We heard a lot about the need to keep three dissident pro Remain Cabinet members in the government to justify the change on possible delay. Meanwhile yet another good Minister from the Leave side understandably felt he had to resign given the continued drift of policy away from our Manifesto. This repeats the pattern so far.

Not a single pro Remain Cabinet Minister has resigned. The PM has instead lost from the pro Leave side a Foreign Secretary, two Brexit Secretaries,  and a Work and Pensions Secretary from the Cabinet because they did not see the Chequers proposals and the Withdrawal Agreement as compatible with the Manifesto pledge to leave. The government has also lost two Brexit department Ministers, a Northern Ireland Minister and now a Fishing and Farming Minister from the Leave side. There have been 15  resignations from PPS and Vice Chairmen of the party roles as well from the Leave side. 23 resignations over the same policy is trying to tell the government something, and shows how important this matter is that so many will give up interesting jobs they wanted to keep  to make their point. I doubt there has ever been a policy in British history that has caused so many people to resign, without generating the necessary change of policy being sought.

The latest loss of George Eustice is a serious blow to the government. George is well versed in agricultural and fishing matters and was piloting through important changes for those industries so they can do better once out of the EU.  He has been both patient and willing to compromise to help the government , but now rightly feels there has been too much drift away from the Brexit we set out in the 2017 election. He will be a welcome addition to the backbench campaign to secure a proper Brexit, but is a further shift of expertise and talent from the government to the backbenches.

I see no point in delaying our exit from the EU. I have never understood why we would be able to strike a good deal after March 29 if we were unable to strike a good deal in the 2 years 9 months of delay so far in implementing the decision of UK voters. Leave voters expect Parliament to implement the decision, not to seek out ways to undermine , delay or cancel it.

Yesterday the President of France and the Prime Minister of Spain both seemed opposed to the idea of delay in Brexit. France might consider it if the UK had changed her mind about leaving and now wanted a second referendum. Mrs May rightly continues to rule that out. Neither favoured a delay or further negotiations about the draft Withdrawal Agreement.  Spain like Ireland strongly believes the Irish backstop has to stay in place unless and until both the EU and the UK agree it can be removed.

There is a general briefing line coming out of Brussels that any delay could not  be longer than two to three months anyway.  They argue that the UK will cease to be represented in the European Parliament from 2 July when the newly elected Parliament takes over. The UK is not planning to field candidates, and the EU has decided to redistribute some of the UK seats to other countries and to abolish the remainder. If the UK is not in the Parliament it cannot legally be a member of the EU as it is no longer represented in the body that is an important co legislator with the Council, responding to the agenda and draft laws of the Commission.

Mrs May has always made clear the UK will not  be contesting the next European election. It is a good fortune that the old Parliament expires shortly after the official date for Brexit. There have been no moves from rebel MPs in Parliament to seek to reinstate UK candidates or UK seats, which would of course require the consent of the EU. Whilst nomination papers do not have to  be in before April, some party campaigns have already begun on the continent and parties are preparing for the new distribution of seats resulting from the UK’s departure. The longer the UK leaves wanting to fight the election the more unreasonable it would be to other EU members to seek to join in when others  have planned their election campaigns around the configuration of the Parliament without the UK.

I assume neither the Labour nor the Conservative parties will be wanting us to contest the EU elections. Were they to do so it would create great anger amongst the Brexit supporters in the country who would see it as breaking promises to leave. It would create ideal conditions for pro Brexit parties to do very well at the expense of traditional parties.

Delay would make the UK look weak. It would increase and prolong uncertainties. It would invite the EU to demand even more concessions. The UK government always said No deal is better than a bad deal. If you issue such a statement you have to be prepared to carry it out.

Mr Corbyn must have been  forced into a corner over a second referendum. He had wisely held out against it and sort of kept his party together and his poll ratings up. He then gave in just after 8 MPs left mainly over de selection , unpleasant treatment from their party and anti Semitism. We read his advisers thought a second referendum would be the way to stop more dissenters. That is not necessarily the case, as MPs  leaving seems to have more to do with the style of the party , the threat of deselection and a wider range of issues than the EU. It does mean, however, he will lose a lot of Leave voters who stuck with the party in 2017 in the belief that Labour  now supported exit.

I have not met or heard from any Leave voters who think we need a second referendum. The campaign to hold one is of course a movement of Remain voters who cannot accept the verdict of the People’s vote. The Remain MPs  spend their time slanging off Leave voters by saying we were too stupid to vote properly or patronising us by saying we  were misled or not given the true facts. Allying himself to this group drives a new wedge into his party, alienating Leave voters and putting many MPs in a difficult position having promised their Leave voters Labour backed leaving. Given the way they treat us Leave voters it is difficult to see why any of us would want to change sides and join them. A second referendum looks like a hopeless mission. Even this Parliament should vote it down. Were one to be held why wouldn’t Leave win by a bigger margin, given all that Remain has said about us, and all the false forecasts they have come out with? The hardline Remain MPs are remorselessly negative, run down our country, think the UK can do nothing for itself, and take the EU’s side in any negotiation. These are not becoming characteristics for those who wish to represent most UK voters.

Labour has not defined the question for its  referendum, but have said it will include Remain, so it is a re run of what we have already v0ted on. The only question to be resolved is do they want a proper WTO exit as an option, or would they seek to deny Leave voters even  that? The last thing Leave voters could accept is a referendum between staying in as a full member and staying in some limbo land with a pretend Brexit under the cosh of a Withdrawal Agreement and in due course an Association Agreement.

The immediate polling is dire for Labour as a result of all this. It looks as if they have plunged well below 30%, with a worse result if the so called Independent group becomes a party that contests elections. That group could poll into double figures, damaging Labour and the Lib Dems but not polling enough to  hold the seats of those MPs who have decamped to it. Any party which ignores the wishes and views of 17.4 million voters will struggle for support.

The Brexit bears love blaming any factory closure or lost job on Brexit when it is usually industrial change or company misjudgement. Every western country is witnessing the collapse of the High Street, and most are seeing distress in their car making businesses, given the huge pace of legislative and technical change. These same people do not balance their commentaries by looking at where all the extra jobs and investment are coming from. It is coming, of course, from the new winners.

Since the Brexit vote the UK has attracted substantial new investment and jobs, with net employment well up and unemployment down. How different it proved to be compared to the false forecasts of the Treasury, Bank and IMF. One of the sources of those jobs has been the major US tec giants. Apple has announced a 500,000 square foot new headquarters in the new Battersea development. Google is taking a new 650,000 square foot facility at Kings cross. Amazon has a new HQ at Shoreditch and is making substantial investments around the country in new distribution facilities. Facebook has set up a new London engineering hub. A host of new technology companies have clustered in parts of the UK, finding the skilled workforce, market and access to finance they need to grow.

The UK economy will do better once we have left if we spend the money we save and if we enact laws and taxes that are good for business and for people who want to get on in the world by setting up businesses and employing others. Chagne is happening at a fast pace. A successful economy will need to embrace the digital revolution. The EU is fighting it with regulations and austerity economics.

Innovation and flexibility are at a premium.Who will run the AirBnb of car leasing? Who will produce autonomous vehicles? Who will discover the new mix of services and some retail that will underpin a modern High Street? Who will adapt more old buildings of the pre digital era to contemporary uses? Who will develop and sell more labour saving robots and tractors to pick fruit and plant seeds? As we leave the EU we can do things better and recapture lost markets with new ways of doing things.

I am trying to get Ministers in this government to see the huge opportunities and to start planning for them. At least Liam Fox yesterday announced a series of penal tariffs imposed by the EU on things we don’t make or produce for ourselves will come off as soon as we leave, making some items cheaper.

I have been asked to spell out more details on the features of the WA other than the Irish backstop which make it a bad deal.

The first point is it contradicts the Conservative Manifesto and 2017 government policy of negotiating the Withdrawal issues and the future partnership together. You must stick to this to get leverage from concessions made on Withdrawal to benefits in the future partnership. Nothing should be agreed until everything is agreed. It is why we have got a bad Withdrawal Agreement, and are being set up to get a bad future partnership as well.

The second is the provision to pay them very large sums of money, stretching for many years into the future. No sensible person would sign an agreement which allows one side to send bill after bill for years after we have left, claiming we owe them money under many general heads set out in the Withdrawal Agreement. The Treasury estimate of £39bn is likely to be far too low. Some of the future liabilities stretch forward a hundred years, relating to payments to people not yet born who might come here before the end of the transition period. Paying to belong until 2020 opens up more future commitments under the 2019-20 budget, with liabilities until 2028. The settlement on the European Investment Bank is mean to the UK. Every conceivable future liability for the EU is recorded with as much liability as possible attaching to the UK under various clauses.

The third is the institutional architecture for the Agreement. Until we do leave the UK faces the full panoply of existing and additional EU law enforced by the EU’s own court. The UK in transition will have no veto over big new advances in EU controls, and no ability to form qualified minority blocking groups to stop an unfavourable law passing under qualified majority provisions. The EU would be at liberty to legislate in ways that harmed our economic interests and helped theirs and we would have to comply. We would even not be able to prevent the imposition of new taxes on us.

Disputes over the money or over the laws fall to be resolved by a joint committee. In the event of there being no resolution, an independent Arbitration panel decides the matter. However, if at issue is the interpretation of EU law – which is likely in most cases – that is settled by the European Court of Justice who instruct the Arbitration Panel what to say! Who ever thought the UK should accept such a one sided arrangement?

The fourth is the State Aids provisions and applicability of Competition law. This will give the EU the right to authorise state aids to attract business away from the UK, with the right to block us doing the same back.

The fifth is the continuing influence the EU will have over our welfare and benefits system.

There are many other features of this Agreement which are one sided, as it is a thorough piece of work by the EU determined to take as much of our money as possible for as long as possible, and keen to keep as much legal control over us as possible.

The Agreement does not even live up to its name and billing. It is meant to just be about the past and so called withdrawal costs and issues, yet a big chunk of it including the Irish backstop, protected trade names and other issues is about the future trading arrangements and partnership. The UK negotiators should have pointed this out and insisted on dealing with all the future issues at the same time, as the government promised to do in 2016-17.

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