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.

In 1804 there were 572 fighting ships in  the Royal Navy. The UK was  engaged in a series of wars at the time which encouraged government to keep the force strong. In 1939 as war broke out the UK navy had 332 naval vessels. During the war there was a large expansion  in  the fleet, with 553 new ships added both to replace lost ships and to expand the size of the force. 58 new aircraft carriers were produced during the war years, for example.

Today in  a period of relative peace there are just 67 fighting ships in the navy, including 18 small patrol boats with guns.

At 11 pm on 31 October the UK becomes an independent nation again, promised by our likely next Prime Minister. Many of us will wish to celebrate this much heralded and delayed event.

You would expect national media to show the countdown to the moment through the movement of the hands on the clock on the Elizabeth Tower at Westminster, known as Big Ben. It is perhaps symbolic that this Parliament which has done so much to try to stop us becoming independent again, and so much to thwart the results of the referendum, should have decided the clock is unavailable on the stated date. We need to find a good alternative to look at.

There are many great public clocks around the UK. Should we turn to Big Brum on the Council House in Birmingham? Or to Manchester Town Hall clock, or Leeds Town Hall, or the Liver building? I invite your thoughts.

It is time for us to be confident as a nation, proud of our democratic traditions and keen to be an outward looking global influence for the good. We will regain our votes and voices on international bodies and be better able to shape our future as we wish.

I wrote shortly after the Gibraltar authorities seized the Iranian oil tanker about the need for the UK to protect other vessels going through the Straits from retaliatory attack, and asked about the possible prosecution of the Captain and senior officers of the vessel who had been detained with allegations of EU sanctions busting.

We now see a British flagged tanker has been detained by the Iranians with allegations of a collision with a fishing vessel which is denied by those on the tanker, and see that the Captain and officers of the Iranian tanker have been released on  bail.

This gives rise to  various questions for the UK government

1. Given the very public threat made by Iran to UK shipping in  the area, what measures were taken to give protection  to British flagged vessels?

2. It is said there are four minesweepers and an amphibious armed naval vessel as well as HMS Montrose in  the area, with a destroyer on the way.  What if anything can these vessels do to help?

3. What support will the UK receive from the carrier group and amphibious assault ship group the US navy has in the region?

4. When will the Captain and officers of the Iranian tanker  be charged?  What more can be published concerning the allegations against the Iranian tanker?

5. As we were told this seizure was made to enforce EU sanctions over oil to Syria, what support is the EU offering? Has the EU proposed a joint naval initiative to protect western shipping in the Straits?

6. Why is the advice now given to avoid the Straits for commercial shipping, when this advice was not given so clearly   before the tanker seizure?