The possible new leaders of the EU have not received great reviews from the press and public commenting so far. The EU Heads of government took a long time to make up their minds who to recommend to the Parliament. Their decision dumped the spitzenkandidat system they were meant to be following. Instead of recommending Manfred Weber, the leader of the EPP grouping in the Parliament to be EU Commission President, they recommended Von Leyen, the Defence Minister of Germany, who was not in the frame for such a post prior to the election.

The lack of direct democratic accountability of the Commission President is a worry for some supporters of the EU. That is why they invented the spitzenkandidat system. Under this approach the leaders of the main party groupings contesting the European elections appear on public platforms and debate the future of the EU so the public can see what they would do if they won the European election and if their candidate became Commission President . Whilst it is not as good as making the post directly elected, it could provide more accountability than the behind closed door recommendation made after the election.

Von der Leyen is an unknown politicians when it comes to the EU agenda. We are told she is an EU enthusiast who will presumably wish to support more steps to European integration. She is also a German conservative, who may not want to commit  more German tax revenue to grants and transfers around the Euro currency union. She may find herself in disagreement with Christine Lagarde, the French former Republican, who is proposed to be the next President  of the European Central Bank. Lagarde is also likely to be keen on more European integration, and may advocate a bigger EU budget with Germany making a bigger contribution to that budget.

Charles Michel, the former Belgian PM, becomes President of the Council. Known for seeking to reconcile opposites and to weld a coalition out of very different forces, he will need dark arts to construct alliances and coalitions for policies that can command majority support in the Council of Ministers and the Parliament.

I will be voting for Boris when my ballot paper arrives. He has given a clearer pledge to get us out of the EU by 31 October than Jeremy Hunt. This is vital for the future of our democracy and for the recovery of the Conservative party.

He has pledged tax cuts for individuals earners  and home buyers and more spending on local schools and the police. In contrast Jeremy has promised a further expensive large cut in Corporation tax for large companies, where we are more competitive . It is our  tax rates for individuals and taxes on enterprise and property ownership that are holding us back and harming the revenues.

If I needed any more reasons to choose Boris rather than Jeremy, the issue of fox hunting would supply it. Jeremy Hunt announced he would want a further Commons vote on fox hunting and implied he supported fox hunting. I have no wish to see this divisive issue re opened in Parliament. It is very unlikely Parliament would vote a different way to last time, but it would stir up strong emotions on both sides. Mr Hunt then appeared to back down rapidly under fire, saying he did not intend to introduce such a motion were he to become Prime  Minister and was merely reasserting the position from Mrs May’s failed Manifesto of 2017. This made his position worse.

I look forward to our early exit from the EU without signing the completely unacceptable Withdrawal Treaty. I want a  Brexit bonus  budget to spend the money we save. We should stop all contributions to the EU from 1 November onwards.

We have two good examples of populists now in power. In the USA Mr Trump is seeking to remodel government  in line with his promises to the American people. In Italy a populist coalition between Lega and Cinque Stelle struggles to keep to its pledges to the Italian people.

Mr Trump’s early months in office were afflicted by a reluctance of departments of government to implement his wishes. Secretaries of State and other senior officials he had appointed allowed the media to run a story that “grown ups” were still in charge of the Administration. Someone briefed that people could safely discount the President’s tweets and views, as these were not what the government was doing. Mr Trump soon worked out that you have to be in power as well as in office if you wish to get things done. He embarked on removing a number of the senior people in the government who did not get on with his tasks, seeking a team of people who would reflect his wishes and would stick to the campaign promises he made.

The governing establishment seemed to think using tariffs to seek better deals around the world was not the done thing. Mr Trump pushed on with the strategy and found a Commerce Secretary, a Treasury Secretary and a Secretary of State who accepted the direction of travel. Some of the Pentagon and State department seem to favour more military action in the Middle East. Mr Trump has been very careful to use minimum power and only in response to a military provocation. As he himself says, he is not a warmonger and would prefer the USA to be at peace.

There are times when the President’s tactical changes to try to get advantage in negotiations with foreign interests make it difficult for the relevant government department to keep up. The departments have got better at keeping quiet when the President is on manoeuvres to gain improvements, as with the tariff threat to Mexico to get them to provide more policing of their borders. Mr Trump’s wish to have wide ranging tax cuts was more of a mainstream policy which government  and Congress co-operated in, with a successful outcome.

Mr Trump seems to show that a determined politician who wants to keep his word to the electors can make a reluctant governing machine do much of what he wishes. Conscious that a network of international treaties, the so called international rules based system, can impede the US ambitions for fairer trade or faster growth, the President has been prepared to bend or remove international obstacles to an America First jobs based strategy. Faced with an often hostile Congress he has made full use of Presidential executive power and special role in international affairs.

In contrast under the much more comprehensive and stifling EU rules the Italian populist coalition has found it difficult to keep its promises. The wide ranging tax cuts Lega favours and the substantial basic income guarantee Cinque wants have proved difficult against EU enforced budget rules. The leaders of the two parties were forced to be Deputy Prime Ministers, with a PM over them acceptable to the EU with the force to keep Italy in the EU and Euro system. The government’s wish to have a tougher  migration policy has come up against the EU rules and requirements. The government’s wish to rebuild the infrastructure and invest more in the economy is thwarted by debt and deficit controls.

The Syriza experiment in Greece  ended in failure for the radical left party, unable to break out of the financial controls imposed by the Euro area because they ultimately would not or could not walk away from the Euro and establish an independent Greek economic policy. Italy is experiencing a similar dilemma. To do the things its government would like to do would require exit from the Euro. The populists are not willing to do something that big and might not have popular support if they tried it. The break up of the Soviet Union showed that it was quite possible for countries to leave a currency bloc and have different economic policies that worked well in a matter of months after exit. Current members of the Euro do not seem to think that would be possible or desirable in their case, so they will fail to be populists in power despite being  in office. The power of an official machine to wear down all but the most energetic and determined of Minsters and Presidents is well known. So far no-one in the EU has succeeded in governing as  a populist with an agenda they can implement.

In France many demonstrators have taken to the streets for the last six months to protest against taxes which are too high, government which impedes their lives, and politicians who are out of touch with the mood.

In Hong Kong hundred of thousands have peacefully demonstrated against a government which wants to remove their freedoms and place them more firmly under Chinese control in ways they fear.

In the UK voters resoundingly rejected the two main political parties in the recent European elections for their collective failure to implement the decision of the EU referendum.

All across the continent of Europe traditional centre right and centre left parties have been voted out of office for their failure to put the prosperity and welfare of people above the demands of the EU scheme.

The response of the out of sympathy elites in each case is different. In Hong Kong it is likely the authorities will ignore the views of voters and will seek to find ways of suppressing the protests. The damage done to the Legislative Council building provides a reason  the authorities will use  to clamp down, in reprisals that may go beyond just the few who did physical damage to  the place. In France the President says he is listening and makes a few token gestures over taxes, but drives on with the same old agenda despite the reversals. In the UK the ruling party is trying to change leader and find one who will implement the wishes of the people with many members of the Conservative party conscious that it has no right to political success if it fails to do the people’s bidding. In Italy Lega and Cinque Stelle strain at the leash of unpopular  Euro and EU rules but so far have declined to break out.

Tomorrow I will look at what happens when the populists get into power. Are they absorbed and turned into establishment clones, or can they assert their different agenda? Does the agenda work?

I met the local Superintendent to discuss policing matters raised by Councillors and constituents on Friday.

“Wake up politicians – the people are revolting” (Politeia’s words about their event)

with Matthew Goodwin Professor of Politics Univ of Kent

Robert Tombs   Emeritus Professor of French History Cambridge

Sarah Elliott  Chair of Republicans Overseas UK

John Redwood, author of “We don’t believe you”

Politeia 0207 799 5034

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.