Yesterday Catalans went to the polls. They want the right to settle their own governing arrangements. The Spanish government refuses to let them. Apparently the Spanish government intends to ignore the wishes of Catalans expressed in their vote.

Yesterday the Kiev government exchanged shell fire with rebels in Donetsk. The two sides in Ukraine  cannot bring themselves to try words and votes instead of violence. The rebels do not accept the way they are governed from the centre, and the government will not try to find peaceful ways to reassure and win over the rebels. Above all it will  not offer them a peaceful route to more independence or self government.

The UK has shown the world how these matters of identity and belonging should be settled – by passionate argument and by votes.  The Scottish vote shows how a nationalist movement can be listened to. It is no good pretending these nationalist movements do not exist. It is better to try to find ways of peaceful persuasion so  a majority wants to  stay in the union, or to find a way for peaceful change to the relationship where the impulse to more self government or complete independence is strong.

Why can’t other parts of Europe give them a try? I do not like living in a Europe where one advanced country refuses to listen to the  views of 20% of its electors who do not like the current arrangements. I dislike even more seeing in Europe a country torn by civil war where rebels arm and attack the state, the state arms and attacks the rebels with no political process to try to deal with the differences. It is an indictment of the EU that it apparently sees nothing wrong with what the Spanish  and Ukrainian governments are doing.

Today amidst solemnity and ceremony I will lay a wreath in Burghfield and a wreath in Wokingham Town Hall. I do so  to remember those who gave their lives in the two world wars of the twentieth century and other more recent conflicts.

This year I do so with more foreboding than usual. There have been many more acts of remembering of the Great War of 1914-18  in recent weeks as we bring to mind events now five score years ago.

The articles, books, tv programmes and pictures of that long and brutal Armageddon have allowed many of us to go over in our minds again just what our grandfathers and great grandfathers experienced as young men in the trenches. The film and diary record reinforces the desperate poetry of Wilfred Owen and others. He asked  whether it was “Dulce et decorum” “pro patria mori”. Could he say that death in those murderous fields was sweet and honourable  if done in the name of our country? He contrasted those feelings with the horrors of a gas attack.

The majority view can now be revised as the soldiers who were left have grown old and died of natural causes. It seems to be settling down to the view that our small professional army, then our mass citizens army, fought bravely and with pride. The political and military leadership was of more doubtful quality, leading to huge slaughter before an eventual victory. Many then doubted the wisdom of command. After it all they asked what had been achieved other than the victory.

Those who fought that war hoped the sacrifice of their comrades would not be in vain. They passionately wanted a permanent peace to follow. Instead, diplomatic and political bungling led to a repeat world war starting in Europe just 21 years later. That war had to confront a worse evil. British military personnel were not just fighting to defeat an aggressive Germany, but were fighting against a bestial ideology that threatened mass extermination of peoples they did not like.

As I reflect again on these heavy matters during the services, I will turn for comfort to the words of Abraham Lincoln. For at the end of the two world wars a new, better, more democratic and peace loving group of nations in Europe did eventually emerge. Lincoln’s speech was wrong about the importance of what those who survive  a war say and think about it. When he spoke of the sacrifice of the Union army at Gettysburg, he found phrases that have echoed across the decades:

“We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, consecrated it. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people  by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth”

There is a vision we can all aspire to.

The long Sunni-Shia civil war continues in several parts of the Middle East. The news from Syria is not good, with reports that the more moderate opposition that the west wishes to encourage against Assad is being squeezed between government and its more extreme opponents. Meanwhile in Iraq it is proving difficult to marshall the forces on the ground to counter the ISIL fighters.

As many military experts have predicted, it is difficult identifying and hitting suitable targets from the air against ISIL when they are dug into residential areas and are not easy  to single out  amidst the general population. Air power can destroy their larger military equipment when it is suitably exposed, and can deal with any concentration of ISIL fighting force outside residential areas, but it is less useful when fighters have infiltrated a community and can use the local population as cover or as collaborators.

In Libya the democratic government struggles to exert much authority over the country, which remains gripped by various armed bands and militias fighting for supremacy or advantage. The democratic government of Iraq has still to find the right voice to win over the parts of the country it does not control, as it also goes about the difficult task of trying to remove the influence of ISIL and other hostile forces from some of Iraq’s communities.

The recent BBC documentaries on the Afghan war served as a timely reminder of the trouble the previous UK government experienced in trying to win over the province of  Helmand for the Afghan civilian government. The BBC voiced US criticisms of the UK for not committing enough troops to the huge task, leaving our forces at times exposed or needing to retreat. US reinforcements were finally delivered in recognition that the province was very large and in need of substantial numbers of well armed personnel to try to provide the level of security the civilian administration wanted.

I read that we are now becoming more involved again in training local forces to help them carry out the dangerous and difficult tasks of policing these areas subject to civil war and ISIL insurrection. It should be easier for local forces than our own, as they speak the local languages and understand more of the local customs and politics. However, their task too will prove difficult or even impossible if there is  not a sufficient intensive political process undertaken to prove to most of the people living in modern Iraq that the  borders make sense and it is best as one country. Their forces also need to attain the highest levels of professionalism, keen to be neutral in the cause of justice between the competing people and communities. This is something they have to want to do. It is not easy teaching people unless they see the need themselves to behave in the recommended way.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor were right to say the UK will not pay the £1.7 bn the EU demands. The UK does not accept retrospective taxation. We are already paying too much for our membership of the EU, and support for the EU is not strong. The UK and the US that sprung from the UK have long traditions of imposing democratic control over taxation and expecting remedy of grievances before approving more money for the government.

Ministers will now be under enormous pressure to give in, to reach an accommodation. They will be told they have to give in for the sake of UK relations with the EU. They will be told they must not operate illegally. They will be told the UK has to pay the money as it is the inevitable result of our signature on the treaties.

Ministers have more cards than the officials and the EU tell them they have. It does need the UK’s signature on the cheque, which only Ministers backed by Parliament can give. All the time  Ministers refuse to sign the EU has a problem.

Conservative Ministers all voted against the last 3 treaties for good reasons. We all thought they went too far and endangered the UK’s relationship with the EU. The UK is not part of the Euro by common consent. We should not  be expected to pay ever rising bills for the political structure needed to keep the Euro going. At some point the UK’s unsatisfactory relationship has to be sorted out.

To make sure Ministers do operate legally they should ask Parliament to approve a simple amendment to the 1972 European Communities Act, which would confirm that they are acting legally in not paying retrospective levies. The large majority of the British people have no wish to have to pay a tax rise to send more money to Brussels. Their Parliament should speak for them and back Ministers in saying No.

New housebuilding has risen from the lows  of the Great recession but is still running well below the levels the housebuilding industry thinks is necessary, and below the levels of new household formation. Part of this is related to the immigration issues which we have often debated on this site. Today I wish to look at other matters.

If the country chooses a Conservative government next May and if that government succeeds in getting a new deal to control migration from the EU, there will still be a need to build new homes for people already settled here and for the newcomers we still invite in from all round the world. No-one in the policy and political world is proposing an end to all migration. The UK is an attractive place and there will be  some further expansion of numbers.

This government has promoted more homeownership and more housebuilding through a variety of means. Mending the banks, setting out the Right to buy scheme, and creating a background of more jobs and growth have all contributed to the increase in new homes. More land has been made available for development.

There are still predictable tensions between housebuilders and settled communities accepting new development. In an area like Wokingham we have accepted substantial new building over the years. Some of this has been properly planned by the local Council with supporting roads, schools and other facilities. Some was pressed upon us by Planning Inspectors under the previous government’s top down regime.  The danger of this could be seen in aggravated flooding problems, road congestion and the need to expand school and medical provision without the local community always generating the capital receipts from the development to cover these associated costs.

Future development needs to be at a  sustainable level with care taken to ensure that substantial new development sites are properly prepared with good road access, public service provision and above all with proper methods of dealing with faster run off of  the surface water and with the waste water that buildings generate. Councils and the Highways Agency also need to use the opportunity afforded by new development to update and upgrade the road network which is becoming  increasingly congested.

During the last government many road schemes were cancelled and little new road building took place. At the same time both local and  national government sought to manage the existing road system more intensively, often reducing traffic flows and traffic speeds. Sometimes this was necessary for good safety reasons. On other occasions it was done to try to force people out of the car and van onto public transport.

At the same time the government invited in large numbers of new people who owned cars and vans or aspired to do so, greatly adding to the vehicle stock and the congestion problems. Around 85% of all our journeys are made  by road transport. The success of privatisation of the railways in its first decade in boosting passenger numbers has  been followed by substantial rail investment which has also helped boost capacity and travellers. Because the initial base of 6% of journeys was so modest, even with good railway growth it was not possible to take the pressure off the roads by this means.

The Coalition government  recognised the problem of lack of roadspace,  but faced two difficulties in responding quickly. The list  of possible new road schemes ready to build was very short. It takes time to crank up good projects and get them through the design and planning phases. The government inherited a massive public deficit, and the one area the outgoing government had cut to make a start on deficit reduction was capital schemes.

The Chancellor has gradually reversed some of the capital cuts, and the Transport department is working away on more road schemes for the future. The country remains a long way behind where it needs to be. Every day there is a danger that a single incident will bring a major route network to a halt. One crash, or one section of roadworks can result in  long delays.

I will look at what could be done to improve both safety and vehicle flow on the roads we already have in a later post.

The large increase in EU migration has come about for a variety of reasons. The addition of several lower income countries to the EU in recent years makes it more tempting for people to wish to come to a richer country like the UK to take advantage of the better pay, higher welfare benefits and better public services. The success of the UK economy in generating many more jobs at a time when several major continental countries are back in recession or stuck with very slow growth also encourages more people to migrate to the UK.

The original idea of free movement was the free movement of workers, not the free movement of benefit seekers. The UK has fallen foul of anti discrimination provisions in EU law when having a universal system of benefits. It means it is difficult or impossible for the state to restrict EU migrants from  having access to income top ups, housing and child benefits which are universally available to low income or no income people in the UK. Some other continental countries have contributory based systems where new migrants do  not qualify automatically because they have not yet worked and contributed in their new host country.

I have urged this government to switch us over to a contributory based system where all can be treated fairly but where UK citizens who have contributed – or who have earned entitlement by undertaking full time education here for a specified period – qualify for benefits that would not be given to new arrivals.

The government has tightened the criteria for eligibility within the current legal framework, and is now limiting the time someone can be out of work and looking for work on benefits to just three months. Going further and reducing  the benefits “pull” of our system further  should be relatively easy within  the confines of current EU law, if the UK is prepared to change the basis of its welfare system. That still leaves open the bigger issue of the UK being able to control the numbers of job seekers who come and take jobs, which the Prime Minister has said he wishes to sort out in his renegotiation.

After years of irritating lectures from Germany on how the UK has to put up with  unacceptable EU controls of our borders, with the deeply damaging dear energy policy, and  with constant raids on our tax revenue to pay the EU’s bills in return for being able to buy Mercedes and BMWs on EU terms, I read today Germany now thinks the UK should leave the EU.  I guess that’s progress.

If Germany cannot see the need for the UK to have a new relationship because we are not part of the Euro and do not wish to join the political union, then the UK people may well vote to leave.  Then Germany can have the pleasure of paying the bills for the rest of the EU without our help.

The UK has rightly opted out of all the criminal justice measures of the EU. Conservative opposition to centralising treaties in the last decade did at least persuade Labour to give the UK the option to keep out of the EU’s growing role in criminal justice. I suspect Labour had no intention of using the opt out, and thought by now the public would have forgotten or not mind if we transferred more and more of our power over the criminal  law to Brussels. Instead the coalition has sensibly opted out of all the measures, to restore the position to that prevailing under previous Conservative governments who always kept criminal justice out of  EU control and outside the Treaties.

Now there is a debate about whether the UK should opt back in to some of these measures. The biggest opt in proposed is to the European Arrest Warrant. Many Conservative MPs are against this idea. Labour and the Lib Dems are enthusiastic to opt in, along with some Conservative Ministers.

Those of us who oppose the measure have put forward three important worries about the operation of the Arrest Warrant. The first  is its use for less important offences, when we were assured by Labour that this was primarily for tackling terrorism, murder and other very serious crimes. The second is the absence of good standards over detention and trial in some other EU countries who can use the European Arrest Warrant against UK citizens. The third is the ability of another  country to use a Warrant to extradite a UK citizen for an alleged crime, where their conduct is not a crime under UK law.

The government has agreed with our three detailed complaints, and has said it has now taken action in UK law to prevent these abuses of the Warrant. UK courts are now directed by UK law not to allow a Warrant for minor offences, and not to permit one if the matter is not a crime in the UK. They think the position on rights elsewhere has been improved.  So, say some Ministers, we should now be willing to vote for this measure. They claim it helps the UK deal with violent and serious criminals who exit the UK for an EU country.

Some of us still have doubts about this device. Whilst UK law and courts may currently be able to limit the use of the Arrest Warrant, they will not be able to limit its use affecting UK citizens outside the UK. Once you go back under the EU controls, the ECJ could always settle a case against the UK which could then limit or prevent the UK law applying in the way Ministers intend. We supported the Conservative policy of not allowing criminal justice authority to pass from Westminster to Brussels for good reasons. Controlling your own criminal justice system and being able to change the criminal law is an important part of an independent democratic country.

Labour and Lib Dems respond by saying we need this warrant to keep us safe, as it is the way to bring back nasty criminals who have escaped our country so they can stand trial and be imprisoned if guilty. We have arrangements with most other countries in the world to let this happen through Extradition treaties. These treaties do not place our criminal justice system under foreign control but allow co-operation to bring suspects back for trial. We have long had good co-operative policing arrangements with EU and non EU countries when seeking to track down criminals.  That is what we would prefer for our dealings with the EU as we do for Switzerland or the USA.

When I published the Conservative Economic Policy Review in 2007 it drew attention to the much faster growth rate recorded in recent years in London compared to the rest of the UK. Labour’s devolution and regional policies did not succeed in even arresting the economic underperformance of the UK outside London, let alone narrowing the gap between  London and the rest.

The ONS figures for gr0wth since then show more of the same. The period 2007-11 saw London grow by 12%  (nominal Gross value added) compared to just half that, at 6%, for the rest of the UK.  The CEBR and other forecasts are for London to continue outperforming in the period 2014-19, with their estimate showing London accounting for one third of the total likely growth for the UK as a whole.

No-one can deny Labour did direct much larger sums of public money to places away from London. They moved public sector activities including much of the BBC outside London.  They gave substantial devolved powers to Scotland, and some to Wales and Northern Ireland. They imposed additional taxes on financial and property activities concentrated in London. None of this balanced the growth or achieved the aim  of faster growth outside the capital.

I am all in favour of trying new policies, and extending old ones, that might help stimulate more growth outside London. I am happy for more of the public sector to move away from the busy city hub of our nation. What I am not happy about is the idea that London’s growth is wrong, needs to be stopped, or is unhelpful to the rest of the country. We should be pleased that we have one of the world’s great cities, that it attracts money and talent from abroad, and that it pays substantial taxes to contribute to the national public  spend.

The other evening I returned from speaking in Lincolnshire to Kings Cross at 11.15pm. The Victoria  line  train I took back to Westminster was standing room only for part of the journey. Last week I spoke to a business dinner about our EU relationship. When I left the restaurant in the West End at 10.30 pm it was difficult walking on the pavement for all the people out and about, and the buses went by  completely full. London is bursting with energy and activity, and is generating large numbers of business opportunities.

Brought up as a teenager in Kent, I looked to London for my future. I went there as often as I could afford the train fare. As a schoolboy and as a  student I wanted to enjoy museums, exhibitions, galleries, external lectures, music and theatre and the rest whenever possible. I always assumed I would get a job in London. London is still a beacon to many in our country, a place of opportunity and interest.

The problem we face is not that London grows too much, but that some other parts  of the country grow too little. The problem is not that wages  are higher in London, but that they are lower in some other places. Many people with businesses outside London do come to London from time to time to add to their orders and customers. London is not a threat to the prosperity of the rest of the country, but an opportunity to enhance it.