The prime minister addressed Chairs of Tory Associations on the National Conservative Convention yesterday and apparently told them she will not allow Brexit to be frustrated (HERE). In part this was probably a response to a vote taken by the convention on a motion (HERE) which demanded we leave on March 29th and passed by 72 to 15, a huge majority, showing the depth of grass roots feeling about the importance of the date.
The motion read:
"The National Convention supports the commitments the Prime Minister has made to the country to honour the European Union referendum result of 2016, that having triggered Article 50 we will leave the European Union on the 29 March 2019.
But in a hint they might tolerate a short delay, the motion continued:
"Another referendum, a delay beyond the European elections, taking ‘no deal’ off the table or not leaving at all would betray the 2016 People’s Vote and damage democracy and our party for a generation".
The European elections take place in May and MEPs must take their seats by July.
I have never been convinced that any prime minister could or would contemplate leaving the EU on March 29th without a deal and even with a deal there will need to be a delay. The nation is totally unprepared for it and we are woefully behind in passing legislation, both secondary and primary. There will have to be a delay. I take this as read. But how is Theresa May going to present it?
She has said, "a hundred times" according to Andrew Bridgen, one of her loonier MPs, that we will leave on March 29th deal or no deal, and the Brexiteers believe her - although they only have to think about it for a few milliseconds to realise this is out of the question. She gives no caveats, no conditional get out clauses. It is all done without the slightest equivocation.
Some probably think it's part of an elaborate charade but keep up the pretence that we will go without a deal in order to try and put pressure on the EU.
But in creating this wholly and literally incredible narrative some people actually believe it's a possibility. Quite a few know it would cause considerable disruption, like professor David Collins in yesterday's post HERE, but think it would be manageable and brief and we would easily get over it. These are usually people who have plenty of money and could afford higher food prices and would cope with shortages.
What worries me is the reaction of the extreme Brexiteers and leavers who have never believed any of the warnings of food and medicine shortages and the millions of others who don't read the news and have no idea there is any risk at all.
I think Mrs May is gambling on getting a deal with some real, substantive and meaningful changes to the backstop, in which case announcing a short delay may be more manageable. But what if she doesn't as seems likely - indeed almost certain?
The stark choice then will be leaving without a deal or delaying Brexit. What is likely to be the reaction when Theresa May announces a delay?
She might yet be fortunate. Parliament could come to her rescue and pass a resolution demanding a delay. This would allow her to say it's not her fault. If not she will face real anger from thousands of Taliban-like Brexiteers and leave voters who have had no expectation management. These are people who have been posting messages on social media for months in response to remainers with the old mocking tick, tock, tick, tock countdown to March 29th in the utterly unshakeable belief the PM meant what she said.
Among this group, including some newspapers there will be absolute fury and it will be directed at May or MPs. It will make the barrage directed at Neil Kinnock, John Major and Graham Taylor look like praise.
It will all have been wasted in a fruitless attempt to force concessions from the EU who have never believed we could credibly leave without a deal. No political party could survive deliberately inflicting that level of self-harm regardless of the 'will of the people'.
John Penrose, a junior Conservative Minister, writing in The Telegraph yesterday (HERE), as if the EU didn't read English newsapers, said, in answer to his own rhetorical question, "wouldn’t [taking no deal off the table] be safer, and let everyone calm down?":
"Well no, not really. Taking the option off the table wouldn’t just massively weaken the Prime Minister’s negotiating position. It could torpedo Brexit completely, leaving us in a ‘Hotel California’ Brexit, where we’d checked out but could never leave.
"Why? Because if we say we will never, ever leave without a deal, the EU would know, for certain, that they can stop Brexit in its tracks simply by refusing to agree a deal with us. Or, if they’re feeling subtle, by offering a bad deal they know Parliament will turn down".
I really don't believe the EU27 think like that and I don't believe for a second they would make concessions they don't want or need to on the threat we might shoot ourselves in the head.
They know it's a negotiating strategy, but one that Theresa May and her government will pay a high price for when she announces a delay.
Nick Watt, the BBC's political editor has a piece (HERE) describing a 'lonely PM' reaching the 'Article 50 endgame' and I think that's right and what an endgame it promises to be.
