One of the main arguments ahead of the budget is the one about what changes you get in revenue if you put tax rates up and if you cut tax rates. This is especially important and hotly contested over business taxes. UK corporation tax revenues increased as George Osborne cut rates. The Republic of Ireland collects proportionately much more tax from business by having a much lower rate than us and attracting many large businesses to locate more in the Republic. Indeed, in 2022 Ireland collected  24.4% of its total tax revenues from corporation tax with a 12.5% rate. The UK only managed 9% of tax revenues with a 19% rate.

There are also studies showing that if tax free shopping is allowed for visiting foreigners the UK will collect more tax overall, as it will boost  taxation on shop profits and shop employee incomes and on the hotels and other facilities the visitors use. UK revenues have been very sensitive to overall economic growth rates. rising more than official forecasts when times are improving, and producing less revenue than expected when growth falls away.

I noticed in the recent Sunday Times survey of economic forecast outturns the official OBR performed relatively badly in the table for 2022, reminding us how difficult it is for Chancellors to  make  the right policy  judgements when the supporting forecasts can be well off.

Angered by the cost of living squeeze and sky high energy prices, many people are  now hostile to the whole idea of company profits. It is encouraging them to demand ever higher windfall taxes to confiscate more or less the whole profit, and leads on to demands for  nationalisation. It is perhaps time to remind ourselves what profit making enterprises have achieved to raise our living standards, to provide well paid jobs and drive growth. It is also time to ask why countries like Venezuela that went the whole way in nationalising and imposing price controls ended up in poverty with large shortages. Many Venezuelans  are fleeing the country to live somewhere where profits are allowed and  living standards are higher.

The UK’s own experience with  nationalisation was poor. A nationalised steel industry put in five large integrated plants but could never sell enough of the steel given their cost levels and spent the  next two decades arguing over how many people to sack and how many plants to close. The nationalised railway had a poor record on safety, punctuality and service. It sacked many staff as its market share of the travel market plunged downwards. It lost a fortune for taxpayers who had to pay the bills. A nationalised phone company fell years behind the USA where competing private sector companies leapt ahead with better service and newer technology.  In the UK  there was little choice of phone, long waits to get a line and rationing including having to share a line with the neighbour for many customers. The electricity industry relied on coal power stations when cleaner and more efficient gas was available. The industry leapt ahead driving costs and emissions down by putting in combined cycle gas plants as soon as it was privatised. The coal industry was in long term decline, with bitter disputes about job losses and mine closures.

Wherever price controls have been tried investment falls and supply reduces. This makes the problem worse. Rent controls seem like a great and popular idea, but as rent controls come in so people withdraw properties from rental and shelve plans to build more. This usually makes the property shortage worse and results in higher rents in the medium term than if controls had not been introduced.

The combination of double corporation tax, a planned rise in the rate of business tax by 31%, and windfall taxes that will be imposed for several years whether there are windfalls or not is putting companies off investing in UK oil and gas production. These taxes will not only mean we import more and become ever more dependent on high and volatile world prices, they will also mean we collect less revenue in future. We will lose out on taxing good cashflows from oil and  gas fields under UK control, and watch as we pay high taxes to foreign governments to import their energy instead.

Profits are used to pay for investments in extra supply, which in turn sustains more and better paid jobs. No profits, means no investments. Fewer investments means lower living standards.

Facts4eu have published an updated version of my analysis of the Protocol issues on www.facts4eu.org/news/2023 feb redwood on independence.

It is difficult to write about a deal where there is  no text, and where the UK government assures us there is currently no deal over the Northern Ireland Protocol. Many of us would be delighted if there is  an agreement to free the flow of goods within the UK to and from NI to GB, and even happier if there is an agreement to lift the way the EU wishes to impose its laws on NI that do not apply in the rest of the UK. So what are we to make of the fevered speculation that there is a deal in the offing?

The first scenario is I am afraid the least likely. In this the EU has at last realised its demands to have a border between GB and NI, and to require NI obeys all new EU laws does violate the first 3 Articles of the Protocol itself and prevents Unionists from returning to Stormont. They have kept their decision to make  a revision to their demands secret whilst they get buy in, but we will be pleasantly surprised and will be able to welcome the  new deal when announced. It will remove the democratic deficit , uphold the UK internal market and will look to the Uk to ensure compliant goods only flow to the EU across the invisible  Irish land border.  Mutual enforcement where the UK enforces EU standards on all exports to the EU and vice versa has always been the sensible outcome. There is then no need for a physical border into NI  nor into the EU. The UK has never proposed a  new physical border into the UK from the Republic.

The second scenario is  the EU and UK are close to having agreement on how the UK should manage an internal border, with relaxations for the bulk of goods which are internal trade within the UK. Without any agreement on EU laws and  their enforcement by the EU’s own court it is difficult to see how this could persuade the Unionists back into power sharing. Were the UK government to press ahead with this it could get it through Parliament because Labour has said it will support more or less any Agreement, but it will not resolve the larger Good Friday Agreement issues with the Unionists. It also leaves open how much electronic paperwork companies would need to produce to satisfy EU demands for data on internal UK trade and whether this will still impede our internal market.

The third scenario is there are still genuine talks underway concerning the democratic deficit issues but the EU is reluctant to move. All the time the EU insists on imposing its laws and ECJ judgements on NI the UK government should decline to settle, knowing it will not sort out the Good Friday matters.

As the PM  takes up arms against a sea of troubles it is a good idea to determine which are the battles to fight and where his powers as PM can make the most difference. His five aims set out clearly at the beginning of the year were a good start.

The PM is  with all Conservative MPs the custodian of the 2019 Manifesto. The central theme was to get Brexit done. The millions of Brexit voters who backed us did not just mean to complete our tortured exit,  but to follow up to secure some Brexit wins. There is still much to do to deliver.

The EU has behaved badly to Northern Ireland, distorting the meaning of the Protocol to enforce laws on NI against its will, to impede GB  to NI trade and to refuse to respect the UK internal market and sovereignty of our country clearly set out in the Agreement. Worse still, the EU has undermined  Stormont and the Good Friday agreement. There can be no compromise on these central constitutional matters. Unionists expect the UK to stand up for their interests as the EU does for the Republic. The PM  should be friendly but firm with the EU and hasten the passage of our NI legislation. We are quite entitled to legislate an answer all the time the EU refuses to understand why current arrangements subvert the peace agreement.

The PM’s first priority he told us is to stop illegal migration by small boats across the Channel. We now have the freedoms to legislate and to instruct our courts and border authority accordingly. The legislation should be clear and targeted on the specific issue of illegal arrivals and can include a clause telling the courts that the Act overrides any other laws and rules that courts might like to apply, including any European Court of Human Rights intervention.  We held out against votes for prisoners without leaving the ECHR and can exempt ourselves from any ECHR attempt to impose illegal travellers on us.

His second priority must be to  get growth back into the economy. His wish to get borrowing down in five years time is best advanced by getting growth, as growth brings higher revenues and less benefit spending. His wish to get inflation down will be assisted by more investment in additional supply of things like energy and food which have fuelled the inflation.

His third priority is to cut NHS waiting lists and waiting times. That requires better management of the substantial extra money and additional people committed to the NHS in the last three years.