Yesterday morning there was some whispers that Rees-Mogg was thought to be softening slightly towards May's deal but in his speech in the afternoon he made it quite clear he is still implacably against it. He confirmed he will not vote for the backstop and even proposed that the government prorogue parliament (HERE) if there is any attempt to delay Brexit. He is the irresistible force along with the other ERG suicidal nutjobs.
He even talked about 'the reformation' of the deal as if it was the late 16th century and he was some protestant zealot eschewing all earthly things in pursuit of another historic split with Europe, instead of a wealthy banker with the air of a consumptive undertaker.
The Mogg did say he might vote for a reformed deal (HERE) which did not include the backstop but unfortunately his speech came on the same day Michel Barnier, the immovable object, hardened the EU line in an interview with a newspaper (HERE):
“This backstop is the only one possible because an assurance is no longer operational if it is for a limited time. Imagine if it were to be limited in time and the problem arose after expiry: it is useless!”
But as we watch the irresistible force rumbling towards the immovable object Barnier offered a solution to avoid an almighty collision in which we will all suffer some collateral damage, he dangled the prospect of some future changes to the backstop according to these comments:
"Mr Barnier suggested the question of the backstop would 'become relative' if the future relationship was revisited – signalling that it might be a way out of the current impasse".
This is part of the bargaining process still going on in spite of the deal's legal text being agreed by both sides. But what Barnier is offering, a closer relationship, such as Norway +, is just as toxic to Brexiteers as the backstop. To them it's the difference between being poisoned by strychnine or arsenic.
This morning Sir Oliver Letwin was on Radio 4 talking about Yvette Cooper's amendment that would force the government to ask the EU for a delay - he talked about nine months. But, I also saw this on the ITV website (HERE) from an EU politician:
"One veteran French MEP, Alain Lamassourre, says the idea the EU can negotiate with the UK parliament - in the case MPs take control away from the PM - is “a joke” and rejects the idea of extending Article 50 and delaying Brexit.
"His message to 'those poor Brits' is 'we’re not going to give you more time'. That view is fairly consistent with what I hear from many other sources in Brussels. Delaying Brexit would only be looked on kindly if there was a concrete plan from the UK government.
"For example, a general election or a second referendum".
So, the French are not that keen unless there is a clear purpose to the delay. If May sets her face against another vote, either in an election or a referendum, the only way of avoiding the cliff edge is revoking Article 50 altogether. It's over the cliff we go or the Tories suffer the historic schism and undergo their own reformation. Will it be party or country for May?
We live in interesting times.
