It was a bit of a roller coaster in the press yesterday. In the morning The Sunday Times had an article by their political editor Tim Shipman (HERE) claiming a softening of the position of the ERG on the backstop: 'Tory Brexiteers offer peace terms to Theresa May'. The 'peace terms' they have set out are in fact tests which they will use to judge if the changes the Attorney General is trying to negotiate in Brussels will be acceptable. This is presented as the arch Brexiteers being 'flexible'. God help us if they were ever to become intransigent.
These are the three tests set out in writing by the ERG as a way of getting them onside:
- A “clearly worded, legally binding, treaty-level clause which unambiguously overrides” the text of the withdrawal agreement
- Language that “must go beyond simply re-emphasising/re-interpreting the temporary nature of the backstop” and a change to Cox’s legal advice that it would “endure indefinitely”
- A “clear and unconditional route out of the backstop if trade talks fail”, which could mean “a time limit or a unilateral exit mechanism”.
The Sunday Times says the plan has apparently been drawn up in conjunction with Nigel Dodds, the Westminster leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). If May can secure the backing of the DUP and ERG, the deal will go through they claim.
To show their flexibility, Michael Tomlinson, one of the eight members of Cash’s star chamber said the group "needs to see 'black and white' text in 'good time' before a vote so they can deliver their verdict".
"But, in a boost for May, he made clear that the group does not want to dictate the exact mechanism. He said: 'There is a spectrum and a range of options that the attorney-general has. I’m not going to say protocol good, codicil bad, letter very bad, because that would be prejudging it.' "
To show their flexibility, Michael Tomlinson, one of the eight members of Cash’s star chamber said the group "needs to see 'black and white' text in 'good time' before a vote so they can deliver their verdict".
"But, in a boost for May, he made clear that the group does not want to dictate the exact mechanism. He said: 'There is a spectrum and a range of options that the attorney-general has. I’m not going to say protocol good, codicil bad, letter very bad, because that would be prejudging it.' "
I must say it looked a rather ambitious plan but no doubt it's good to aim high. And they don't sound that accommodating. They want it all legally binding but aren't bothered how it's delivered.
In The Mail on Sunday (HERE), Graham Brady, chair of the powerful backbench 1922 committee of Tory MPs declared he had changed his mind and would now support the PM's deal - but on reading the article it's clear there has been no mind changing at all. Brady says:
"We know what is needed to shift the log-jam. The Attorney General needs to give a legally binding guarantee that the backstop is temporary. Once we have that, my colleagues in Parliament need to recognise the strength of feeling. The whole country is tired of vacillation and delay".
He's prepared to vote for the PM's deal provided it isn't the deal that Theresa May agreed to. Clear?
At about the same time, in an interview with the German Newspaper Die Welt, as reported by the Politico website (HERE) Michel Barnier reiterated that the EU27 'will not allow a time limit or a one-sided exit right', but in a worrying sign for the ERG and other Brexiteers, he suggested a move to avoid the backstop minefield and offered an alternative route through crocodile infested water.
He said, "The commitment to limit the backstop [could be] through an agreement on the future relationship. And this in the form of an interpretive document."
" 'If this document were combined with a written commitment from the British, then obviously it would have a much greater power,' said Barnier, who said further details about the document’s form would come after its substance is nailed down".
The reference to a 'written commitment' on the future relationship is intriguing don't you think?
While Mrs May has been trying to keep her long term vision deliberately vague, the price of resolving the backstop crisis may be to bring it into sharp focus. The EU and the Irish may well be happy to drop the backstop altogether under circumstances where the UK is prepared to offer a legally binding joint interpretive instrument that commits us to regulatory and tariff alignment through a customs union and perhaps even common commercial policy. Who knows?
The only certain thing is that the ERG will exchange one intractable problem for another.
Sir Ivan Rogers, in a Der Spiegel interview (HERE) talks about the ambiguity of the political declaration:
"It's opaque because the British wanted it opaque. We don't really know where we want to go. Therefore, the other side has agreed to a document which is full of ambiguity. That's very clever, but it doesn't solve any problems".
May wanted it opaque because she doesn't want the ERG to discover the answer to the NI backstop problem is to be resolved by an even bigger problem - for them - and that is close alignment.
Finally, to cap an extraordinary day, last night The Telegraph (HERE) was reporting that the Attorney General had given up trying to get the changes that Brady and the ERG's star chamber of lawyers were demanding. He was said to be looking at an 'enhanced arbitration mechanism' which I take to mean some way of arguing our case to break the Withdrawal Agreement at a time of our choosing. Good luck with that one. The Telegraph report:
"The Attorney General has abandoned attempts to secure a hard time-limit or unilateral exit mechanism from the Irish backstop, The Telegraph has been told.
"Ministers briefed on Geoffrey Cox's approach said that those aims, which represent the central demands of Eurosceptics, are considered too 'blunt' and have been rejected by the European Union.
"Some Cabinet ministers are already resigned to the Prime Minister losing a second meaningful vote on her deal amid concerns that changes to the backstop secured by Mr Cox will not be sufficient to win round Brexiteers.
"The Attorney General is understood to be focusing on securing an enhanced 'arbitration mechanism' that allows the UK or the EU to provide formal notice that the backstop should come to an end".
But demands for an 'independent' arbitration panel, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, are being resisted by the EU negotiators, according to the Telegraph. So they may not even get that! It's like you were expecting a four course meal at a top restaurant but had to settle for a bag of pork scratchings, only to find even they were snatched away at the last minute.
Cox was supposed to talk to parliament last week, but that was postponed as negotiations continued but to no avail apparently.
Cox was supposed to talk to parliament last week, but that was postponed as negotiations continued but to no avail apparently.
So a day that started with so much promise, the pro-Brexit press starting to believe the PM's deal might scrape through, has once again been dashed. The roller coaster came off the rails. Brussels are forcing the UK government to finally face up to the responsibility of Brexit.
Expect more recriminations. The EU will come in for more stick but so will May.
It seems to me the deal will definitely fail to win MPs approval for a second time next week. Already there is talk of having a third attempt at the meaningful vote. It looks like MPs will get three bites at the cherry while we get just the one - or perhaps two? Keep the faith, who knows?
It seems to me the deal will definitely fail to win MPs approval for a second time next week. Already there is talk of having a third attempt at the meaningful vote. It looks like MPs will get three bites at the cherry while we get just the one - or perhaps two? Keep the faith, who knows?
