I have had a number of emails from people understandably concerned about the death of George Floyd and the riots in the various US cities.

Before replying I decided to read what the President and what Mr Biden said to have some greater understanding. These are matters for the USA to resolve. As their friend and ally we wish them well in doing so.

The words of the President capture the problem. He said:

“All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd.  My administration is fully committed that, for George and his family, justice will be served.  He will not have died in vain.  But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob.  The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities, and as their President, I will fight to keep them safe.  I will fight to protect you.  I am your President of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters.

“But in recent days, our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others.  A number of state and local governments have failed to take necessary action to safeguard their residents.  Innocent people have been savagely beaten, like the young man in Dallas, Texas, who was left dying on the street, or the woman in Upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs.

“Small-business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed.  New York’s Finest have been hit in the face with bricks.  Brave nurses, who have battled the virus, are afraid to leave their homes.  A police precinct station has been overrun.  Here in the nation’s capital, the Lincoln Memorial and the World War Two Memorial have been vandalized.  One of our most historic churches was set ablaze.  A federal officer in California, an African American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.

“These are not acts of peaceful protest.  These are acts of domestic terror.  The destruction of innocent life and the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God.

“America needs creation, not destruction; cooperation, not contempt; security, not anarchy; healing, not hatred; justice, not chaos.  This is our mission, and we will succeed.  One hundred percent, we will succeed.  Our country always wins.”

He went on to offer National Guard help to State Governors, urging them to enforce the law and protect people and businesses from violence.

Mr Biden said:

“These last few days have laid bare that we are a nation furious at injustice. Every person of conscience can understand the rawness of the trauma people of color experience in this country, from the daily indignities to the extreme violence, like the horrific killing of George Floyd.

“Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.

“The act of protesting should never be allowed to overshadow the reason we protest. It should not drive people away from the just cause that protest is meant to advance.

“I know that there are people all across this country who are suffering tonight. Suffering the loss of a loved one to intolerable circumstances, like the Floyd family, or to the virus that is still gripping our nation. Suffering economic hardships, whether due to COVID-19 or entrenched inequalities in our system. And I know that a grief that dark and deep may at times feel too heavy to bear.

“I know.

“And I also know that the only way to bear it is to turn all that anguish to purpose. So tonight, I ask all of America to join me — not in denying our pain or covering it over — but using it to compel our nation across this turbulent threshold into the next phase of progress, inclusion, and opportunity for our great democracy.”

This was a more dignified statement than Mr Biden’s comment “you ain’t black” if you vote for Trump.

Sainsbury’s and Tesco cut back their fresh fish counters to tackle the hoarding demand for other groceries at the start of the lock down. It is time to bring them back. Indeed, it is time to open  more and reverse the trends of recent years. where  some retailers were closing fresh fish and meat counters anyway.

The UK fishing industry had become  very dependent on the catering trades and on export for its fish sales. Retailers are busily importing packaged fish. The Covid 19 policy assault on the hospitality industry, and the end of the Common Fisheries Policy, provides an ideal time for a re think.

The aims  of getting control of our fishery back is twofold. We both wish to catch less to allow stocks to rebuild from the damage of the CFP, and greatly increase the proportion of the catch to be landed in  the UK so we can eat  more of our own fish. This is not difficult given the huge amount of fish taken by other countries every year under the CFP.

So now is a great time for the supermarkets to work with the fishermen and women to  offer contracts for more UK fish to be sold direct to customers in shops. It is ridiculous that this island nation set in a sea of fish has major supermarkets that do not allow us to buy fresh fish from the UK.  I trust the government rejects any idea of giving much of our fish away in some new deal after we have properly left the EU in December. This provides commercial opportunities for the fishing industry and for retailers. Decent contracts from  major retailers would allow the UK fishing industry to borrow to invest, to expand its capacity to serve the local market.

There are a number of emails and comment around claiming the UK and the US have the highest death rates. They often go on to blame their two governments which  they do not like and argue there should have been an earlier and tougher lockdown.

The authors should check their facts. We need to look at deaths per million, not at the absolute level, as of course larger countries are likely to record more deaths than smaller countries. On the published figures Belgium has experienced the highest death rate so far, followed by Spain, and then the U.K. The US is considerably lower, below France and Italy which are a little below the U.K.

There are differences in how the figures are compiled. The UK has gone out of its way to maximise deaths attributed to CV 19 by including care home and community deaths when other countries concentrated on hospital deaths. The U.K. has also recorded many care home and community deaths as CV 19 when no test was taken to see if the patient had it, and when it may have been other serious medical conditions they suffered from that killed them.

The Uk death rate is worrying , as are the rates of most European countries. In the USA the worst figures have been recorded in New York where a Democrat Mayor enforced a tough lock down early. It may be that very large cities like NY and London are particularly prone to virus spreading, so the absence of such huge cities in countries like Germany that have done a lot better may be part of the reason.

Sweden adopted social distancing but no lock down. Her figures are better than Belgium , France, Italy and Spain who went for a full lock down.

Now UK government officials claim they can test 200,000 people a day and have recruited a lot of trackers it is important every new case is followed up on notification to understand why and how it has been transmitted. There is no simple identity between tough and long lockdowns and low death rates on the numbers we have seen.

We also need evidence from the experts on which health systems have achieved the best recovery rates for patients and which treatment does most to lower the death rates in serious cases. There has been no full statement at U.K. government news conferences about recovery rates from intensive care and which treatments have worked best.There has been the recent adoption of an existing anti viral drug as a helpful treatment after initial resistance to the idea that current drugs could help, whilst we are told some other approved drugs are being tested on CV 19 patients. How did Germany and the USA achieve lower death rates?

Despite the protestations of pro EU contributors that I should not be  writing about the EU  now we have left, I  note that my recent post on the German Court and the Euro got a much bigger response than many other items I write about. I remain interested in our neighbours and wish them well. Today I need to consider the scale and nature of their possible response to the economic damage of the pandemic on the continent.

The Franco-German deal to propose raising Euro 500bn on the strength of the EU’s total  budget and to pass it on to member states to help with Covid 19 recovery has now been transposed into a Commission proposal. They recommend  Euro 750 bn, two thirds for grants and one third for loans to member states to help them recover. As in the original idea the EU as a whole will borrow the money against the security of its budget. It will fall due for repayment sometime between 2028 and 2058.

In a new twist the Commission states that it will need to raise the overall level of EU taxation on  member states and their citizens from 1.2% of GNI (total national incomes) to 2%, a tax hike of 66.6%. The tax rises will take the form of new emissions taxes, carbon border taxes, digital taxes and the like, to be determined in the future. Each of these taxes will need negotiation and legislation.  The disbursement of the Euro 750 bn will take place over an unspecified period within the next seven year budget cycle.

The EU seven year budget from next year will of course have to deal with the loss of 15% of its income with the departure of the UK, and a further drop from the decline in the EU economy being experienced this year. If we put this at a  modest 5% decline only, that means they are short of one fifth of the budget next year. The proposed rise in  tax would therefore only deliver a 33% increase in revenues in the first year, even if all the new taxes were in place as early as that.

The document is silent over how the Euro 750 bn will be divided between countries. The largest heading for spending will be a Recovery and resilience facility, with rules to be designed. There are smaller sums to promote the existing budget agenda of support and subsidy for the green deal and for digitalisation.

This package will need unanimous support as it is a matter relating to the 7 year budget settlement. Each country will be able to pick away at the tax proposals to finance it, and at the distributional issues which are unclear over payments. If it is to be a first essay in solidarity, bringing German and Dutch taxpayers to assist Italian and Spanish businesses and people, it will need to find ways to route more money proportionately to these latter countries under the various headings of the funds and programmes.

This does not look like a major gamechanger. Though a large headline sum of money, it will be spread out over the years ahead. The tax rises may be damaging, and imply a more inward looking and protectionist EU as they find ways to tax foreign digital success stories and overseas produced goods on grounds of their carbon content. It is good the U.K. should be free of the anti business and anti trade taxes about to be planned.

On 23 rd  March the UK was put into lockdown to reduce the number of Covid 19 cases, to reduce pressure on the NHS and to limit the deaths from the disease.

As the proposers of the policy thought, admissions to hospital with severe forms of the disease peaked 9 days later at 3121 cases on April 2nd. Peak use of NHS ventilator beds was hit a week later on April 10, which was also the day of peak deaths. I have taken these figures from the latest Downing Street briefing graphs. The method of counting has changed over the period, increasing the number of deaths recorded as time passed.

This implies limiting contact was the way to slow the progress of the virus, and did lead to an important reduction in serious cases and deaths. So far so good.

What does need more examination is why it has taken so long to secure faster and more dramatic declines in serious cases and deaths after success in changing the trend in early April. You would have expected the figures to come down quite quickly to low levels. After all we are advised that a person with the disease is clear after seven days, and a person getting it before symptoms show should be clear in 14 days. Thus we would expect a sharp fall off after the  14 day point from lockdown.

As we enter the test and trace era, it would be good to hear from the medical and scientific advisers why they think the diseases has lingered at relatively high levels for so long during lock down. Are all the cases now concentrated amongst the small proportion of the population that go to  a physical place of work? Are hospitals and care homes now a  main source of spreading the disease? Or is the disease somehow still spreading – at a slower rate – through the population that are staying at home? If so, how is it being transmitted?

These become important issues so that we know who to isolate and consider what other measures to take in the Test and Trace phase. Do we need better infection control in those health and care settings that do get the disease? Are there issues with deliveries to households? What more can be done to rid items and surfaces of the disease? Has the UK investigated the use of UV light machines to destroy the virus on surfaces? I will pursue these questions with the government.

I am writing today to Matt Hancock, Health Secretary, to clarify how the Test and track system will work. It is in all our interests that it is used to keep us safe whilst allowing many more people to work and go about their daily lives more normally.

The idea of the system is people self isolate and get themselves tested if they develop new Covid 19 like symptoms. We are told that the testing may take 48 hours during which time no contact outside the household has to self isolate. If the test confirms the presence of the virus then “recent close contacts” of the infected person should also self isolate and will be contacted by the system.

The government document does seek to define recent close contact. It says it includes spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of the infected person,  and face to face contact of under 1 metre. The document tells us this could result from travelling even a short distance with someone in a car, or on a plane. It could also include people in  the same school or workplace.

So I would like to have more guidance on

1. Travelling in a train or tube carriage with someone who is infected. How could contacts be discovered, and can this represent a threat to a traveller? What is government advice on train travel? If someone travels by train and another passenger notifies as having the virus do the other passengers have to self isolate?
2. How many people in a workplace or school would need to self isolate if one of their number is discovered with the disease? Would there be an assessment of who had come closer than 1 metre? Presumably it will not require all people at that location to self isolate?
3. Can we assume that after someone has self isolated for 7 days who has the virus, and for 14 days who might get it, they are no longer able to infect anyone else?
4. Why has the government decided to use the WHO guideline of 1 metre separation rather than the U.K. 2 metre? Have government advisers reconsidered the 2 m requirement given WHO advice of 1 metre and Germany’s use of 1.5 metres?

The more knowledge of the transmission of the virus that can be shared with the public the more effective social distancing will be and the more co-operation there will be with the policy of Test and Trace.

The forces of Pessimism and defeat want the U.K. to seek an extension to the negotiating year with the EU. It is most important that the Prime Minister and Mr Frost refuse to countenance such a dreadful idea. There is nothing we could negotiate next year that we cannot negotiate this year. The U.K. made a mess of the negotiations under Mrs May who trusted the Official Civil service and liked advice that always meant the U.K. giving in on issue after issue.

The present government has so far been as clear as Mrs May was muddled over what the U.K wants. It has rightly refused to accept the EU’s wish to settle fish first before anything else and make our fish a further payment to them. It has proposed a free trade agreement as the base of the future relationship but said no agreement would also work fine.

There is no point in negotiating through June unless the EU changes its approach and understands we are not giving away powers over our fish, our laws or our money. The EU pretends we want to stay in the single market and customs Union, which we voted to leave.

The U.K. just has to stay calm, be pleasant but show great resolve. We are not going to give in again and do not want some kind of Association Agreement putting has back under the EU Court and laws.

Offering money to companies to see them through a couple of months when they are not by law allowed to trade was necessary. It was right for the government to pay the wages of staff who have jobs but are not allowed to do them, so that the workforce is available to start up again as soon as the lockdown is lifted. It was right to offer money to the self employed who were also banned from earning a living.

Government now needs to handle the return to work well. The state cannot afford to carry on paying out large sums to companies that do not have enough turnover. The only way to sustain our living standards is to get everyone back to work. There are will  be some businesses that were declining before the shut downs. They may need to make a bigger adjustment now as the shut down probably accelerated their decline.

There will be other businesses that had a great business model prior to the lock down that will now  be damaged by the changed conditions created by the anti virus policies. Travel and hospitality will have to change the way they work for as long as social distancing remains, and plan for reduced workloads for sometime after lifting of the shut down.

There are then a range of businesses which gained market share out of the shut downs and who may continue to grow well even after the  end of the exceptional times for on line retail, internet conferencing, remote working service and supplies, home entertainments and other technology winners.

What we do not want is to search for some top down government led model of backing winners, interfering with customer choices and deciding who to subsidise and what changes to lifestyle they require.

The danger is some companies that were short of cash owing to lock down end up insolvent because they do not experience a surge of returning business once the lock down is lifted. The government does not have the resources to keep all companies going that lack a strong business offer for the new conditions post shutdown. The private sector has the means to lend money and to buy shares. Large companies have access to low interest rates on bank finance and bonds, and can raise additional capital from shareholders. They can and are conserving cash by not paying dividends or buying back shares where they need to be careful with the money.

The government should not want to bail out big business or take share stakes in large companies. It should be helping and encouraging them to get more money from customers so they do not need bail outs. The policy is meant to be getting many more people back to work, preferably working from home. Taxpayers do not want shares in companies that are losing so much money they cannot finance themselves commercially from banks and the markets.

It is rumoured that Jaguar Land Rover might need government money. Yet this is a company with good products, that needs to sell more  cars to generate the cash it needs. The government should be asking any car business that thinks it might want taxpayer aid the following questions:

Will its dealerships soon be open to sell cars observing social distancing assuming that gets the go ahead?

Meanwhile is the  sales force available during normal business hours to sell on line and through email and Zoom/Teams meetings with customers?

Have they  tried contacting their customer and customer enquiry lists to see if people will buy a new vehicle? Are they offering any special promotions to get the market moving again? Given the reported growing interest in people buying cheaper second hand cars as an alternative to public transport to get to work, isn’t this a good time to encourage switching to a newer vehicle for people who are already owners?

The Bank of England and the commercial  banks are making plenty of money available to those who need a car loan to buy or upgrade  a vehicle.

The Treasury were right to offer short term generous assistance for the lock down period. Now we need to move on and find ways to get people back to work safely and wean companies off government life support.

For years Germany and the Netherlands have resisted any idea that the EU should borrow money together and spend it in the poorer areas of its territory. They wanted a currency union but not a benefits union, a monetary union but not a transfer union.

The dollar area or the sterling area are currency unions backed by self governing states. In each there are large transfers of money from the richer parts of the area to the poorer parts. These take the form of grants to local government from central taxation, grants to individuals through the benefits system based on need, and common taxation raising m ore from the places where incomes are higher. As a city or county that suffers relatively low incomes cannot devalue against the richer places, it needs to the grants to get its living standards closer to the national average.

Last week Germany and France came to an Agreement. They propose a Euro 500bn fund for the EU, to spend on recovery from the pandemic.  The money will be borrowed by the EU as a whole, where each state stands behind the loans in proportion to the size of tis economy.  If the EU decides to spend proportionately more in the distressed areas of its territory, then it would have some mild element of redistribution about it.

Time will tell whether this is the first step on the full road to a transfer union, or whether this is a one off gesture soon to be watered down by delays in getting the money and by an approach that all states should have prizes in the lottery draw for the funds.

I have always thought those in the EU who argue they need a transfer union to complete their monetary union are right. The problem is the true price of solidarity and more equal standards will be very high for German and Dutch taxpayers. Is this a saleable proposition to them?