The FT editorial this morning asks if the Tory party is facing a long dark night of the soul - and dragging the country with it. This was prompted by seven resignations, including two cabinet ministers, with perhaps more, including Gove and Mordaunt, to follow. Theresa May's statement to parliament yesterday didn't tell us much more about the withdrawal agreement but it did tell us a lot about the chances of getting it through the House of Commons. Words like none, snowball and Hell spring to mind. I watched most of the debate following her statement and in three hours it was difficult to remember any MP offering even lukewarm support for the deal.
However, what was remarkable was the level of opposition to it, even from her own party. I really don't think it's worth reading the 585 pages of a deal which will probably only be of interest to future historians and academics.
Of all the contributions, this one from Sir Edward Leigh, that permanently beetroot-faced denizen of the back benches, struck me as the most telling. He asked the PM, "What if, therefore, she loses this vote in Parliament, which is very likely: can she promise me that, whatever happens in this vote, she will deliver Brexit at the end of March?". And she did!
Note the "whatever happens". I assume in his fevered mind this would probably also include flood, pestilence, plagues of locusts and nuclear war. It surely tells us all we need to know about the mindset of the Brexiteers.
And straight after her statement Rees-Mogg put in a letter of no confidence. He is chairman of the ERG and his letter will no doubt encourage others in the hard euro sceptic group. If Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, receives 48 letters, a vote of no confidence will be held. She is likely to win it but what will the EU think? We held a general election during the Article 50 period and now the position of the prime minister herself is under threat. If it's possible, we will be an even bigger laughing stock than we are now.
To add to the comedy value, Gove has been offered Raab's old job at DEXEU but has apparently refused it (HERE) because he would like to negotiate a different deal. I imagine there was some eye rolling in Brussels at that. This morning we learn he is "considering his position", code words, either for escaping justice or looking at ways to get a bit higher up the greasy pole. In his case, probably both.
Several MPs made the point that there was no majority in The House for either her deal or no deal. This is important for we remainers. The only other short-term option is no Brexit, albeit that may just be an extension to Article 50, but we can hope. In my opinion no-deal is almost as good as no-Brexit since the ensuing chaos will turn voters towards remain anyway.
Just as Tory party fortunes are inextricably linked to Brexit, May's are tethered to the deal. If the deal goes down she must surely go with it. There will probably be a new prime minister in the New Year, even if she wins the vote of confidence but it's not guaranteed. When campaigning Brexiteers proudly told us she was a "bloody difficult woman" but what they thought was their main weapon against Brussels has now been trained squarely on them. In these dark times, you have to smile don't you?
Just as Tory party fortunes are inextricably linked to Brexit, May's are tethered to the deal. If the deal goes down she must surely go with it. There will probably be a new prime minister in the New Year, even if she wins the vote of confidence but it's not guaranteed. When campaigning Brexiteers proudly told us she was a "bloody difficult woman" but what they thought was their main weapon against Brussels has now been trained squarely on them. In these dark times, you have to smile don't you?
Later Ken Clarke was on the BBC also doubting there was a majority for the deal but suggesting there might be one for staying in the single market and the customs union. This is the EFTA/EEA option but I am not sure this is (a) available or (b) understandable to most people in this country. There is also the question of who would push it through and what the reaction of the EU would be to this change of tune.
Sir Ivan Rogers said (HERE) "Leaving aside the legal objections [..] there is no earthly reason for either the EU27 or the EEA to agree to such a deal".
Notwithstanding any of that, I would say if the EEA option was put to the public they would have difficulty accepting that the country is somehow better off accepting rules from Brussels without having influence over them. It's the opposite of taking back control. We may as well remain.
This morning on Radio 4, we got David Davis speaking from Washington and telling us we can go back to Brussels and start again! The old fool still believes we can somehow put pressure on the EU via BMW and Prosecco bottlers in Italy. I think I heard him say no deal wasn't "the best deal but the second best". This would have been greeted approvingly by Sir Edward. Perhaps one day they will be able to share a padded cell?
This also coincided with two new polls, taken after the deal was published, suggested 54% were now in favour of remaining in the EU (HERE) and (HERE).
This morning on Radio 4, we got David Davis speaking from Washington and telling us we can go back to Brussels and start again! The old fool still believes we can somehow put pressure on the EU via BMW and Prosecco bottlers in Italy. I think I heard him say no deal wasn't "the best deal but the second best". This would have been greeted approvingly by Sir Edward. Perhaps one day they will be able to share a padded cell?
This also coincided with two new polls, taken after the deal was published, suggested 54% were now in favour of remaining in the EU (HERE) and (HERE).
So, we are standing in the middle of the wreckage of our international reputation for pragmatism looking totally bewildered, unable to agree among ourselves about a Brexit brought about by a corrupt referendum and which a majority do not want any more.
Apart from that, everything's fine.
