some other support of identity for treatment if they need to make more checks on access. Easier still is to require all non urgent referrals to come through a GP, and for GP Registration to be the point at which you either register as a UK citizen with free entitlement, or a foreign user who has to pay one way or another. You should provide proof of nationality when first registering.  EU visitors from the continent would qualify for free treatment  but the NHS should demand payment from their sponsor states.

The NHS has hospitals and surgeries that I have seen outside my constituency that could benefit from better quality management systems. More getting things right first time, proper controls over use of expensive supplies, and working well as a team with good use of employee time are all important features of quality working that also cut costs.

There are reports of further tensions in the eastern parts of Ukraine where fighting continues between pro Russian rebel forces and the Ukrainian government military. There are also reports of concentrations of Russia power along the border and in Crimea.

This provides a difficult background to Theresa May’s stated intention to improve UK-Russian relations. I still think she is right to wish to do so. Having better communications, and striking deals or agreements with Russia as an important power does not mean the UK has to be a soft touch or let down NATO. I am quite sure the Prime Minister will uphold the security of NATO countries territory and will not send any misleading signals  about NATO’s commitment to protect all member states. NATO has taken recent action to demonstrate that the Baltic Republics near Russia are NATO members which NATO wishes to support.

The truth is there can be  no peaceful settlement in Ukraine without the engagement and agreement of Russia. Nor can there be a peaceful settlement in Syria without the involvement of Russia. Ukraine and the Middle East are much closer to Russia than to us. Russia has long standing alliances in these areas, and has an ability to project military power there at speed and on a large scale.

The West cannot easily accept the transfer of Crimea to Russia,  but nor is it going to seek to reverse that by military means. Neither the EU nor NATO has any known plan to intervene militarily in the eastern parts of Ukraine where the Ukraine government is finding it difficult to re establish its full and peaceful authority over the territory. It is be hoped that Russia does not herself seek to occupy or force the conflict in favour of the rebels,  but western involvement is about diplomacy. There is clearly  no military plan to protect eastern Ukraine in the way there is for NATO territories.

Given the need for some Russian goodwill to see a quicker and peaceful settlement in both the Middle East and Ukraine it would seem necessary to pursue diplomatic solutions, whilst demonstrating firmness of purpose over all those places and areas where NATO has the approval of national governments, a duty to protect, and the capability to intervene militarily if necessary. In Syria and Ukraine not all of these factors apply, meaning we need to take other steps.

The heart wrenching photo of a five year old boy startled and wounded by bombing in Syria has been a wake up call the world of the ugliness and violence of the continuing Syrian civil war. Unfortunately that one boy stands as a symbol for many more children who have been killed or badly wounded in the daily atrocities against the civilian population.

Russia is playing a larger military part today than the west. It is doing so because it does not share the West’s worries about helping Assad, still the head of the official Syrian government, to put down  ISIL and other rebels and enemies. Russia is able to do so as an ally of Iran, with access to safe military facilities close to Syria. The West has to recognise today, as it does, that any involvement in Syria needs to be discussed with Russia to avoid clashes or misunderstandings.

The West’s policy to Syria has been beset by at least three major obstacles. The first is that whilst the West is strongly against ISIL, it is not in favour of the Syrian government  regime which also wishes to defeat ISIL. The West sees the violence and damage being done by Assad against his own people and country and is appalled.

The second is the West wishes to support the creation and military success of a moderate opposition to the Assad regime which also opposes Muslim fundamentalism. It has proved difficult to identify and  nurture such a moderate opposition, and to turn a moderate opposition into a tough fighting force capable of defeating  both Assad and ISIL. There are other violent extremists in the country organised loosely into fighting forces who do not fly the flag of ISIL to complicate matters. It also does not help if the West arms apparently moderate rebels, only to see the weapons fall into less friendly hands one way or another.

The third is the West is understandably reluctant to cause yet more casualties and devastation by its bombing, and  even more reluctant to send in many ground troops. The electorates of the West are concerned about the results of some past military interventions where unpleasant dictators have been successfully displaced, only for there to be a failure to establish a better democratic government in their place. The West is seeking high standards of evidence before unleashing any military strike, as it is very damaging if Western bombs end up hitting a school or hospital or wedding party instead of  known extremist forces.

Many commentators, stock market participants and surveyors have been warning us that housebuilding and the homes market will be badly damaged by the vote to leave the EU. We were told to expect an immediate shock to confidence, leading to falling purchases and plunging prices.

Yesterday a leading housebuilder, Persimmon, brought us up to date with their trading. In the first half year there was a 6% rise on the numbers of homes they sold, and a 6% rise in the average price of homes they sold, with good growth in revenue and profits.  Worries about the vote did not drag them down. Since the vote they tell us there has been a 20% increase in the number of visitors to their sites, and a 17% increase in reservations of homes by buyers. In other words, the very opposite of the gloomy forecasts has once again happened.

If this is the experience of one of the UK’s larger housebuilders, it is difficult to believe other housebuilders would have experienced the opposite. Persimmon are planning to increase the numbers of homes they build, as they foresee more demand ahead.

Would those who forecast the immediate shock and have said they think the housing market is falling like to comment? It is difficult to understand why the share market marked down housebuilders so savagely after the Brexit vote. They of course are busily revising their view and have marked housebuilding shares up again since.

Meanwhile we had another of those surveys which pessimists have welcomed to their cause. This one is a bit different. The CBI Industrial trends survey showed output expectations at a modest plus 11 compared to plus 6 in July. This implies rising industrial output over the third quarter of 2016.  Total orders were at -5 compared to -4 in July. These are often negative – they were at minus 18 in October last year for example, and negative for several other months long before the referendum became an influence.