Recently Mr Draghi, the outgoing President of the European Central Bank, gave a good lecture on the past and future of the currency he has defended and developed in recent years. He gave an honest account of the successes and failures of ECB policy and wider Euro policy by the EU since the foundation of the currency. He admitted that the EU had a bad banking crisis just like the USA and UK in 2008-9, but were slower to tackle the underlying weaknesses of their banks . He accepted that in its wish to be tough on inflation the ECB had been less helpful to output and jobs in the zone, with a measure of overdoing it. He rightly drew attention to the way unconventional measures including creating money to buy up government bonds saved the currency. He did not mention the Greek and Cypriot crises which are also an important part of the story.

The interesting thing he argued for the future was the need to create a “common fiscal stabilization instrument” as he thinks the overall fiscal stance of the Eurozone is too tight. His problem is that the countries that want fiscal expansion to boost their economies including Greece and Italy have very high levels of indebtedness which they cannot expand under EU rules. Mr Draghi recognises he cannot change these rules and maybe does not want to anyway. Meanwhile Germany with capacity to expand its spending, cut its taxes and borrow a bit more, does not want to.

It appears that Mr Draghi is proposing a bigger budget at EU level with borrowing at EU level as well. If the EU had a balance sheet that can be expanded by borrowing to offset overall fiscal tightness across the zone as a whole, that would deal with Mr Draghi’s worries about policy stance. There would, of course, be arguments about whether the zone should do any such thing, and if it did where the money should be spent and on what. A suitable scheme might for example allow the EU to borrow substantial sums for infrastructure investment, and then to orient them to the  states in a weaker financial position or with lower incomes. This would provide a new mechanism to route some of the German surplus directly into the deficit states.

This is a big question for the incoming European Parliament and Commission. How far away are we from a bigger common EU budget, and a common EU balance sheet expanded to provide more demand and activity in the zone? Isn’t it a backdoor way to a transfer union?

Tomorrow I will debate my book with three others at the Politeia event at lunch time. I will stress just how damaging to our democracy and to the credibility of the media the endless repetition of stupid scare stories has become. Those who invented the great Remain untruths in the first place have rested or ignored the good refutations provided. We are still lectured  to believe Calais/Dover will seize up as a trade route when both ends have made clear it will work fine. We are still told we need to stockpile drugs though no-one has pointed to any major continental  drug supplier of the NHS who intends to break contract and refuse to send more supplies. We are  not told so 0ften the planes will  not fly any more.

So called serious journalists on the BBC use “fall off a cliff” and “cataclysm” as descriptors of a so called No deal without asking how or why, and without cross questioning the advocates of this shrill and stupid language. They decline to report the many agreements and arrangements put in place on  both sides of the Channel to ease our exit without the Withdrawal Agreement.  There is a marked reluctance to interview people with a more measured and sensible view of how we will trade once we have left. Indeed, we are not even invited on to explain how the present complex Irish border works for Excise, VAT and currency frictions or differences. The BBC seems to think the computer has not been invented, and never talks about electronic manifests and away from the border settlement of tax bills which happens today.

I wish to speak about what happens when a populist party or  movement becomes the government, as in the USA, Italy and elsewhere and in  the UK with the case of the Brexit policy the public has voted for. The governing institutions that attack populism have to adjust to the will of the people as reflected at the ballot box. There has to be a working together of the establishment and the challengers for the betterment of the voters. Establishments always used to accept democratic verdicts in the UK and USA. They have to show on both sides of the Atlantic that they respect the votes of the people, and can contribute genuine expertise to the task of carrying out the people’s wishes. They should not try to dream up false stories or abuse or twist  powers to block the popular will.

The latest updated version of “We don’t believe you” about populism, is available through Amazon

The G20 has produced no answers to the burning  question of future trade relations between the USA and China. Mr Trump tells us he had a great meeting with President Xi, and talks will resume on the outstanding issues. He has conceded that he will not press ahead with the extra tariffs he threatened, whilst China has conceded that the tariffs already imposed remain whilst new talks are underway.

The USA has raised serious strategic and security issues over technology which are not easily resolved for the sake of a trade deal. The Huawei ban clearly worries China considerably, and the USA has given a little there as well.The USA has difficulties believing new Chinese promises to respect Intellectual Property and to trade fairly. The US wants China to take her tariffs down to US levels as they are currently skewed heavily in China’s favour.

For her part China does not want to give in to what it sees as US bullying. Chinese military power and reach grows by the day, and China is extending her military authority throughout the Asian region. The US defence establishment is concerned about this, and seeks to preserve freedom of navigation in international waters.

The US President also keeps mentioning  the big imbalance of trade the USA has with Germany/EU, especially in cars. He may wish to open a new front in  his trade war over that. EU tariffs are four times the level of US tariffs on cars, which the US understandably challenges.

Most economists regard the trade war as a negative for the world economy and damaging to the US as well. Mr Trump sees extra Treasury revenues from the tariffs and expects the tariffs to lead to more domestic production and fewer imports. It seems likely that China – and Germany if the US attacks them too – have more to lose from this trade war. Their huge trade surpluses have led to this action by the USA, and the asymmetric tariffs and trade practices do need sorting out. They have many more exports at risk than the USA.

A few months ago Mrs May was condemning Russia for the poisonings. The EU imposed sanctions when  condemning  Russian activity in Ukraine.

Yesterday Mrs May met Mr Putin and shook his hand. Doing so with a cross look does not  get away from the fact that this  was a significant change of stance from the broken relations of recent months.  This was  a recognition that the UK needs a relationship with Russia. Germany led the support for the restoration of Russian votes in the Council of Europe, showing they as  leader of the EU wishes  to have an improved relationship with Russia. Mrs May appears to be marching in step with Germany.

Crucial to the underlying position is the German and EU decision to press on with Nord Stream 2, a large gas pipeline to sell Russian gas to Germany and the rest of the EU by pipeline under the Baltic Sea. This major commitment will increase continental Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. It undermines the position of the Ukraine, which could lose pipelines revenues for the gas currently routed from Russia to the West via that link. I find it difficult to understand why they wish to undermine the Ukraine in this way when they claim to be so concerned about its fate.

It is difficult to comprehend why we hear the angry words and see the sanctions imposed when Germany is so determined to improve its relations with Russia and keen to increase her dependence on Russian gas. Mrs May may brief that she had a frosty exchange when meeting Mr Putin, but the truth is she met him and shook him by the hand. The EU will carry on complaining about Ukraine, but they have no intention of taking any action to reclaim Crimea which might well vote to stay with Russia should they be given another  vote  supervised  by independent observers. The Russian supervised vote was strongly pro Crimea being part of Russia.

The EU and Mrs May have also been complicit in strengthening Russia in the Middle East. I did not want us intervening  militarily in Syria, but if the EU/UK   aim is to block Russian power they  should have taken more action in Syria at a time when Russia moved into the power vacuum created by NATO’s limited involvement. We allowed  Russia and Assad to do  most of the fighting to remove ISIS, leaving them in charge of most of the country.

On June 24 with full support from France and Germany Russia’s voting rights in  the  Council of Europe were restored.

Clearly the EU has decided to improve its relations with Russia and to increase its commercial dependence. The rest is just spin.

One of the oddest things about this out of touch Parliament is the refusal of most MPs to talk about how we should spend the windfall from leaving the EU without signing the Withdrawal Agreement. Worse still the Opposition parties rush to tell us we must go on paying large sums to the EU come what may, and even some in the government seem to be dreaming up ways to go on funding the EU after we have left. Given how central to the Leave case saving the money was, this is denying us our democratic decision. There is no legal basis to justify payments to the EU after we have left. The origins of the large £39bn Treasury forecast, itself an underestimate, comes from Mrs May’s wish to delay  our exit for 21-45 months  which of course would lead to big additional payments, and her wish to dilute Brexit so we could remain entangled with new financial commitments thereafter.

Margaret Thatcher recognised that the UK had a bad deal on financial contributions, and got a substantial improvement to our deal as PM. Mr Blair gave away some of that improvement on the promise of a thorough reform of the Common Agricultural Policy which never happened. Many UK taxpayers and fed up with having to pay more tax to send to rich countries on the continent. These contributions give us no benefit at home, and add to the deficit on the balance of payments.

At a time when the world economy is slowing, and when Mr Draghi of the European Central Bank recommends some government reflation from tax cuts or spending rises, the UK needs a growth budget. Using the substantial money we save from October 31 if we just leave could give us the boost we need. We can spend all of the net contribution we save, whilst paying the same level of farm grants and other sums that the EU sends us from the high gross contributions we make to the EU.

The deliberate misinformation about EU grants throughout the referendum campaign sought to persuade voters that we would lose these payments when we left. They should have pointed out that as we sent them the money in the first place to pay these grants, we can simply pay them direct. More importantly, we save all the money we send and do not get back  as well. We can boost the UK economy by 1% of GDP out of the savings and the tax overshoot this government has gone in for.

No Deal is a misnomer, like much of the rest of the Brexit debate. No deal means leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement, but with a number of other agreements in place governing trade facilitation, aviation, haulage and government procurement. It would also mean using the extensive rules and regulations of the WTO to govern our trade with the rest of the EU just as our trade with the rest of the world is governed today.  The Withdrawal Agreement was not of course allowing exit any time soon, as it was a decision to delay exit for 21 to 45 months, with uncertainty about how to get out thereafter.

The Withdrawal Agreement has been three times rejected by Parliament, and overwhelmingly defeated in the European elections with only 9% supporting the party that proposed it. It is possible a new Prime Minister will be able to negotiate enhanced arrangements before October 31 that add to the various agreements available for exit then without the Withdrawal Treaty. The new Prime Minister should offer a comprehensive free trade agreement, with a text based on EU/Canada and EU/Japan. We could then proceed to leave without imposing tariffs if the EU agrees to negotiate such an agreement.

Some say Parliament can block leaving without signing the Withdrawal Agreement. That would be very difficult for Parliament to do. If the new Prime Minister wishes just to leave he need not ask for a further delay to our exit after 31 October, so we will just leave. How would Parliament be able to make a Prime Minister seek a delay when he does not wish to do so? Parliament anyway cannot legislate to require a delay, because a delay not only needs a Prime Ministerial request of the EU but also a positive response by the EU. Mrs May decided she wanted a delay and asked for it regardless of the view of Parliament last time this arose. European law is superior to UK law all the time we stay in, and under EU law we are out on 31 October unless something else happens.

In this issue the PM is central. If the PM is determined to leave without the Withdrawal Agreement and keen to keep to the specified date, it would be very difficult for Parliament to find a way to stop him.

All those who write to me to complain that the UK might sign a Free Trade Agreement with the USA not to their liking might like to concentrate on the Free Trade Agreements we have to accept, entered into by the EU for us. This week the EU has signed a new agreement with Viet Nam.  There has been no debate in Parliament about it, and the UK has no right to reject it or to require improvements and amendments.

It is a long and complex document. The tariff reductions are asymmetric, with 7 years to get EU tariffs to zero, and more than 10 years to get all Viet Nam tariffs to zero. Both sides pledge themselves to the doctrine of equivalence over sanitary and phytosanitary matters. The provisions on animal welfare are unclear.

EU trade with Viet Nam is  not large. The EU imports some clothing, telecoms products, computers and shoes. I think these agreements ought to be subject to proper Parliamentary control, with UK negotiators taking the views of public and Parliament into the negotiations.

Yesterday the government pushed through a tax hike from 5% to 20% VAT on solar panels. They did this to comply with EU law. I did  not support them.

What is it about Mrs May’s government that they are so wedded to the EU? We are leaving. We do not need to set our taxes in the ways they demand any more. The government says it wants to be more green, so why on earth make it more expensive to generate solar power?

I want a Brexit budget. That budget should include taking VAT off all green products like insulation, boiler controls, draught excluder and solar panels.

There is also a view in some parts of the government that we should give the EU some money after we leave if we leave on October 31 without signing the Withdrawal Agreement. I can see no legal basis for any such payment. Why do they want to sell our country down the river? Why put  the EU’s wishes before the interests of UK taxpayers?

The EU is busy trying to fill its senior positions without success yet.  They meet again on June 30th to try to reach agreement over who should be President of the Commission.

The EU Council  last week   revealed  its new ambitions to take more  control from member states.

The EU wants member states to press ahead more rapidly with plans to decarbonise.  Countries are being pressed to lower their CO2 output, to increase their renewable generation of power and raise their fuel efficiency. 2030 targets are being set, but the EU has still not agreed on a zero carbon target for 2050 which some wish to do.

The EU is keen to weed out fake news from social media. It will be interesting to see what they regard as fake news, and to see if they start to cross the line between unacceptable material and censorship of material that is inconvenient to the EU. It is setting out a new “framework for targeted restraint measures” which will include asking social media platforms to prevent material harmful to the EU.

The Euro area needs to consider how much further it should go with a joint  budget and whether it will start to borrow money in  the name of the EU to spend around the union. The Euro area meeting talked of intensifying the banking union  and capital markets union. There is also a wish to have more common taxation under a policy  that it should be “fair and effective”.

The EU wishes to take greater responsibility for its own security and defence, pointing the way to more common defence spending.

The EU wants to become more assertive in international affairs. It wants Russia to release the captured sailors from Ukraine and release the vessels, seeks free maritime passage there and wants Russia to reduce her influence in eastern Ukraine. The EU continued its sanctions against Russia. The EU also condemned Turkey for her alleged  illegal drilling in  the Eastern Med.

The EU is planning a tougher migration policy “to fight illegal migration and human trafficking and to ensure effective returns”. The detail on who they will make go back will  be interesting, and what their enforcement mechanisms will be.  They want to renegotiate the Dublin Regulation which requires a member state to offer safe haven to  a migrant if that state is their first place of arrival in the EU. The southern  coastal states resent this obligation on them.

We await the new Commission and new Parliament. The old one goes out with a set of conclusions that aspire to much more integration but lack real bite in achieving their full stated aims. Nonetheless the process of integration continues, with the EU using its position in international affairs and  negotiator of international treaties and commitments to gain more control over member states policies in everything from defence to energy and from economics to media.

Bring it on. There was no need to wait three years. The Withdrawal Agreement was an elaborate snare to try to stop us leaving.