I supported the Manifesto of 2017, as amended by the Prime Minister during the campaign. She rightly dropped the social care measures but kept the rest.
On the EU the Manifesto made a lot of sense. It said

“As we leave the EU we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union
“We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the 2 years allowed by Article 50 of the Treaty of European Union.
“We will not bring the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law.
“We continue to believe that No deal is better than a bad deal for the UK.”

It also confirmed that we will take back “control of our laws” and “We will control immigration”. “We will pursue free trade with European markets, and secure new free trade agreements with other countries”

It is difficult to see how an MP who supported this Manifesto can support the current Withdrawal Agreement. All MPs should remember the words of the government leaflet to all households before the referendum:

“This is your decision. We will implement what you decide”

Listening to government Ministers presenting plans to ensure a smooth exit without signing the Withdrawal Agreement, I am struck by the lack of ambition and enthusiasm for Brexit. It is all presented in terms of damage limitation. Their wish is to ensure continuity. They exaggerate the worries and see none of the opportunities.

I am all in favour of Day One continuity of law, and voted for that in the EU Withdrawal Act. That should now all be behind us. There is no need for Parliament to make heavy weather of the Statutory Instrument changes, which are technical and not designed to change any policy or remove any legal protection. By now we should be debating the opportunities that running our own government and choosing our own laws can bring.

Lets take the case of medicines. The UK has a strong position in the global pharmaceutical sector. It accepted a European regulatory system whilst we were in the EU, but has quite enough critical mass in medicines to be able to run our own well respected system as we used to. If we became a prime global regulator other countries would wish to use our system, and we could drive world standards forward. There is money to be earned out of being a centre of excellence for regulation and for research and production.

Lets look at the opportunity to rebuild our fishing industry, as long as we become an independent coastal state this year before more damage is done to our fishing grounds by a common policy which allows too many industrial trawlers from abroad to take fish from our seas.

Lets propose changes to tariffs and agricultural support that nurtures a larger home industry in temperate food, as we used to have before we joined the Common Agricultural Policy. There are too many food miles from the continent for products we could more easily grow for ourselves.

Lets look at how we could improve the data rules and regulations to foster more tec based new businesses in a variety of sectors.

Above all, lets spend some time debating how we wish to spend all the money we will save once we have left. This economy needs a boost from lower tax rates and from more being spent on some core public services. Brexit gives us the chance to do just that.

I attended the Home Secretary’s statement about UK citizens seeking to return from Syria and other terrorist hotspots earlier this week. He made clear the government’s displeasure that some UK citizens had left the UK to support or actively participate in terrorist movements. He reminded them that they chose to go to countries or territories where the UK warned they would have no Embassy or Consular support and where the UK state could not help them if they got into trouble.

He reminded us that he has powers to cancel a UK citizen’s passport and citizenship if they are dual nationals who have joined terrorist organisations or murderous activities. If a person is only a UK national he cannot make them stateless, but if they wish to return to the UK they will face investigation and prosecution for crimes they may have committed during their period in support of terrorists. He can also impose restrictions on their passport and travel plans.

I asked him to tell me how the UK authorities will investigate and prosecute. So far it is a small proportion of returners from Syria that have been prosecuted. He agreed that it is not easy gathering evidence and sifting the truthfulness of claims about what people may have done in a Syrian warzone. Given the mood in the Commons he was keen to say he would be investigating and seeking evidence, and could also legislate further where a sensible redefinition of the terrorist crime could help bring people to justice.

It is difficult to see how after the event the UK can satisfy itself about all the actions of citizens who deliberately put themselves in harms way and were probably on the side of a banned terrorist group that has threatened the UK as well as occupying parts of Syria. The government is working with allies we are told to try to collect more evidence as the conflict takes place, but this is still difficult where the UK is not involved on the ground in the war.

What do you think can and should be done? The UK state has every right to protect us from returners who have learned the crafts of terrorism and have ill intent towards us. It also needs to be fair to returners who were not  terrorists and who may not harbour any evil towards us.

The MPs that are defecting to the Independent group do not get on well with democracy. They all dislike the result of the People’s vote in 2016. They now wish to change their views on big issues, compared to the Labour and Conservative Manifesto platforms they stood on in 2017. If they are keen on democracy and a People’s vote, they should offer themselves for election in a series of by elections soon.

An MP who changes party allegiance is not obliged to resign to create a by election. Indeed, if an MP resigns from his or her party to be independent because he or she thinks their party is failing to carry out promises they jointly made at the last election there is not even a moral pressure to hold a by election. But if an MP wishes to change party,  or to be a so called independent on a very different platform to the one they stood on for their original party, there is plenty of moral pressure to ask the electors their view.

When Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless decided the Conservatives were not Eurosceptic enough they resigned to join UKIP.  They did the decent thing, stood in by elections and won. It did not work out well for them personally, on the assumption they would have liked to carry on in Parliament.  Mark  lost his seat in the following General election, whilst Douglas ended up in substantial disagreement with the Leader of UKIP and also ceased to be an MP.

The media seem to think the Independent group will morph into a new party. As it does so there will be more pressure on its members to answer why they do not  submit themselves to an electoral test of what they are doing. This is particularly apposite given the belief of many of them that the public should be offered another vote on the issue of the EU. Wasn’t the 2017 General election another vote on the EU? I remember the election being dominated by the Brexit issue. 82% of the public voted for the two main parties who both said they would implement the result of the referendum. The Lib Dems made the case for a second referendum and slumped to 10% support.

I would be interested in what name you think would be most appropriate for this new grouping?  Would it be  unkind to suggest the We know better than the voters party, or perhaps the Not the Labour party.

Tax revenues were up by  a massive 9.7% in January, creating a record surplus in a month where the government usually collects more money than it spends. Public borrowing is running 46% lower than last year and is on target to hit the Chancellor’s wish to cut it sharply.

Stamp Duty revenues are down for the year so far and down in January, reflecting the continuing  impact of higher rates. The government should cut the rates to help the market and would then collect more cash from this source.

Income tax revenue was  particularly strong.

The government is squeezing the economy too much and could do with some  cuts in tax rates  to promote growth. The right tax cuts would also boost revenue. Property taxes including business rates are particularly damaging at a time when we need to see more redevelopment and change of use as the digital revolution sweeps through our High Streets and industrial parks.

State debt as a percentage of GDP is falling, and now stands at 62% after deducting the debt the Bank of England has bought up

Yesterday we had a moving and important debate in the House about the rise of anti Semitism in the UK. Most of us agreed that it is a nasty racism which no-one in a decent democracy should have to confront. James Brokenshire made a powerful speech for the government setting out how we must all take action to prevent it. The Labour spokesman Barry Gardiner apologised to the Jewish community on behalf of the Labour party and confessed that there has been a strand of virulent anti Semitism within Labour that they need to control. He spoke with passion and feeling.

The new Independent grouping of Labour MPs were well represented. They gave good support to Luciana Berger who catalogued the abuse she has faced from Labour party members and social media for her Jewish ancestry. Another group of active Labour MPs sitting on the two back benches behind their Shadow Spokesman also delivered powerful asides and interventions, demanding that their party did more than just offer an apology but tackled the backlog of cases that have been referred to the National Executive alleging anti Semitism. They showed considerable sympathy for their former colleagues and expressed similar feelings. They were keen to see the expulsion of Derek Hatton, recently admitted to the Labour party again.

Into this emotional rift came the resignations of three Conservative MPs from the Conservative party. They too wish to be seen as independent, though it is not clear they are the same kind of independent as the Labour group. Their reasons seemed somewhat different to the Labour explanations given the day before. They have yet to articulate exactly what they want to stand for, or why they have moved away from the 2017 Conservative Manifesto with its clear pledge to leave the EU and its customs union and single market in order to  fulfil the mandate of the EU referendum. They say in general terms they object to the very Brexit which helped get the Conservatives elected, and that they think the modernising agenda has been overthrown. They also dislike austerity, which ironically came from the modernisers David Cameron and George Osborne that they professed to like.

The Labour independents have said they are not forming a new party and will not be contesting elections. The polling assuming they would shows them capturing just 14% of the vote, mainly at the expense of Labour who go down to 28%, and squeezing the Liberal Democrats down to 7%.  The sense from yesterday is the main reason they have split from Labour is one of attitude and tone from the leadership. They dislike Mr Corbyn and dislike the intolerance they find in the party. Others might follow them judging by the reactions of some other Labour MPs during the debate.

The Conservative party will come together again as soon as we are out of the EU. It has been the delay in our exit for 2 years 9 months that has allowed the argument about how and when  we leave to fester. The Labour party has deeper seated disagreements within it which pose a problem for the leadership. At Prime Minister’s Question time neither leader wanted to mention the difficult topic of defections.

Honda’s market share has fallen a long way in recent years in Europe. From selling 311,000 cars at the peak in 2007, last year it sold just 136,000.  The Swindon plant is only running one of the two lines, and at under 150,000 cars a year it is a small plant by world standards. Honda Europe is one of the casualties of the top down electrification policy pursued by the EU and UK governments. As Honda explained :

“This is not a Brexit related issue for us. This decision has been made on the basis of global issues. We have to move very swiftly to electrification of vehicles, because of demand of our customers and legislation”.

Honda wishes to concentrate its investments in large plants making modern vehicles that meet changing legislation in the places where they sell most cars. That is Asia and the USA, not Europe, where their market share is now small. This is one example of the massive change being forced on the industry by governments with their requirement to sell many more electric vehicles. It is interesting that Honda mentioned legislation as an important factor, underlining that this abrupt change in the profile of cars to be sold results from a top down instruction from legislators as well as from some customers having a genuine preference for electric vehicles.

It follows hard on the heels of Nissan’s decision to make one of its diesel cars only in Japan without adding  a UK line , given the big drop off in demand following adverse legislation and threats of more to come from government. Nissan does have decent overall  volumes in the UK and is committed to further investment in its UK business.

I forecast particular difficulties for the UK car industry in 2017 when the  Bank of England adopted a tough stance on car loans, and the government  launched a tax attack on new vehicles whilst  pursuing an anti diesel policy. This was particularly damaging to the UK based car industry which had built centres of excellence for clean diesel engine technology here in the UK with government encouragement. Investment in car production is a long term business. The big switch in UK government attitudes to diesels will have a price that goes beyond its obvious impact on the large section of our car industry that makes diesel cars. Companies  want consistent support for the industry and a predictable legislative and tax background, whether they are making diesel or petrol vehicles.

I trust the government will explore alternative uses for the Honda factory and work for the workforce. It could get a contractor that supplies vehicles to the state and or does deep maintenance on  public sector vehicles to undertake it there, for example.

I am deleting contributions  to the site  that wrongly ascribe the planned closure of Honda Swindon to Brexit given the very clear statements made by Honda that is about other matters. I will comment in more detail tomorrow.

The workforce at Swindon is skilled and capable, and I wish to see the government and Council offer all the help they can to ensure that in the run up to closure good jobs are found to replace the lost Honda jobs.

Seven Labour MPs resigned from their party in protest over its anti Semitism and general attitudes. Several of them might not have been re selected as Labour candidates, such is the gap between their thinking and that of their former party’s leadership. None of them intend to put their new attitudes and affiliations to the test of the electorate in a by election. So far they are not saying they are forming a new party, and there are no current plans to put up Council candidates in May or put up a candidate to  fight a Parliamentary by election when there is vacancy.

Their policy platform is also so far unclear. They come from the Blairite pro EU wing of the Labour party, but did not wish to play up support for a second referendum. Perhaps they grasped that that is not a very popular idea, and does not look very democratic. They were wishing to annex the idea of democracy to themselves, but would have some problem in explaining why they reject the biggest vote in our history when the people answered  the question Leave or Remain on promise of Parliament implementing the decision.  They said they did not wish to join the Liberal Democrats who showed that having as your main distinctive policy  overturning  the referendum on the EU commanded only 10% support in the last general Election.

UK politics has been substantially changed by the Brexit vote. It led to the two main parties defying the trend in the UK from 2010, and the trend on the continent, of  declining vote shares for the two traditional left of centre and right of centre parties. Labour and Conservative together leapt up to 82% of the vote at a time when on the continent the two traditional parties in most countries is  now well below 50% together and in some cases as in France down to under 20%. Labour gained votes by moving leftwards whilst saying they would implement Brexit, Conservatives gained votes by pledging we will leave the EU. The election did not show a large demand for a new party pro the EU along Lib Dem or Blairite lines.

UK politics this year will be about Brexit. Both main parties have to assist it or suffer electorally if they do not. Both promised voters they would implement the referendum, and both said they wanted an independent trade policy for the UK which means leaving the customs union. The Independent Group wisely avoided making Brexit the main point of their break from Labour, as they would be putting themselves in a difficult and unpopular position if that is their main grudge. They were after all  willing to stand for election on a pro Brexit ticket in 2017. They also need differences that will last longer than the time to our departing the EU. So far they struggle to define them, but doubtless will do more to set them out in the weeks ahead. The biggest point of difference they highlighted is one of tone and approach to people, with their plea for a kinder more inclusive type of politics than they find in the modern Labour party.

Being the UK’s Single Market Minister during an intense period of EU legislating when they said they were “completing”the single market turned me from a mild sceptic to a strong critic of the undemocratic approach of the EU. It was quite clear watching and listening to the EU officials during that period that their aim was to take more and more powers of self determination away from member states in the name of the single market. All you needed for a sigle market was the rule that a product of merchandisable quality in one country could be offered for sale in another with suitable labels.

They had a doctrine of the occupied field. Everytime they put forward a regulation or Directive in a new area it meant they established competence or power over that area. Quite often the first piece of legislation did little and was unexceptional. The reason was they merely wanted to capture the jurisdiction without at first using the power in ways that alarmed or upset. That came later, once competence was established.

My job was offen a negative one. The UK government wanted the single market, but also often wanted to resist bad or needless legislation in its name. It was also the case that often the draft regulation was based on a Franco German way of conducting business, and not on a UK way where that was different. I then had to argue for a change of draft to stop UK businesses being made to change their model or being declared illegal.

All this should worry the present government about the Withdrawal agreement. If the UK signed that as currently drafted there would be no UK vote, voice or veto on any law the EU wanted to pass in all the areas of its competence. That means that every business sector and company in the UK would face a prolonged period when the EU might deliberately or inadvertently legislate in ways that damaged their business models with us being unable to stop them.

Why don’t the UK business bodies raise this issue? Why don’t they raise the problems for our car industry created by the attack on diesels, car loans and the costs of purchase? UK industry has suffered from past EU regulations and taxes, and could be made to suffer more.