On Saturday evening I attended with other Conservatives one of three party meetings to select our candidate for the Thames Valley Police Authority PCC elections.

The role of Police and Crime Commissioner has on the whole failed to capture the public imagination, with low turnouts in past elections for the role. This is a pity, as the job should be an important one. I myself was no enthusiast for this particular constitutional change, when Mrs May decided we needed to move on from Councillor Police committees to a directly elected head ,but now we have them it is important to try to make them work well.

The PCC is the man or woman who appoints the Chief Constable and who works with the Chief Constable on budgets and strategic direction of the police force. The PCC does not interfere in day to day policing or operational matters. It is not the PCC’s job to direct the police to pursue this criminal  rather than that one or to prosecute X and not Y. The PCC does not have the training and powers of a police officer to investigate and arrest suspects. It is the PCC’s job to understand what the pubic wants and expects of its police service, and to set priorities, targets and direction for the police in discussion with the Chief Constable. The PCC is both there to lobby MPs and Ministers for the extra money their Chief Constable wants, and to help the Chief Constable establish priorities and create more efficient ways of doing things in the light of the budgets available.

The selection meeting was a good opportunity to review current policing and to send some messages about what the public priorities are. I pointed out that the public say they  want more targeted action on drugs, gangs, street violence  and illegal settlements in particular. The candidates also wanted to discuss cyber crime and  social media hate speech. Some others wanted to talk about police numbers and the utility of beat policing.   I look forward to seeing the Manifesto of the winning candidate in due course

I have been sent a whip for this week which tells me I have to be present in Parliament until 10.30pm on Monday, to  7.30pm on   Tuesday,  7.30pm on Wednesday and  6pm on Thursday  – all three line whips. I was planning to be there anyway.Attendance at Questions, non Bill committees and other meetings at other times of day are  not whipped.

The whip does not tell me how they wish me to vote on any of those days, nor what the government motions might be. Indeed, Wednesday’s business is down as a general debate on housing where no vote is likely, and Thursday is down as a general debate on NICE and rare diseases, again  where a vote would be unlikely.

If as I hear on the media Wednesday turns out to be a motion over exit from the EU without signing the Withdrawal Agreement, I expect a three line whip to tell me to vote to keep so called No deal on the table. If Thursday turns out to be a motion over delay, I expect a 3 line whip to tell me to vote against delay, in accordance with the PM’s often stated policy that we will leave on 29 March with or without a deal. I assume there will be a three line whip for me to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement on Tuesday, which I will be unable to accept. The Manifesto we stood on as Conservatives said very clearly they would negotiate the Future Partnership at the same time as the Withdrawal Agreement. They should have kept their word. Signing a Withdrawal Agreement making many concessions to the EU without signing a Partnership at the same time would be crazy. We would be paying far more than the advertised £39bn for nothing.

The government wants Leave voting MPs to fear that Parliament will take control and stop Brexit if we do not vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. There is no need for that to happen if we reject the Withdrawal Agreement. The government will have to offer leadership if that happens, by explaining why we must not take no deal off the table, and why delay brings  nothing but more  uncertainty and trouble. The government can stop Parliament voting to change the law if it wishes. It now has to assert itself and say it will battle to ensure we leave on 29 March with or without the Withdrawal Agreement as promised.

That is why I have set out what the whipping should be for this week in the absence of any clarity from Mrs May.

The choice before us is No Brexit with a Withdrawal Agreement , or Brexit without a Withdrawal Agreement.

The Withdrawal Agreement is a very expensive lock up of the UK in the EU  in never ending talks, having thrown away our negotiating cards and our veto and votes.

“Simples” as the Prime Minister now says.

I am a supporter of the UK having good defence forces to act as a deterrent to any foreign power that threatens our home islands or our overseas territories. I also wish us to have expeditionary capability to intervene overseas where our membership of the UN or NATO requires us to help in a common cause, or where our own territories are at risk.

I do not wish us to intervene in every Middle Eastern conflict, in the way Mr Blair and Mr Cameron wished to do. There  is little evidence that some of our interventions had long term beneficial impacts, despite the brave and often successful short term military achievements. It needed political follow through, successful diplomacy and nation building, which often proved too difficult for a western country to help bring about.

Both the USA and the UK have been more circumspect about intervening in Syria. In the UK Parliament restrained the government, and in the USA the election of Mr Trump brought a mor sceptical approach to Middle Eastern conflicts to office. The long and disastrous Syrian war has continued without Western ground troops. Had the West committed ground forces it is difficult to see it would have been any less devastating or bitter, with the added complications of tensions between Russia and NATO and possible adverse reactions from many Syrians against  what would have been portrayed as a Western invasion force.

When we as a country  put our troops in  harms way it is most important they are given a feasible task and a cause to be proud of. In Syria there was neither on offer. All out war against ISIS would help Assad, an evil dictator. Trying to topple Assad would have helped ISIS, an evil terrorist group.  UK policy was in danger of veering between two unpleasant sides, or sought the largely non existent third way force that could arise and beat both sides, whilst upholding western values .

Sometimes the West has  to see there  are limits to what force can achieve in places rent by civil war and religious and ethnic strife. In the end these conflicts need more talking and more politics. Assads victory will create a poisoned legacy and leave  many displaced and unwelcome refugees, whilst prolonging the war would kill and render homeless yet more people.

Another Groundhog week looms, when Remain MPs who cannot accept the verdict of the Peoples Vote have another go at derailing Brexit.

We know that the first vote will be a reprise of the Withdrawal Agreement. Unless there is a great breakthrough in negotiations with the EU this week-end with the removal of the backstop provision, the government is likely to find plenty of rebels against its three line whip and the proposal will be defeated once again.

The government has not yet offered  Conservative MPs guidance on how to vote should there be subsequent votes next week about keeping no deal on the table, and a possible delay to exit. Maybe   they hope that by creating uncertainty about their intentions they will maximise pressure to vote for the Agreement. I do not see this working.

The government should whip its MPs to vote against taking no deal off the table. As the Prime Minister has regularly explained, you can only take no deal away by agreeing a deal. As others have explained, the right to leave without signing an Agreement is the main pressure point we have on the EU to try to get a better agreement.

The government  should also whip its MPs to oppose any attempt to delay Brexit. The Prime Minister has told us all many times that we are leaving the EU on 29 March. She also told us at the election and for many months thereafter that no deal is better than a bad deal, showing she was prepared to leave without a deal if necessary.

Some think the government could lose both of these votes. Both are clearly winnable if the government puts the effort in. There are Labour MPs who would be very reluctant to vote for a delay given the strength of feeling in their constituencies pro Leave, and given the promises Labour made in their Manifesto to back Brexit. It would be perverse if Parliament voted for delay given the pledges made by most MPs in the election, and given the support of the government with their DUP allies.  It would place Parliament at loggerheads with the 17.4 m majority in the referendum and leave many MPs trying to explain why they had switched from their pro Leave position to get elected . If they now said that they wanted to delay it probably with a view to a second referendum or for a long delay in the hope that people would change their minds, they would need to agree delay with the EU and change our legislation.

Were Parliament to vote against no deal and against the Agreement it would have voted a contradiction. In that circumstance the government should proceed to exit in accordance with the legislation Parliament has already passed. The legislation takes precedence over a subsequent motion.

If a group of MPs try to legislate for delay they will find it difficult. It would need the government to back them to give it  a serious chance of success.The issue would be enforceabilty without government agreement. Parliament could legislate to say it must not rain tomorrow, but it would have no meaning and would be unenforceable. Delay requires the agreement of the EU as well as of the UK government. If the UK government is against delay they could claim they could not  negotiate one sensibly.  The only way to ensure delay would be to bring the government down and replace it with one that does want delay. The courts are unlikely  to uphold a case against Ministers over such a political issue which can only be resolved by Parliament.

The Remain MPs and commentators are brilliant at pushing out an endless set of recycled Project Fear stories, each one more lurid than the last. They want to pose Brexit as a disease to be treated or a “cataclysm” to be managed. They seem to have demanded or influenced a lot of government Ministers and departments to ignore the potential and suppress the good news of what we can do and achieve with a clean WTO Brexit on 29 March.

The Treasury refuses to discuss how we could spend the £12bn a year net saving if we leave without signing the Withdrawal Agreement with its promise to pay for nothing for years to come. The Treasury refuses to spell out what an April budget would look  like when we could spend the Brexit bonus on a mixture of public service improvements, investments and tax cuts. This would  provide a welcome boost to an economy slowed deliberately by a strong fiscal and monetary squeeze over the last year.

The Business department claims to be worried about the car industry after a WTO Brexit, yet fails to take any action to reverse the obvious damage being done to our car makers whilst we are still in the EU by the squeeze on car loans, the big hike in VED and the attack on diesels. Why wont they announce no tariffs on imported components from any part of the world when we trade under our own tariff schedule after March 29? Why do they not cut the VED, and lift the more extreme threats to diesels?

The Environment department fails to set out what a UK fishing policy will look like once we have  taken back control of our fishing grounds, and fails to make fewer food miles and more self sufficiency in food one of its priorities in the legislation for our future.

Today it was confirmed that Eurozone growth only managed 0.2% in the fourth quarter, and was just 0.1% in the third. Annualising that gives you a low  0.6% growth a year, compared to the UK’s annualised 1.6% over the same half year.

Yesterday the OECD cut its projections for growth in most countries of the world. It cut its forecast for Germany to just 0.7% for 2019, and Italy to -0.2%. It put the UK at 0.8%. The heading for its release was “Growth is weakening, particularly in Europe”.

Now would be a good time for the UK to cut tax rates and increase spending on schools and social care, as we could do with a boost and have the scope to do so as we leave the EU.

Two  Treaties instead of one. That is Mrs May’s idea of leaving the EU! I have set out before the dangers of the Withdrawal Agreement, which would stop us taking back control of our laws, our money and our borders for at least another 21 months and quite possibly longer. The accompanying Political Declaration is the herald of an even worse Treaty to lock us into many features of the EU for all time, with  no exit clause.

Some parts of the Political Declaration are vague or contradictory. Does it mean a free trade deal with us free to follow our own trade policy, or does it mean effective membership of their customs union with limited scope to do better deals elsewhere? Does it mean respecting our own UK law codes, or does it in practice mean accepting EU laws and rules over many parts of our lives in order to meet their strong words that we must not compete unfairly and must observe a level playing field with them? Doesn’t a level playing field to them mean keeping taxes up, having the same regulations, and submitting ourselves to their laws?

Some of the text is detailed and finished. We must assume this would pass straight into any draft Treaty. Above all the EU has insisted on the same architecture for enforcing the Partnership Treaty as for the Withdrawal Agreement. They require a joint committee, where any matter raising EU law will be determined by the European Court of Justice!

That’s no Brexit. That is continued subservience to the EU and its powerful court. I did not vote leave to end up in 2 EU Treaties that recreate many of the features of our membership. The EU sees the Partnership treaty as a kind of EU Association Treaty. These are the devices they sign with countries like Turkey to gradually to  bring them in line with the EU as a prelude to possible membership. That is not what Leave means.

I went to the Urgent Question on knife crime on Monday. MPs all round the Commons are concerned at the escalation in these crimes of violence in various communities in the UK and keen to see more done to reduce and control it. I asked the Home Secretary what action he is taking to spread best practice from those towns and cities that are making progress with prevention to those with the worst problems, and what can be done to ensure extra money and personnel going into policing and responding are being targeted in the right way to tackle this trouble.

During the exchanges there was a general feeling that the Glasgow approach has had some success. Some favour wider use of stop and search powers to remove knives from young people, including random searches without grounds for suspicion. Some think more police in general is what is needed, whilst the Prime  Minister has suggested that there is no correlation between police numbers and knife crime.

Clearly having an active police presence in areas of our towns prone to knife crime attacks at times of the day and night when they are most likely must be an important part of the response. We also need to see that this is not a problem which the police on their own can solve. All the young teenagers caught up in this violence have parents or guardians , teachers, adult wider family members, youth and sports club organisers and others who know them and take an interest in them. Any one of these adults could say or do the right thing to reduce the chances of that young person carrying a knife or being drawn into gangland activity.

Some young people are drawn into gangs out of  a  sense of adventure. Some are groomed by older gang members. Some end up in a gang out of fear. Whilst young people do not want to be subject to home detention, adults in the family do need to take an interest in how much time their children spend out on the streets and what risks that might bring to them.  Young people that have been looked after by the authorities or are the products of a broken home are particularly vulnerable to gang grooming according to the Children’s Commissioner. The gang culture can lead to drugs and other criminal activity. Once lines have been crossed the young person can be forced into continuing with a way of life  they would not have chosen had they known how it ended, of if they had enough support at the beginning to say No.

Both parties are prey to de-selection motions against sitting MPs. This has been brought about by changes of mind or stated  belief by Conservative MPs over EU exit, and by a combination of factors over the style, policy and direction of the party in Labour.  The imminence of a no confidence or de-selection motion is one of the drivers of recruitment to the so called Independent group of MPs. The 8 Labour and 3 Conservatives so far recruited by this new organisation shelter together from such moves by  their old parties. The Conservatives and Labour   in turn can get on and choose replacements for them for the next election in their seats now they have gone.

On the Conservative side I read that Sarah Wollaston and Heidi Allen were likely to face action by their former Executives or wider Associations.  Anna Soubry had defeated  one no confidence move, but faced a petition of others protesting about her perceived change of approach to Brexit. It is put out in the press  that at least five MPs  all face significant opposition within their Conservative Associations. I do not know  whether these stories are true.  It is true that  some local Conservative parties  are angry with MPs who have deviated from the Manifesto position on leaving the EU. That said we would leave on 29 March 2019, with or without a deal, and stated that No deal is better than a bad deal. All Conservatives fought the last election opposing the second referendum on the EU which the Lib Dems championed. It is always difficult if an MP changes his or her stance on crucial matters like these after an election but does not carry his or her local party members and electors with them for that change.

On the Labour side there is the added issue that the party leadership has now changed the party stance on the second referendum. Labour was in agreement with the Conservatives in 2017 at the election that there should be no second vote and we should get on and implement the decision of the People’s vote in the summer of 2016. Maybe as many as 70 Labour MPs are said to be unwilling to support the new referendum policy, as they represent heavily Leave voting areas and promised to support getting out  in their election literature. This includes a dozen or more Shadow office holders.  Labour too is riven with disputes over anti Semitism, over the tough  style of the leadership towards non believers in its project, over the general drift to the  left. Recent flare ups over whether Labour is anti semitic have not helped relations between members and MPs, nor between different local party organisations.

The party leaderships face a dilemma. If they encourage de-selections of people who clearly have drifted from the leadership line they could end up creating a bigger Independent Group, thereby nudging it towards forming a proper party and fighting elections. The more risk of de -selection the more likely an MP is to jump first. If they do not impose some discipline over the party line and leave people alone within the party who have little or nothing in common with the rest of the party they encourage poor discipline within the Parliamentary party and have a battle with the local associations. Whipping  breaks down and the leaderships are left looking weak and less important. There should be a big difference in treatment for  an MP who occasionally votes against a 3 line whip to keep in line with the party’s Manifesto and in line with the membership who supports him or her , and an MP who regularly votes against a 3 line whip in order to deviate from  the  Manifesto. If an MP has used a popular Manifesto set of proposals to get elected and then unilaterally  tears up those promises it causes understandable stress within the party.

Both leaderships are likely to muddle forward on a case by case basis, with events often under the control of local parties rather than under national direction. The Conservatives have far fewer MPs seeking to deviate far from the Manifesto line, but more at risk as they need to keep up their stated party numbers in order to qualify as a coalition government with a majority of votes in the Commons.  The Conservatives will  have a  problem if  the leadership seeks  to deviate from the Manifesto line itself on the issue of leaving the EU. The  overwhelming majority of party members and a significant number of MPs want to stick with it and keep pledges made to voters about no deal being better than a bad deal and taking back control by leaving the EU, its single market and its customs union on 29 March this year. Labour’s leadership too is moving away from the Manifesto, and that is splitting their party.