All the time we have been in the EU the Common Agriculture Policy has kept the UK under controls which have not suited us. Market share has fallen. We have seen more and more temperate food brought in from the continent, reducing our home market share. Food miles have increased, our roads have been clogged with more foreign trucks travelling longer distances with food imports.

Much of our salad needs and flowers now come in from the Netherlands. Many of our vegetables come in from Spain. Large amounts of dairy produce come from France. Beef comes in from several countries, and pork arrives especially from Denmark. Many of these items are things we could grow or rear for ourselves. The Netherlands has no climate advantage over us. Low value vegetables should not be cheaper when hauled hundreds of miles from Spain.

Once we are free to set our own tariffs we can remove all tariffs on food we cannot produce for ourselves. There should be  no further need for taxes on  citrus fruits, for example. We may also well decide to have lower average tariffs on temperate food than the EU makes us impose, as we will be levying them on  the EU as well as on the rest of the world.

We will also decide on our own levels of farm subsidy and how it should be allocated. The new UK system should place a premium on increasing our market shares. There should be tax and subsidy inducements to increase output and to mechanise farms. The UK should harness AI and robotics to the cause of farm improvement, building two industries at the same time. Intelligent use of  newly targeted subsidies and sensible tariffs could give us a big boost with more home grown food and more domestic development of the technology a new farm should deploy.

We need more investment in extending the growing seasons for vegetables, fruit and flowers and other market gardening activities. We could grow more with the right glasshouses and polytunnels, just as the Dutch do with similar weather.

One of the attempted trick questions in the referendum campaign from Remain to Leave was about deregulation. Which regulations would you repeal, they asked  of the Leave campaign. Presumably they hoped either that the Leave campaigner would be lost for a specific example, or would offer up a popular regulation which the public would not wish to see removed. They underestimated their opponents in this as in other matters.

The truth is there are many laws and regulations that the EU has imposed on us that are either suitable for repeal or for substantial improvement. The UK could start by repealing the damaging fishing regulations which have allowed considerable environmental damage to our fishing grounds whilst also undermining some of our fishing businesses.  We could move on to removing items from VAT or choosing lower rates for others. There is no great support for 5% and 20%  VAT rates on a whole range of green products, nor for the 5% VAT levy on domestic heating fuel. The interventions in our corporate tax code that have lowered our revenues could be reversed. We could do a better job on animal welfare with our own rules.

It is a strange phenomenon that many people will stand for election to the UK Parliament with a wish to become lawmakers, only to decide once they arrive that want many of our laws to be settled in Brussels so they can claim they have no ability to amend or repeal them. The UK Parliament over our years in the EU has been craven in meekly accepting every EU law and regulation, and in avoiding proper debate about it. This has damaged our democracy and widened the gulf between Parliament and people.

The continuing EC court case over VAT on commodity derivatives is a reminder of how the  EU wishes to rewrite our rules against the interests of our businesses. The UK Parliament should decide our VAT law and it should not be subject to reversal by a European court.

Mr Cameron and Mrs May both kept telling us the UK needed to cut the numbers of migrants coming to the UK. They chose to highlight a net figure, subtracting those who moved abroad from those who arrived. They wanted to get this new figure down to under 100,000. They got nowhere achieving this target.

Some objected to the idea of a net target. Every new migrant arriving needs a home and other support from public services. They often need benefit top up of their incomes. This needs to be done well and generously, and becomes difficult to do to a decent standard when the numbers become very large. The country did not have a sufficient supply of affordable housing, and was short of health and education capacity in the fast growing parts of the UK where many migrants arrived. An elderly couple with their own means moving to Spain for a few years did not compensate for the costs of the new  migrant arriving and needing social housing and other support. Indeed, the absence of the richer UK resident reduced the tax take.

Some said that Mr Cameron and Mrs May were unable to hit their target owing to a sudden surge in inward migration to the Uk from the rest of the EU. It is true there were big movements of people during this period. Many EU citizens were attracted to the UK by the jobs and relatively high wages compared to their home countries. It was also true that the government did not even hit the target for non EU migration which also continued at high levels.

Once out of the EU the government will lose the argument that it cannot hit its target owing to EU membership and freedom of movement. The government will need to set a fair migration policy for the whole world, removing preference for people coming from the continent. The system should mainly be based around an assessment of how many people with what skills levels we need to grant work permits. If people want to come and live here and have the means to support themselves that is no problem. We should also have a humane and proportionate policy towards asylum seekers. Current levels of gross and net migration are too high, damaging our ability to provide good homes and public services for all.

Once we are out of the EU the UK regains its vote and voice in world bodies. The UK is ready to take a global perspective and will be able to pursue our national interests and our global values more successfully once we no longer have to broker an agreed line with 27 other EU states.

Some fear the UK will be isolated or is in some way too small to survive in the turbulent waters of world diplomacy once independent. This is an absurd notion. The UK will proceed with shifting coalitions of interests issue by issue, based on long term alliances and community of interests with various friendly countries. The US/Canada/New Zealand/UK/Australia Intelligence  group will remain important to our intelligence and security. NATO will continue to be our central defence alliance. In the WTO we will emerge as one of the leaders of the free trade group pushing for fewer barriers and lower tariffs worldwide. We can form our own view on environmental issues and form alliances as needed. There will be times when we do wish to make a common front with France and Germany as we do today.

One of the dangers of being in the EU is the way the UK is drawn into rows and conflicts in Eastern Europe where EU intervention may not be helpful and where UK interests may diverge from apparent EU interests. The UK increasingly has split loyalties with the divergence in approach to the Middle East and elsewhere between the USA and the EU. Where these two fall out the UK needs to be able to make its own judgement about which side to belong to, or to offer a third way which could reconstruct a wider alliance between the democracies on the two sides of the Atlantic. The EU has not been helpful to the UK over Gibraltar, and has also been negative over aspects of the Channel islands independence.

The pull of the world is towards the east with the rise of China and India. The UK will need to look increasingly to Asia for growth in trade. Japan is keen to encourage stronger links with the UK, two island nations that value their independence, both offshore from large power blocs. The USA is increasingly pulled towards China as it seeks to manage a complex relationship with an emerging super power. The UK needs its independence and flexibility to handle its own interests as this development advances. The UK is rightly seen as a crucial financial marketplace and services innovator. China wishes to develop more joint working in these areas, where EU regulation and approaches might impede progress.

Over the next few days I will publish pieces setting out how we can use our new found freedoms and spend our own money after 31 October when we are scheduled to leave the EU.

One of the important wins will be to resume our full voting membership of the World Trade Organisation. Once out we will decide our own tariffs for imports into the UK. We can exercise this freedom to take all tariffs off products we do not make or grow for ourselves, providing cheaper food and clothes for UK consumers.

The EU imposes average tariffs of 5%, with an average 11.8% tariff on food. Dairy products are charged at a high 38.1%, fruit and vegetables at 11.5% and sugar and confectionery at 23%. Why shouldn’t we enjoy cheaper oranges and lemons from countries like South Africa, and cheaper wines from Australia and New Zealand?

The UK government has already set out a provisional tariff schedule, and has decided to abolish all tariffs on imported components, providing a welcome boost to UK manufacturing.

The EU will decide whether the UK must pay the external tariffs it charges the USA, China and others on their exports to the EU, or whether to negotiate a free trade agreement to avoid tariffs both ways.

Either way there are plenty of UK trade opportunities. EU tariffs in certain areas are too high. They are an unwelcome tax on the consumer, designed to protect continental farmers and producers at the expense of growers and makers elsewhere in the world. We should bring those down as we leave.

There has been much misleading comment masquerading as analysis about the nature of the new Cabinet.

There are just two members who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement on all three occasions it came forward, and three who voted against it on two of the three occasions.

There are fourteen who voted Remain plus the Chief Whip.

The big majority of the Cabinet supported Mrs May’s Withdrawal Agreement, and some  were particularly vocal in urging others to do so.

Boris Johnson yesterday became Prime Minister, following his good election win in the Conservative leadership contest.

He campaigned consistently and strongly to get us out of the EU by 31 October, with or without a deal. He made clear he sees the draft EU Withdrawal Treaty as dead. He and the government he leads must  now see this through. I wish him every success with the task.

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.