I believe in the sovereignty of the UK people. As a democrat I believe that the people exercise their rights and freedoms by choosing representatives for their Parliament, and dismissing them at general elections if they cease to please. Between elections the sovereign people can either let their Parliament get on with the job they were elected to do, or the people can argue, lobby,  press, campaign for their Parliament to vary its plans. The people accept that they, like their elected representatives, must obey all the laws and commands Parliament makes until such time as they are repealed or amended. Parliament has authority and exercises the people’s sovereignty subject to the popular  will.

The present clever lawyer arguments over whether Parliament needs to vote to approve an Article 50 letter or not is based on a number of foolish misunderstandings.  Parliament did have its very decisive  say over whether we remained in the EU or left the EU. After an election and extensive debate and votes, Parliament by an overwhelming majority approved the Referendum Act. When most of us voted for it, the government made clear we were voting to hand the decision over whether to remain in or leave the EU back to the sovereign people. There was no doubt about that. Labour did not object to that from the Opposition benches.

This was reinforced in the Referendum campaign. The government sent a leaflet to all households stating that the people would decide, and then government and Parliament would implement the people’s decision. Both official campaigns were asked if the result was binding, and both confirmed the result would be implement by Parliament. Both campaigns ruled out any need for a subsequent referendum. Parliament made no provision for a second referendum, though we could have done so easily in the Referendum Act if that had been the plan.

There is therefore no obvious need for Parliament to vote to approve an Article 50 letter, as it simply reflects the will of the people. If a sufficient number of MPs wanted a vote on one, there could be a vote. I doubt the official opposition will want to press for one, as it would reveal big disagreements within the Labour party, with many of their MPs accepting they now have to vote for UK exit as that was the national result in a national referendum. Practically all Conservative MPs would respond positively to a three line whip to approve an Article 50 letter.

I see no need for the law courts to get involved with what Parliament debates and votes on. That is no part of our constitution. Law courts are there to enforce the laws Parliament enacts. Sometimes they help make law by handing down judgements that force Parliament into amending or rethinking what it has written in Statute. The courts are not there to thwart a referendum result or to dictate the Parliamentary timetable. Once the powers of the ECJ have been removed Parliament resumes its role as the UK’s highest court, the court that reshape and instruct the others.

Parliament will be fully engaged in the detail of our exit arrangements. Parliament will have to approve legislation to remove the EU powers in the 1972 European Communities Act. Parliament will doubtless question and debate many facets of our new grade based relationship with the EU, and make the case for various new and continuing arrangements for anything from research collaboration to security exchanges.

I was expecting the museums and story lines of the Netherlands to rejoice in  the “golden age” of Dutch economic and trading success and naval power, the seventeenth century. I was not disappointed. Nor did I begrudge them their celebrations of  two great naval triumphs. They did force the surrender of the Prince Royal, The English flagship, in the four days battle in the 1665-7 war, allowing them to destroy it with fire after allowing the sailors off the vessel. Admiral Ruyter later in that war launched an audacious and successful raid against the English fleet at anchor in the Medway, destroying 6 ships and towing away a seventh. It was the English Admiralty’s biggest disaster. The Dutch celebration of it on a beautiful cup presented to the Admiral was entirely justified.  The Dutch navy tended to have fewer large ships, but it offered brave and sometimes successful opposition to English power.

The two museums I visited that told some of this story glossed over the English acquisition  of New Amsterdam,  now New York, in the same war, and some  English victories that also peppered largely inconclusive naval wars on and off between 1652 and 1674. The unpleasant violence of the colonial and trading rivalry between the two countries was brought to a welcome end by the peaceful invasion of Britain by Prince William of Orange, married to Mary Stuart. The British establishment welcomed them and switched allegiance to them so their arrival and assumption of the crown was uncontested. The two countries  moved to naval co-operation.

The museums did try to broach the long shadow cast over western European nations by slavery. Where a UK museum would be able to counter point the misery of slavery with the important role played later by leading British figures to secure the end of the slave trade, the Dutch museums just acknowledged the bad life of the slaves and the role of slavery in helping to create the great wealth of the merchant classes in the seventeenth and eighteenth century Netherlands. It was also clear from the Rembrandt displays that arms manufacturers and dealers were some of the richest patrons.

Beneath these dark clouds there are the eternal light drenched canvasses showing the sheer abundance of food and household comforts that Dutch commercial success and wealth brought. Much of the wealth was honestly come by from successful manufacture and trade.  For many Dutch people life was good, especially in the golden age. There was also reasonable social mobility, with people moving through hard work and enterprise from poverty to well heeled lifestyles.

The odd thing about the presentations was the episodic nature of the exhibits and stories, and the large missing gaps. I can appreciate the life and success of the Dutch golden age. I was surprised by the complete absence of material on the evils of the twentieth century occupation in the second world war, and the apparent sidelining of the Great war being waged just a few miles down the road in what was the southern low countries.

It is true that there was one other long shadow hanging heavy over Amsterdam which they do remember. I could not myself face going to Ann Frank’s house. It is such a heart wrenching story. To their credit the Dutch do remember the massacre of the Jews, whilst otherwise  ignoring  several years of being occupied by the Germans. Similarly, there are Napoleon memorabilia of his brother as King and then Napoleon himself as Emperor of an annexed Netherlands, but little about what this meant for those who had to live under the French tyranny.

It was perhaps fitting, however, that by far the largest painting in the Rijksmuseum is a large portrayal of Wellington receiving news at Waterloo of the imminent arrival of the Prussians. Waterloo meant their liberation.

I spent the week-end in the Netherlands. It was a pleasure to visit the EU now we have decided to leave. I no longer went fearing I would need to explain why we are dragging heels on joining the Euro, not accepting Schengen and not joining them in their political union. I would have no more self imposed moral obligation to state if asked why I thought the Euro scheme was a prime  generator of mass unemployment and political tensions. Now we are leaving we are no longer to blame for anything that goes wrong, no longer under some requirement to try and argue for a different route, no longer having to try to stop all sorts of changes we do not want which we judge to be against Europe’s wider interest. As good visitors we should wish them well and regard these things as their matters.

So I was relaxed and able to enjoy the continent more than when we were committed. Even better news was I found my Dutch hosts were great. They treated me as a friend, ally and of course as a valued customer. No-one mentioned Brexit. They were all charming, keen to make my stay comfortable, and willing to share their culture and cuisine with a friendly neighbour. I saw if anything an improved relationship. This was a private visit as a tourist.

I also had some surprises. Throughout my stay I did not see a single twelve stars EU flag. I was ready for it. Once again, now we are leaving, the flag does not worry me. It used to, as it was for me a symbol of our loss  of democratic self government. Now it is the flag of our continental friends. Its absence was curious. There were plenty of flags on display. They mainly proudly flew the Dutch flag from the public buildings, the tourist kiosks and the boats, interspersed with some City flags.

It was also curious in the museums I visited which traced the history of the Netherlands through into the present century I saw no mention of their commitment to the EU or the impact it was having on their lives. I am not drawing any conclusions from any of this.  I am at a loss to know why it is so.

I did find their presentation of their national story fascinating, and will talk more of it tomorrow. The recently refurbished Rijks Museum is beautifully done, and provides a stylish  backdrop to Rembrandt’s fine paintings and many other great works of art. The take away was we should get along fine once we have sorted out our new relationship with the EU.

When I organise car parking for an event, I try to arrange parking spaces at a 45 degree angle to the incoming flows. This seems to allow more vehicles into a given space, and certainly makes it easier for drivers to get in and out.

The other day I heard an interesting item on radio from a mathematician. He had worked on optimising the use of car park space, and had concluded that you can fit in 23% more cars in a typical surface car park if you organise one way flow into and out of the park, and use Angled spaces. It reduces the amount of spare space you need to allow cars to turn into spaces, and improve the flow of vehicles in and out. If you add more exits than entrances it reduces delays from traffic even more.

We are short of car parking in many places in the UK. Getting cars off the highway and into parks is good for cutting congestion, good for reducing emissions, and good for drivers trying to get to work, the shops, schools or wherever they need to go. I think Councils should look at this suggestion and see if they can improve the flows in their parks and raise capacity. The only cost is a bit of new line painting in most cases. It should raise them more revenue as more cars get to use the parks, and more are enticed in away from more contentious parking on the highway. Indeed, expanding car park places could be allied to some reduction in on highway parking where that causes obstacles and delays.

I have suggested to my local Council that they take a look at this.

Why do those keenest on the EU think the other members are so nasty and will want to damage us as they inflict self harm?

And why do they think all the laws of the Treaty we are renouncing legally still apply to us, yet the rules do not apply to those staying  in.

The other member states are bound by Article 8 of Lisbon requiring them to have good relations with us. They are bound by WTO rules against many tariffs and barriers. They will find it very difficult to agree a damage package, as many of them do not want to do that or fear retaliation.

I am much more positive about our former EU partners than the pro EU lobby. I have talked to various senior business and government people on the continent before and after the vote and found them keen to build, not undermine our trade.

ACTION PLAN FOR BREXIT

1. Send Article 50 letter explaining we are leaving using our own constitutional arrangements as per previous Article, which will be an Act of Parliament.

2. Offer talks on trade and tariffs if they wish to change anything, saying we are happy to offer them no change to current arrangements. In other words we stay in the Single Market as now, without the freedom of movement and the contributions. The advantage we have is when it comes to trading we are happy with the status quo, so they are the ones with a problem if they wish to change it.  This reverses the presumption of many commentators that the UK needs to negotiate with the rest of the EU, and is the supplicant. By definition we cannot negotiate with them over taking back control. You are not taking back control of your laws, money and borders if you need to negotiate this with other EU countries. By offering to keep all rules, laws and trade arrangements relevant to trade and investment we have no need to negotiate, unless they wish to impose new barriers on us. So we make them the generous offer of no change so they can continue to sell us so much more than we sell them, and see if they can reach agreement on barriers amongst themselves which we would then need to talk to them about. Were they to be able to agree tariffs or other barriers they need to  be WTO compliant, and it would allow us to impose tariffs on things like food and cars where they sell more to us. They are very keen to avoid tariffs.

3. Cancel EU contributions and incorporate the money in UK budgets, providing 0.6% GDP boost through the extra spending and tax cuts amounting to the £10bn net a year we currently send to the EU and do not get back.

4. Announce that as from the specified date any EU citizen coming to the UK to work is welcome to do so until we have left the EU, but will  need to apply for a work permit on our departure under the rules then applying worldwide on a non-discriminatory basis.

5. Develop and take work permit system for EU migrants to Parliament for approval.  The scheme would be based on allowing high level migration (qualifications and or pay rates) but controlling worldwide numbers of lower paid employees. It would allow for seasonal labour and labour where there was a shortage or skills gap the UK could not easily plug in the short term.  The Irish border would operate as today, but any continental EU migrant using that border would need a work permit to get a job.

6. Work out new fishing arrangements and discuss with other North Sea  neighbours both within and outside the EU

7. Launch Repeal Bill for 1972 Act with confirmation of EU laws as UK laws into Parliament.  The aim should be a short and straightforward Bill that takes back control of our laws in the first clause, and guarantees all current EU law in the second clause as good UK law, pending any subsequent decisions to repeal or amend items not required to meet our trade obligations with the rest of the EU. This would include early passage of new migration controls, and the cancellation of EU contributions.

I have  read some harsh things about David Cameron’s period in office. My view is somewhat different to the negative commentaries I have read, and probably different to David’s own view of his place in history.

To me he deserves to be written about as the most important Prime Minister since the end of the 2nd World War. His brave decision to allow UK voters the choice on the EU has made a big difference to our political future. It has saved us from the troubled prospect  of being alongside the Eurozone as it struggles to complete the political union it needs. It removes from us any responsibility to fund or bail out the troubled banks and regional economies of the Eurozone that are suffering from the present scheme. It means we do not have to keep on being the delayer, the negative influence on projects for more EU government.  It will energise us by allowing new policies on trade, business, budgets, investment, foreign policy and the rest. It will mean a more global connected UK with better links and influences worldwide as an independent country again.

Until this June I always regarded Edward Heath as the most important post war Prime Minister. It was his strategic vision of the UK being part of the emerging European Union which settled so much of our country’s future. It led to our law codes and policies on everything from energy to transport, from agriculture to fishing, from trade policy to taxation and budgets being completely determined or substantially influenced by the EU. I watched as successive governments found they had to accept a growing body of EU law. I saw Parliament push through volumes of legislation which it could neither amend nor stop. Large areas of policy could no longer be debated with rival views in elections, as they were settled elsewhere.

David Cameron himself will say his greatest achievement was gay marriage. He will rightly remind people of the need for steadying influences to get over the big banking and economic crash of 2008-9. The Coalition he led did launch a major recovery in jobs and business prosperity which was much needed, and confirmed a more tolerant approach to differing lifestyles much encouraged by other political parties too.

However, these will be less remembered than the big event of the EU referendum. Why did he do it? I suspect because he himself was no committed believer in EU political integration. He had many Eurosceptic thoughts and moments. He never wanted us to join the Euro, the keystone of the project. He did veto the Fiscal Treaty for the UK. He did take the Conservative party out of the centre right federalist grouping in the European Parliament. He did try to get the UK back powers of self government. He had no wish to join Schengen and was frustrated we could not even decide our own benefit payments.

It is curious at the end he put so much effort in trying to win the referendum for Remain. He could have stayed above the fray and said he would implement the decision of the voters. He was popular in 2015 for offering a referendum. He could have said the renegotiation had not achieved all that he wished – as it clearly fell short – and that he would let the people decide.

It looks as if he was persuaded to be so strongly Remain and to back Project Fear by George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, who took a joint prominent role in the campaign. It was this choice that led to his resignation. I suspect history will be kinder to him, when over the years ahead we see just what opportunity freedom has given us. We may well also see that the EU’s ultimate destination is indeed one which a large majority of UK people do not want. The UK was in it for the trade, and that is what we have to grow and develop from outside.

I don’t attribute a great deal to PMI surveys. I always thought the immediate post Brexit ones were jaundiced by the views of senior business people who did not like the result of the referendum and who expressed their disappointment rather than providing an independent view of what was going to happen in the economy. This month they have corrected for the pessimism of last month. I will still prefer to stress the actual numbers for output and incomes, which have been fine so far this year.

I just hope the Bank of England and the other commentators who put a lot of store by the negative numbers last month will put equal store by the very positive numbers this month! I look forward to their revisions of outlook based on these surveys that they like so much.

(The manufacturing PMI rose by 5.0 points, a record rise, to take it well into positive territory)

Getting out of the EU is not a negotiation. It is a  decision. We do not need Germany’s permission. Mrs Merkel does not have a veto. It is about taking back control. We should get on with it. We should continue trading tariff free, as I expect the other EU states to cone round to wanting.

The Prime Minister moved the language on yesterday with her opening statement to the Chequers meeting. She made clear that there are positive opportunities from Brexit which she wishes the Departments to work on. She does not want to backslide into some watered down membership.  Meanwhile it appears the mood in the country is shifting more towards people wanting the government to get on with implementing the decision of the referendum.

The latest ICM poll shows support for the Lib Dems at just 9%, the one national party that is very clear it disagrees with the verdict of the referendum and wishes to prevent it happening. It shows Labour on 27%, where the position under Mr Corbyn is that the verdict of the referendum has to be respected but with a party that is still in Remain mode, and a challenger who wants a second referendum on the negotiation. The Conservatives who now have the policy of implementing the referendum are on 41% and UKIP who also want to implement the vote on 13%. In England the Conservative advantage over Labour is 45% to 28%.

This polling backs up specific polling on how people now think about the vote, and shows that a majority of the country do want to get on with it. Of course it is important that the government, in advancing Brexit, does so in ways which respect the worries of many Remain voters. The government does need to do all it can to protect trade, build economic confidence and ensure a smooth transition. As uncertainty is the alleged villain, moving more quickly to resolve the situation should help reduce the threat from delay and the unknown.

If people had had second thoughts about their leave vote on a big scale as some suggest, you would expect the polls to look  rather different to this pattern.

I would like the government to send an Article 50 letter now . I am reissuing my draft letter which I published here before, in expanded form, as the media now seem a bit more interested in the Article and some have now read it.

Dear Sirs

The UK as a result of  a referendum has decided to withdraw from the European Union. In accordance with Article 50 we hereby notify the Council of our intention to leave.

Article 50 of the Treaty states clearly that “any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” In the case of the UK this means passing an Act of Parliament. The UK government has always confirmed when asked about the loss of sovereignty involved in EU membership that the UK Parliament remains sovereign because it can repeal the 1972 European Communities Act. The government is introducing a Bill to effect this change, and to transfer all EU law into UK law to provide immediate continuity.

The UK wishes to continue with strong trading, investment, business and other links with our friends and former partners on the continent. The UK is not proposing any new barriers to our mutual trade, and will be happy to continue with all the business and trade arrangements and business rules currently in place. These will be confirmed in UK law as we make the necessary constitutional changes. If the rest of the current EU does wish to consider placing new tariffs and barriers on our mutual trade, then we will be willing to come to talks to discuss how these might work. They would of course need to be compatible with World Trade Organisation Rules, and with Article  8  of the Lisbon Treaty which states that “The Union shall develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, aiming to establish an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness.”

The UK has voted to withdraw from the Treaty and is doing so in accordance with Article 50. It also does so under the Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties by invoking a “fundamental change of circumstances” compared to those when the UK consented to the Treaty.

Yours faithfully