The mark of a good business deal is that it leaves both parties a little unhappy. If my post-bag after Theresa May’s Brexit speech in Florence is anything to go by, that makes it hugely successful. There are those who would like to have told the EU to get stuffed a year ago, who view the Implementation period as a sell-out. They do not want to pay a penny of any kind now or in the future no matter what our legal obligations may be. And there are those who hoped that the speech would have marked the beginning of the end of Brexit and they too are disappointed that our three main ‘redlines’ – over the European Court of Justice, Immigration and the Single Market/Customs Union - have held firm.

The speech has enabled the negotiations to resume, and offered a mildly conciliatory note to the Messrs Juncker and Barnier, while keeping all bar the most rabid of Brexiteers on side. There are of course details to be clarified.

First, I am quite content that there should be an Implementation period- to ensure our relatively seamless departure. But I am uneasy that it might last ‘about two years’. It must be two years to the day. And surely we cannot be subject to any new rules and regulations which the EU create during that period, when, after all, we will no longer be members and therefore unable to influence decisions. We must be subject to the EU rule book as it is in March 2019 and not thereafter. And surely we must be allowed to deregulate and sign our own trade deals during that period?

Second, I do not mind paying our dues during that period, but am uneasy about Mrs May’s commitment that we should ‘honour our obligations’. What are they? And what do we get in return for that commitment?

Third, I am happy with the notion that we ‘Register’ immigrants during the Implementation period (which we are perfectly entitled to do anyhow under existing EU immigration rules.) And a mutually convenient arrangement for residents in the EU and Britain thereafter seems fair. But that mutual agreement must be subject to British Law and British Courts, and the ECJ must have no say in it (even if British judges continue to ‘take note’ of its views).

So it strikes me as being a reasonable offer both from the point of view of we Brexiteers, and also those who are seeking a ‘softer’ Brexit than some of us would like. It is quite a business-like compromise. Of course we have no idea whether or not- or to what extent the EU will accept what she has proposed. This must not be an ‘opening offer’ which then slips under negotiation. We should know more within the next week or two how the EU reacts. But if they do not do so, then we should in my view still ready ourselves for departure with’ no deal’ (which remains in my view much better than a ‘bad deal’.)

Overall it’s a good step forward, and I broadly welcome the Florence terms, but I will be scrutinising events from here like a hawk.

Boris has an unerring instinct for putting the cat amongst the pigeons. Yet he does so, in my view for the best of all possible reasons- namely to advance matters in which he believes. He argues that we must not be brow- beaten by the EU negotiators into paying £10 Billion a year after we leave in order to secure access to the Single Market. The fact is that the UK’s visible trade deficit with the EU was £89 Billion in 2015. (i.e. we imported £89 Billion more from them than we exported to them). The trade deficit with Germany alone was £31 Billion. So why should we be forced to buy our way into a trading deal which so massively benefits the people from whom we are buying goods? It would be more logical if they paid us £10 billion rather than vice-versa.

Boris’s article was about more than that, though. He is right to believe that we must get away from our insistently negative approach to Brexit. You hear it from the BBC all the time. “Record low unemployment figures announced this morning DESPITE Brexit.” Those who love the EU have relied on Project Fear from the start. Do you remember their threats to have an Emergency Budget, and their gloomy prognostications that the Stock Exchange would collapse, every family would have to pay thousands extras, and there would be general disaster all round?

Well, I am sorry to disappoint them, but the fact is that the economy has never been stronger. The Stock Exchange is trading at a record high, inward investment is booming, unemployment is close to its lowest in real terms since records began. Since 2010, 3 million more people have got jobs, and more young people and more women are employed than ever before. There are 32.14 million of us employed, or 75.3% of the population; unemployment is at 4.3%. Here in North Wiltshire there were 510 people unemployed (mainly between jobs), at 1.1% of the economically active population one of the best of any constituency in Britain.

It is high time that we stopped approaching Brexit in such a negative way, and as Boris enjoined us start to look forward to the great economic and other advantages which it will bring to our country. I hope that the Prime Minister’s speech tomorrow will do just that, and that it will be reported positively by the media.

Boris, of course, is just back from a mission to the British Overseas Territories in the Caribbean devastated by Hurricane Irma. He joins me in paying special tribute to the volunteers, many of them from this area who have, through a Yate, South Gloucestershire  organisation called SARAID (Search and Rescue Assistance in Disasters) been helping out in all sorts of ways. It is that spirit of volunteering, of concern for our former colonies, of determination to play a bigger role in the world which is so typical of we Brits, and we should venerate it, and thank and congratulate those brave people giving up their time and risking their safety to help out people in greater need than us. Britain can play a great role in the wider world. SARAID shows us one way we can do that.

My Mother-in-law, Peta Keeble is a Yorkshire farmer’s wife with a courage, feistiness and directness which outshines even that formidable breed. “My friends and I are all hiding under the bed”, she confided in me this weekend. “North Korea, ISIS, Brexit, Trump. What is there not to be frightened about?” As Parliament reconvenes, albeit for a tokenistic two week sitting before the Party Conference Season (which, at a time like this I would have thought we could easily manage without), that perception of looming catastrophe should be at the forefront of all of our minds.

Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear test on the very day that President Putin was visiting Chinese President Xi was a carefully planned piece of ritual humiliation. Kim knows that China will not cut off their energy supplies, which would create economic collapse, and turbulence and worse at China’s borders. So they are children playing ‘chicken’ with oncoming vehicles. But the very fact that they understand international diplomacy and strategic positioning in that way demonstrates that leaving aside Kim himself, they are not mad. Their entire economy is one quarter of the amount of money Americans spend on pet food every year. One wrong move and they would be annihilated; and the US too is well aware of the catastrophic side consequences of any such action by them. It’s all about deterrence rather than action. It’s a complex game of three dimensional chess amongst America, North and South Korea, and especially China. Let’s hope it all ends in a stalemate.

Something of the same could be said about the Brexit negotiations. They are at a difficult stage with Barnier playing ‘tough cop’ and David Davis a sort of Clint Eastwood figure staring him down. They must both remember that old maxim that all good business deals end with both parties being a little unhappy about it. So of course we will pay out some kind of divorce payment. I would like it to be nil, M. Barnier £100 Billion. If it ends up somewhere between the two, people like me will be a bit unhappy, and so will the EU. After all at the moment our net contribution is £13 Billion pa, so even £30 or 40 Billion would represent only three years or so payments.

ISIS remains an existential worry, perhaps especially as we come close to a military victory over them in the Middle East. Unless we deal with their ideology and their funding they will become a multi-headed hydra under the sand, and will emerge with vicious consequences across North Africa, and of course here in the West. So we must not rest on our laurels, but use every sophisticated weapon we have to de-radicalise their people, and stop their use of, for example, the London money markets, at which they are great experts.

Human beings are intelligent. We, by and large, know what is good for us and what is not. We may take belligerent stances, test the other side to the limits, argue hard, fight hard; but after it all we find a way through the forest, and we know what is best for our people. So I would just say to Peta Keeble: “It’s worrying – of course it is. But there is a solution, and good people and true will find it.” In the meantime, let’s get out from under the bed.

The Brexit Bill, whose Second Reading we agreed on Monday will transpose all of the EU laws and rules and regulations onto the UK Statute Book on the day we leave. That will ensure the greatest possible degree of continuity, and will, I hope, assuage the concerns of all of those people who argue that Brexit will mean the end of their favourite EU rules - for workers’ rights, environmental protection and so on. Those things will be identical the day after we leave to the day beforehand, after which the UK Parliament can at its leisure, delete, amend or improve the corpus of EU law we have inherited. That process is an absolutely essential part of Brexit, and of ensuring a seamless handover to UK control, and so I strongly supported it in Parliament.

One aspect of the Bill has, however, caused a degree of angst both amongst we supporters of Parliamentary democracy vis-a-vis the Executive; and also amongst those who would like to scupper the Brexit process as a whole. It’s the so-called Henry Vlll Clause in the Bill which will thereafter allow Minsters to amend or repeal the EU legislation  not by primary legislation- heard on the floor of the House; but by Statutory Instruments, which at most are debated ‘in committee’ upstairs. In normal times, I would be the first to squawk about any such clause, since it allows the Government too much power, and apparently lessens the scrutiny powers of the Parliament.

Yet if we were to treat all 20,000 or so EU Acts which are to be brought across as Primary Legislation (of which we have room for perhaps 20 per year), it would take us hundreds of years to consider it. And anyhow, do we really need to spend weeks discussing the EU labelling regulations when there are so many much more important things that we will have to be doing. Not only that, but the Henry Vlll clause will allow the Government to repeal or amend the EU legislation, but it will of course not create any new law; and there is a 2 year ‘sunset ‘ clause, which says that if it has not been implemented within 2 years it will fail. What’s more, of the 20,000 acts, 8000 were originally considered in our Parliament under Secondary Legislation procedures, the other 12000 became law without being considered at all. So why should it now be necessary to bog ourselves down by using Primary Legislation procedures to consider it?

So while I understand the concerns both of the pure libertarians, and of the Remainers, allowing Henry Vlll on this occasion makes very good practical sense. The people voted for us to leave the EU, and so it must now be. Those who disagree with the majority must not be allowed to use abstruse Parliamentary procedures to prevent it.

“MPs should be like butterflies. Flitting from flower to flower cross-pollinating, but never getting bogged down in any one bloom.” So said, I think, Enoch Powell. I sometimes feel like that.

I was glad that a few comments to the press about Big Ben and the (needless ) stopping of its ‘bongs’ for four years, which is, as I put it ‘Bongkers’, led to an every widening feeling of outrage amongst the general public, and a variety of experts coming forward to say it was totally unnecessary. I was one of those asked to Chequers for a drink last week, and (amongst other things) had a chat to the PM about it. I was very glad that she endorsed my view, eventually extracting an undertaking from Mr Speaker that the matter would be re-examined when the House is back in September. A small thing but mine own.

Similarly, my remarks in this column about the idiotic waste of money by Wiltshire Police examining the slender evidence against Sir Edward Heath sparked national comment, and a hasty announcement by the Chief Constable that he would produce the Op Conifer report ‘in the autumn.’ He will not be allowed to slip it into the long grass by passing it to the Independent Investigation into Child Sexual Abuse under Professor Alexis Jay, who have made it plain that they will look at the report with interest, but that consideration of it is well beyond their remit. That view was reiterated to me in an oral question to the Home Secretary before the House rose.  The report must be public, and I will make sure that it is. If Sir Edward did anything wrong then we must know about it; but if there is no evidence that he did so, then the nasty slur against this PM’s good name must be expunged for ever.

My heart was warmed by an email from a serving police officer, who, for obvious reasons will remain nameless. “I am a police officer with [] years of service, and your [column] has put a smile on my face and cheered me up no end on a damp and dreary Monday morning. The content was such that I agreed 100%. It brought back many fond memories of policing gone by, a situation I fear we will never get back to. I just wanted to email to thank you for your views and the way they made me smile.”

I am just back from a few days in the Arctic leading a little expedition to visit the British Antarctic Survey on Spitzbergen. The clear waters and warm days at this most northerly inhabited spot on the globe – just a few hundred miles away from the North Pole itself was more than enough to re-convince the 10 MPs and peers in the group of the reality and imminence of climate change and the retreat of the Arctic ice. We will not solve it ourselves, but visiting the distinguished British scientists spending year after year on retreating glaciers and spreading that word back in Westminster may be just doing a little useful cross-pollination.

A word here, a question there, some media comment, surgeries, voting, influencing Ministers. It is these small, almost invisible cross-fertilisations, flitting from topic to topic like a butterfly which is the very business of politics. And just from time to time, in the words of the late great Muhammad Ali, as well as “floating like a butterfly” we, backbench MPs, should also “sting like a bee.”