With the news this morning that four more remain voting ministers are set to resign (HERE), it appears to be an absolute certainty that parliament will reject May's deal, assuming it actually arrives and even that looks doubtful. The prime minister has only herself to blame. In putting a fragile party unity above the nation she has failed to satisfy either side of the Tory Brexit divide. The seeds of the problem were sown right from the very start. Instead of confronting the serious differences between the warring Conservative factions and reaching a consensus before triggering Article 50, she pressed on in the mistaken belief that we might stumble across a compromise on the journey. It is now clear that was never the case and we have run out of time to find one.
In hindsight, she should have hammered out a common position and refused to trigger Article 50 until a reasonable consensus was reached. Trying to do it on the hoof was a serious mistake, one of many she made. Article 50 was the point at which all the negotiating heft shifted to the EU.
Most of the last eighteen months have been occupied in a process of attempted triangulation inside the Tory party where Mrs May tried to find a midway position between having a soft Brexit, inside the single market and the customs union, and the complete separation favoured by the hard Brexiteers. The EU was only a bystander most of the time.
Triangulation in political terms works when the extreme positions are quite nebulous and you can make yourself appear to embrace enough of each sides views to capture a majority. This was Bill Clinton's philosophy.
Unfortunately, there is no middle position in a straight binary choice. It is one thing or the other. We are either in the single market and the CU, in which case we may as well stay in the EU, or we are completely separated with all of the "untold damage" (Jo Johnson's words) that will do to our economy. The choice is IN or OUT and the prime minister has never come to terms with this concept.
Everything that has happened was foreseeable. Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UKREP to the EU who was forced to resign in January 2017 predicted it all.
David Davis' fantasy solutions and wishful thinking was never going to be a substitute for recognising the hard reality that the other 27 members were going to defend their interests and "the exact same benefits", or anything close to it, was never on offer while we "took back control" of our money, borders and laws. It was self deception to think otherwise. We set off with unachievable objectives and only succeeded in proving they couldn't be achieved.
Do you remember Brexiteers insisting on strict secrecy to avoid revealing our hand? In fact, the secrecy was only necessary to avoid revealing that the cabinet couldn't actually agree an objective or a strategy - until July 2018 - when Davis and Johnson promptly resigned. This should have happened well before Article 50 was invoked. Now we have used up all the available time, not to mention the goodwill and patience of our friends in Brussels.
But we should be very grateful. Had we got a government half competent we may have been in a totally different position.
Despite what some lunatic Brexiteers say, leaving without a deal is simply not possible. No political party that ever wished to be electable in future would voluntarily throw the country under a bus, no matter what was written on the side of it. We are not prepared for it and it is just not thinkable. If it comes to a choice between no-deal and national humiliation, prepare to be humiliated. At least we will be able to eat.
So, what will happen next isn't clear. Either the Tory party will split or a consensus will be found that satisfies both sides. The former is far more likely than the latter in my opinion and even that is only half a solution. Brexit is still a runaway train and we need to find the brake.
A second vote looks more possible every week. On this subject I note there is an increasingly strident and panicky note arising from the leave camp, as they watch their own side take up the kango hammers to the Brexit fantasy. A second vote isn't possible they say, or that it's "undemocratic" in some way. I don't accept this for a second. If you are supposed to be doing the will of the people, it is surely necessary, on such a momentous decision, to check occasionally you are doing what a majority want. The time can be found, if parliament wills it.
If there is no clear way forward without inflicting serious harm on the nation another vote is not only possible but essential.
