On Friday I visited the new Cobbs at Englefield food shop and restaurant. I was most impressed by the modern facilities, the positive and friendly approach of the staff and the enthusiasm of Tom Newey who runs the overall business that  has made this investment.

The shop offers a butchers, a delicatessen with a good selection of UK cheeses, a wine merchant, and a cafe and restaurant for coffee , tea or a meal. There  is good quality produce, including  a lot of locally and UK  sourced product.

The business  employs 25 local people, and adds a new shop to a growing network of Cobbs  outlets. I wish all involved every success.

Remain loses the EU referendum so demands a second one.

Remain loses the vote in  the Commons to hold a second referendum, so proposes to demand another vote in the Commons on it sometime and carry on campaigning for it.

Remain lose various votes in the Commons to keep us in the single market and customs union, so demand more votes on the same thing

Remain loves democracy only when the vote goes their way.

I have received an update from the Home Secretary on the measures the Government is taking to tackle serious violence:

Dear Colleague,

Tackling serious violence is a top priority for the Government. We must do whatever we can to stop the terrible murders and stabbings we have seen on our streets. The Government’s Serious Violence Strategy, published in April 2018, set out a very significant programme of work, however, it has become clear that we must go further in view of the continuing level of violence, especially after the fatal stabbings of teenagers we have seen in recent weeks. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Spring Statement today that there will be £100 million additional funding in 2019/20 to tackle serious violence, including £80m of new funding from the Treasury. This builds on the roundtable I had with senior police officers last week, where I asked them about the resources they needed to fight violent crime.

That is why the majority of the investment will largely go towards supporting police forces, especially where violent crime is impacting the most. These forces will take immediate steps to make our streets safer through an increased operational presence and patrolling supported with better intelligence.

It is also important that we recognise that greater law enforcement on its own will not reduce serious violence. We must continue to focus on prevention. That is why this funding will also support multi-agency Violence Reduction Units. In crime hotspot areas, and elsewhere, the new units will bring all the necessary interests and sectors together locally to focus on the effective measures that must be taken. We will prioritise investment in targeted police capacity to tackle serious violence and support for Violence Reduction Units in our Spending Review discussions.

The announcement today follows the largest annual increase in police funding in England and Wales since 2010 through the 2019/20 police settlement. It represents an increase in total police funding of up to £970 million if all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) use the full precept flexibility we have provided. I am very pleased to see that the vast majority of PCCs are making use of their full precept flexibility. Many are proposing to use this increase in funding to support additional recruitment, including almost 3000 new police officers.

The first role of Government is to protect the public and that is why I will always be on the side of the police and why we are taking determined action to stop serious violence.

Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP

On Thursday evening we at last got a vote in Parliament on the People’s Vote proposal, recently adopted as Labour policy.  It was massively defeated by 334 votes to 85. Labour officially abstained, lacking confidence in their new policy.  The majority against was  249 votes. The Peoples Vote campaign now say this was not the proper vote! Isn’t it interesting how every time we have a  democratic vote which they lose, it does not count. Any vote you have only  counts as long as it is the answer they want.

On these numbers even if all remaining Labour MPs had voted for the second referendum it would still have gone down to a substantial defeat. 318 votes is a majority in this Parliament, after deducting  7 Sinn Fein MPs, four tellers for each division and the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Opposition to a second referendum runs higher at 334, a comfortable margin of 16 over an overall majority of the Commons.

Those in the EU who fondly imagine the UK will be like other countries facing unpopular EU measures and will roll over and hold another referendum to change its mind need to understand this vote.  There is no likelihood of this Parliament voting through the complex legislation for a second referendum given the big majority against the whole idea. Brussels can rule that out. One uncertainty dogging the UK  has been removed.

If there is no prospect of a second referendum which would be the only way of trying to reverse the first, there is less value in delay from Brussels point of view. They used to say they would allow a delay for an attempt to change the minds of the public but not just for delay’s sake. Now they are suggesting they might countenance a long delay to put pressure on MPs to sign up to their penal Withdrawal Agreement. If many people  had such an advantageous deal for them on the table they would try hard to get the other losing side to sign it. That is a good reason not to do so.

I will produce considered pieces on these two topics over the weekend.

The immediate headlines are

1. A big majority of Conservative MP (188) and an a bigger majority of Conservative members oppose delay. If the EU agreed a delay it could only go through with Mrs May and her minority of Conservatives  in alliance with Mr Corbyn and Labour. Seven Cabinet members oppose delay and other Ministers, leading to resignations if the PM were to want to press it.
2. There is no agreement amongst delayers over how long and why.  If the EU wont renegotiate anyway, how would the UK get a better deal after March 29 than in the 2 years 9 months before? How would delayers in Parliament explain it to voters who were promised Brexit by b0th main parties in the  2017 election ?