The UK has moved on from creating new money to buy government bonds, but it’s still mighty fashionable elsewhere. Sweden has just announced a new programme. Japan lives by it. The Euro area is pumping out new Euros like there’s no tomorrow. Interest rates remain close to zero in the USA, UK, Euroland, Switzerland, Sweden,  and Japan. At the Bank of England the Chief  Economist muses about some future need to create money, impose negative interest rates, and drop the cash so it can be spent. In China the authorities still have scope to cut their interest rates and relax rules on bank credit to stimulate their economy. The economic world is summed up in the phrase lower for longer about interest rates.

Risk averse savers see this as a nightmare world, where they can get practically no return on their deposits. Other savers have made good money out of rising share and bond prices, as the official money created has been pumped into markets and pushed asset prices up. Borrowers have been benefitting from the low rates, with many able to borrow or refinance at low rates of interest for long time periods. The main winners have been most advanced country governments, able to spend and borrow large sums at very low rates of interest.

So how does this all end? Does it end? Is it just the new normal? Crisis low rates imposed in 2009 have been in place ever since in most cases.  If the west is now more like Japan after her excessive boom and bust at the end of the 1980s, we can look forward to more of the same. Japan has had low interest rates and intermittent programmes of money creation for 25 years.

My problem with all this monetary experimentation in the Euro area, Japan and elsewhere is that it does not directly resolve the underlying problem. The main reason rates are low and these overseas economies are weak is the state of the commercial banking system. All the time the banks are weak or are made to be extra cautious by the regulators, there will be insufficient credit growth through the normal channels. If companies cannot borrow enough to expand, if individuals cannot borrow enough to buy new cars, homes and other  major purchases, if the corporate sector is forced to run a surplus by prudent banks  the economies do not grow. Too much credit is a bad thing. Too little credit makes it difficult to grow, stifles enterprise and stops people accumulating assets for the future. The UK banks are now in stronger shape and more capable of financing the recovery. The pity is they were not sorted out immediately after the crisis, and a bigger pity that Labour’s regulators allowed the mega mergers which created RBS and Lloyds HBOS in the first place. Now it’s the turn of other parts of the world to get their banking systems into recovery shape.

I wish to reassure our German friends.  I see no need to impose a charge on Germany to go on selling us so many goods if we leave the EU.

In return for this friendly and comradely act, I am sure the Germans would not seek to impose a charge on us for importing their vehicles, or for selling them a few back.  The Germans know they sell us twice as much as we sell them.

There is no need to pay a surcharge to buy their imports in the form of sending a contribution to the EU budget. We do not have to send a contribution to the US or Chinese budgets in order to trade with them, though they are both  bigger and more powerful than us.

The UK voters will be happy to carry on trading with the rest of the EU on the same basis as today if we leave the EU treaties. We are not seeking to leave to take our deficit elsewhere. We will not want to  seek to find Asian or American sources for goods we currently buy from the European continent.

The day after we leave everything will carry on as before with our trade. The only difference will be that both the EU and the UK will be able to negotiate changes bilaterally to our arrangements, and the UK Parliament and people will have the last say on the line the UK takes in any negotiations. The UK will gain its place on the World Trade Organisation. Both the EU and the UK will remain bound by WTO obligations to keep tariffs down and markets open. The best way of proceeding is to keep in place current trade arrangements until we negotiate better ones.

Germany has made clear they would not wish to face a special 10% tariff on car exports to the UK. We would not wish to impose one, and assume Germany with the rest of the EU would therefore not impose one on us.

Our trade is not at risk from Brexit. Scaremongering by some pro EU people shows how devoid of positive arguments they are to persuade us to stay in.

Too few people in the UK understand just what vast powers the EU already holds over us and the UK government. More begin to understand the power they hold over our borders and welfare policies. This week in Parliament MP s highlighted the growing grip over taxation.

MPs want to get rid of VAT on tampons, as these are necessities for many women. The UK Parliament cannot do this, as the EU controls this and many matters related to VAT.

The government in the debate promised to lobby the EU about the tax, as they are not masters in their own Treasury and need the agreement of the other 27 countries and the Commission to alter this.

When Britain foolishly imposed duties on the American colony that the taxpayers did not accept it triggered a rejection of British authority over those territories. Let us hope that as more people come to see the high costs of the EU and tus unpopular use of wide ranging powers they will also wish to restore our democracy.

I wonder if the EU will give in on this matter, given their wish to keep us in paying their bills and obeying their laws.

If and when  the UK leaves the EU there is no need to accept any EU migrants the UK does not choose to let in. Euosceptics do not recommend accepting Norwegian type arrangements with the EU. We just want to restore UK democracy which means removing all EU bossiness and controls which stop us making our own democratic decisions.

One of the maddest things about our congested road network in the UK is the way the authorities chose to place most of the crucial pipes and cables for water, electricity, gas and telephones under the carriageway and then seal them in under piles of rubble and tarmac. Each time they need to replace or repair expensive roadworks are undertaken, disrupting the highway, increasing the costs of the utility business, and creating tensions between the utility customers as road users and the utility managements.

I am trying to persuade Councils and utility operators to place all  utilities under verges or pavements when laying new ones, preferably in robust and secure conduits with access. We have long since stopped burying the cables and pipes of an office  in the plaster of the walls, preferring to run them in architectural conduits with easy access usually under floors. Why not do the same for our main utilities?

Wokingham Borough has said it is adopting this for its new developments. Thames Water has said it likes the idea. It could be done for replacements as well as for new areas. Once installed the future costs of maintenance, repair and replacement will be greatly reduced. Above all our very limited road capacity will not be so readily reduced by utility works, and fewer people will be disturbed by the ominous sound of a pneumatic drill once again cutting up the highway.

I am taking this up with other  major network providers. It’s a way to save utilities substantial money over the longer term, and to start to cut down on the number of times our roads are disrupted to improve or maintain basic systems unconnected with the roads.

The closures of perfectly good coal burning power stations are coming thick and fast thanks to EU rules requiring their premature closure. The older nuclear stations are also approaching their shut down dates. The UK has lost its normal margin of reserve capacity, and is now close to the point where on a cold day in winter with no wind we will have to import sufficient  power to meet demand. The ability to import is becoming part of the calculation of how we keep the lights on. This is in accordance with the EU’s wish to create a unified energy market across the EU, so all EU countries come to depend on each other and look to Brussels to control their energy policies as a result.

The UK government is well aware of the dangers to security of supply. Some of us have been arguing about this for years, knowing that it takes years to plan, design and build new generation capacity. Last week the government did decide to authorise a new large nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. The investment will be made by a lead French investor and a supporting Chinese investor. UK taxpayers and electricity consumers will not have to put up any money for the planning and construction phases, but the government is going to guarantee a high electricity price once the station is working. This is the price of pursuing a low carbon economy, as the price of gas capacity would be lower.

The nuclear station on its own will not be enough to take care of all the closures and any increase in demand we might need in the years ahead. The UK has to plan for its rising population, and for the EU passion to switch a lot of transport, both rail and road, to electricity from primary fuels. I would like to see the government announce new gas power stations. They should represent the cheapest and easiest way of increasing generating capacity, and may well in future be fuelled by gas found in the UK.

Unfortunately, owing to the decision to rely much more on wind energy for baseload power, any gas or other similar power will be dearer. As the wind farms take precedence when the wind is blowing, the grid cannot guarantee demand to new gas power stations. They are needed for cold days, days of high demand, and days with no wind. This makes their power dearer as well, as the consumers have to pay for excess capacity anytime the wind is blowing.

Once you interfere as comprehensively as the EU has done in energy provision you create difficulties in keeping the lights on, and you make energy considerably dearer. Now the best we can do is a quick fix of more gas generation at a price. Meanwhile industry has been warned that if we do have high demand days with no wind, they will be asked not to use power at peak times.

The Commons considered and passed changes to tax credits On September 15th by 35 votes  as part of the Budget. Last week the Labour opposition highlighted them again, and the Commons voted down their motion critical of the changes that had already been made. Tomorrow I am told we have to consider them again on an Opposition amendment to the Welfare bill.

I strongly support the policy of cutting tax for people, and at the same time reducing the tax credits. It makes little sense to me to take money off people that they have earned, and then to give it back in a tax credit. That is two handling charges and two elaborate bureaucracies to take the money away and give it back. I also accept the policy of seeking to boost wages. This really requires rising productivity so the pay rises are affordable, as is now beginning to happen.

I want people to be better off as a result of all the changes. I want them to earn more, and keep more of what they earn. The government has twice shown it has the votes to put through this policy, which makes sense to a lot of voters. There remain two issues of implementation. By how much should the tax credits be cut back? What is the timing of tax credit changes and how does this relate to higher pay and lower taxes?

I have not myself done the sums. I have urged the government to pursue the policy in a way which means it is always w0rthwhile working, and in a way which maximises the number of people who are better off. The  government should share with us more of its numbers on the pace of these changes.

It was good to hear the Prime Minister confirm that if we vote to leave the EU that is exactly what we will do. I know some of you worry that you could vote to leave, win the vote, and then be cheated out of leaving. I have always said leave means leave, and that is now official.  The  sooner the better, when you look at the current very high cost of remaining a member, and look at the shambolic immigration, energy and currency policies the EU core is pursuing.

The most recent UK figures on debt and deficit come as part of the UK’s reporting to the EU on these important matters. We are reminded in the official communication that

“The Protocol (to the Maastricht Treaty) on the excessive deficit procedure defines two criteria and reference values with which member states should comply. These are a deficit (net borrowing)to GDP ratio of 3% and a debt to GDP ratio of 60% ”

The latest EU reports show that 14 member states still exceed the 3% control on budget deficits, and 16 remain with debt over 60% of their GDP. Some are way beyond the targets. Italy and Portugal have debts at more than 130% of GDP. Spain and the UK remain well above a 3% deficit target amongst the larger EU countries.

The total Euro area has a debt to GDP ratio of 92%, and the EU 28 a ratio of 86.8%. The Euro area as a whole has now got its deficit down below 3%. The UK in the year to March 2015 ran a deficit of 5.1%.

I read that the left of centre parties who won the Portuguese election have not been allowed to take office because they have dared to challenge the Euro disciplines. The Euro once again overrides democracy.

One of the main arguments in the Euro area is when and how will the Maastricht criteria be enforced? All the talk of a Euro Treasury follows hard on the introduction of the so called EU semester, an attempt to intensify the reporting and the pressure to conform with the required controls on debt and deficit. It is difficult to run a single currency without imposing a strong discipline on total government borrowings in the single currency area. Surplus countries dislike borrowing countries attempting to free ride at lower interest rates based on their prudence. Borrowing countries resent the tight controls on their borrowing the surplus countries wish to establish. So far the Maastricht criteria have not been observed by a majority of states. They are nonetheless an important constraint on worse performance, and they are now once again in the centre of the argument about establishing a Euro Treasury.

Meanwhile it is difficult to see why the UK has to report its debt and deficit to the EU at all, when successive governments clearly have no wish to hit the EU targets, and when there are rightly  no penalties for failure to do so. The most recent figures show the UK deficit gradually reducing, with tax revenues growing more quickly than the growth in public spending, as planned.

What is curious is that the left wing UK parties in the UK who thunder against “austerity” by which they mean cuts and controls on public spending and borrowing never fulminate against the more intense public sector austerity the EU requires under its Maastricht criteria. Why do they not spend some time and energy trying to change that?

After my speech in the Commons on justice for England BBC Scotland wanted me to give interviews. There was as always no call from BBC England.

I agreed to do a radio interview for BBC Scotland yesterday morning. The wish was to debate the SNP false allegations of second class MPs and possible damage to Scotland and the Union. Understandably there was no interest in whether these proposals help England enough or are fair to England.

In England Radio Berkshire asked to interview me. They too took the SNP agenda and sought to confine the interview to the issues of so called second class MPs and alleged damage to the Union. They did not ask a single question about how it might help Berkshire. They did not ask if it gave enough power to England. They did not ask how we might want to use the power. They did not grasp that the settlement of the money is going to be a crucial issue which is only partially dealt with by Thursday’s vote.

If the BBC wishes to pose as broadcaster for the whole Union of the UK it has got to learn the lines of the English as well as the Scottish. It needs to probe and ask questions from an English point of view as well as from a Scottish point of view. It needs to be voice for England and to offer us some English coverage. We need a BBC England.

Labour made the situation worse by their behaviour in the Commons on Thursday. Few Labour MPs came in for the debate. Their response was led by a Welsh MP, with Welsh MPs more prominent than English on their sparsely populated benches. Their threadbare arguments were similar to the SNP, complaining about second class MPs and an alleged inability of the Speaker to read whether a bill or spending item related to the UK or just to some part of it.

Labour failed to speak for England. Most of Labour’s English MPs were notable by their absence. They allowed a debate on England to become more a debate about Scotland. Again there was no BBC England to ask them why they don’t care about the injustice of devolution to England, or to prise out of them a policy on how England should in future be looked after on our fast changing constitution.