The government has won all but one of the votes on the Bill. The most important vote, the one to approve Clause 1 which repeals the 1972 European Communities Act, passed by 318 to 68, as Labour accepted they needed to allow the repeal to permit Brexit.

On Wednesday Amendment 7 passed against the government’s wishes. The argument was one of detail, not of principle. Both government and its critics accepted that Parliament is back in charge over Brexit. Both accepted that any UK/EU Agreement which might be reached should be voted on in Parliament. If Parliament is content with such an Agreement it will then need primary legislation to bring it into effect.

So why was there a disagreement at all? The opposition did not accept Ministerial assurances, and wanted to write their own text into the Bill to reflect the common understanding. The government offered to produce a compromise at Report stage, but Parliament wanted to get on with it.

Underlying this fairly technical debate was a series of other agendas. The Liberal Democrats openly seek to delay and disrupt Brexit as they wish to reverse the public decision. Many Remain supporting Labour MPs want to slow down and water down Brexit because they do not really accept the judgement of the people. Practically every Labour MP would like to defeat the government, as that is a usual wish of Oppositions. Conservative MPs who voted similarly can best make their own case as to why they did so.

There is now discussion of the government amendment to place the date of exit in the Bill. I hope the government do continue with this amendment, and work to ensure its passage. I recommend it for a reason which ought to appeal to most MPs, whether Remain or Leave voters. We need the date in the Bill to ensure legal continuity. Parliament passed legislation to notify the EU of our withdrawal under Article 50. That Article makes clear we will leave automatically on 29 March 2019, two years from the letter. It is therefore vital that we have in place a proper legal framework for that event.

Labour MPs now say that we might instead request the permission of the other 27 to stay in the EU for longer, to assist the negotiations. It is difficult to see why we would be able to negotiate a good deal on April 1st 2019 that we had not negotiated in the 2 years since we sent the letter. It is important not to hold out the idea of delay to slow down the talks. Nor should we assume that the other 27 would all individually consent to the UK staying in on current terms for a further period to try to get a better deal.

This would be a more difficult vote for Labour MPs to oppose, given that it is central to ensuring legal certainty and confirming EU employment law for example in UK law. Given also the enthusiasm of the government’s critics for Parliamentary democracy, surely our leaving date is worthy of primary legislation.

I have just had to delete a number of these as I do not have time to check them all out.

I recently met with a number of constituents to discuss school funding. Following the meeting, I took the points raised up on behalf of those attending. I have now received the enclosed reply from the School’s Minister:

Under Labour and the Coalition the UK made frequent use of its defence capabilities in the Middle East, alongside Presidents Bush and Obama. In the last couple of years the UK has been rightly more cautious about using military force in tense and difficult civil wars, as has the USA.

There has been a general shift in western thinking away from sending in troops to police war torn territory on the ground. Instead smart western weaponry has been used in support of other local and regional forces attempting to influence the outcome of these conflicts. The West has used a variety of manned aircraft, smart bombs, missiles and drones to kill people on the ground and damage property in support of ground forces provided by others.

This development of western policy towards the Middle East is leading to new thoughts about what kind of forces the West will need in future, as the weapons designers and manufacturers are placing more emphasis on unmanned systems, remote control and robotics. I wish to explore how the UK can respond to these changes.

The first question to answer is what should be the UK’s policy aims.

First and foremost must be home defence. By a combination of our diplomacy, foreign policy and military deterrence we wish to keep our islands from military threat. We also need to make sure we have the force needed to defend ourselves in the unlikely event of a threat materialising.

Second comes our contribution to NATO. NATO remains the West’s prime mutual defence alliance. The UK wishes to contribute properly to this, and to benefit from the protection the offer of mutual support gives us.

Third, the capability to go to the aid of territories and countries within the UK family, as we had to for the Falklands in the 1980s.

Fourth should be the ability to join international coalitions of the willing in pursuit of UN aims. There will be times when the UK should join forces to resist an invader or to counter the illegal use of force somewhere in the world. As a member of the Security Council the UK has to be willing to contribute to missions where we have the resources and interest to do so.

There is active discussion of what is money with the advent of crypto currencies. There are also those who see gold and silver as money, given the ability to convert these metals into coins and to trade them.

Money has three main characteristics. It is a means of exchange. It is a unit of account. It is a store of value. Most of our money today takes the form of an entry in an electronic ledger at a bank. We accept transfer of electronic money to our account as payment for our work or pension. We pay for many items by offering an electronic transfer from our bank account to the account of someone selling us the good or service.

Most of us rely on the monopoly fiat currency of the country where we live. We know that we can draw money out of our bank account in the form of bank notes, which are accepted as payment universally in our domestic economy. A bank note or a bank account credit possess the three characteristics of money. We can pay for anything with them. We can keep the notes or ledger entry as a store of value for future purchases. We use the value of the money we own to assess the prices and values of goods and assets we might buy or own. Assets, goods and services are all priced in the local money.

Money depends on trust. We trust UK banks to hold our money because they are large businesses with substantial reserves. We know that the Bank of England regulates them and stands behind them. The Bank of England has the power to create additional money if the system needs more liquidity. Our deposits in commercial banks are backed not just by the bank we use, but by the Bank of England standing behind that bank, and by the UK state and taxpayers who stand behind the financial system. There is a deposit insurance scheme for deposits up to the stated limit.

In some overseas countries trust has been badly damaged in their local money thanks to gross mismanagement. A country which manages its economy and banking system badly can end up with a run on its currency, lowering the external value of it too much. This in turn can lead people to want to be paid in foreign currencies, and even to trade in dollars instead of their local money to create some stability of values. A hyperinflation coupled with a collapse in the external value of money in a country is a destructive process.

Those who distrust all fiat currencies look for some other store of value. Gold has often been their choice. This precious metal has had a volatile past, with periods of large gains in value against paper currencies interspersed with periods of decline. Holding gold entails costs of storage and insurance. To use gold as a payment system normally requires selling the gold and using the proceeds in a paper currency to complete a purchase. Like paper currencies, the efficacy of gold rests on confidence and its popularity with users. It is not widely accepted as direct payment and is not normally used as a unit of account for valuing items.