Mrs May suffered another humiliating defeat last night. She has been removed from the lead role in the Brexit psycho-drama gripping the nation and given a seat in the upper circle. She will probably be forced to leave the theatre altogether shortly. Oliver Letwin's amendment, giving control to MPs, passed 329 - 302 and the amended main motion by 327 - 300. It might have been much worse had the government not whipped its own side to oppose it. Three ministers, Richard Harrington, Steve Brine and Alastair Burt, resigned in order to vote for the motion.
Harrington's resignation letter said the PM was playing roulette with the lives and livelihoods of the British people (HERE) which is something I have said before. Brexit is a reckless gamble anyway.
So, on Wednesday MPs will have the opportunity to show where the centre of gravity is in the Commons - or if there is a majority for anything at all. To be meaningful the votes should be free and I assume they will be.
To antagonise the House even more than she did with her blame-the-MPs speech last week, Mrs May told them she wouldn't be bound by the result of the so-called indicative votes anyway (HERE). She didn't think MPs would reach a consensus and was dismissive of the whole thing. Even now she cannot manage any humility or try to find a consensus and is continuing to pursue her deal at all costs.
The Conservative MP Crispin Blunt told the prime minister (HERE Col 38) that, 'by taking no deal off the table at the behest of this remainer Parliament, she has just put the final torpedo into her own deal and any real prospect of Brexit, and that her statement will represent the most shameful surrender by a British leader since Singapore in 1942?' With people like him on her side who needs enemies?
This 'consultation' is being forced on the prime minister at the eleventh hour but it is something that should have been done at the end of 2016 or early 2017, before Article 50 was invoked. The time to flesh out the biggest problems is at the start of a process, not at the end. It is like ordering a double bed before measuring the front door. In hindsight, faced with pressure to trigger Article 50, she should have said she would do it the instant there was a consensus for a common objective - but not a moment earlier. Instead, the cabinet pretended there was some secret clever plan that couldn't be revealed for fear of giving succour to the other side. How pathetic that sounds now.
Parliament will now discuss how the indicative voting process will take place on Wednesday, perhaps using pink slips in the lobby at the end of the debate where MPs tick which options they support. The slips will then be collated and made public. Let's hope it gets us somewhere this time.
May is a hopelessly unreliable negotiating partner. Last week in Brussels she told the leaders of the EU27 nations that she was 'confident' her deal would get through parliament this week. Yesterday she opened the debate with a statement that included:
"I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU with a deal as soon as possible, which is now on 22 May, but it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that, as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the House to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote" (HERE Col 24).
Isn't this the problem with Theresa May? She commits to things she has no control over, doesn't bother to find out if what she commits to is deliverable, says one thing to one audience and another to a different audience. Who can trust the PM?
What happened between Friday morning and Monday morning? She had a meeting with the Eurosceptics at Chequers on Sunday - something she could have done before travelling to Brussels with a Plan A that had zero chance of success. These are elementary things. No wonder the EU have lost trust and patience with her.
The other day I was looking for something in Hansard and accidentally came across this exchange (HERE - Col 1262) from a debate in November 2016 between Ed Miliband and David Davis. It shows the hubris that sowed the seeds of our present crisis.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The Government have at various times in the past few months said that they wanted to unify the country, heal our divisions and build a national consensus, and all of us, in each part of this House—leave and remain—should want to see that. But how is it remotely possible to build that national consensus unless the Government are far more transparent with the country and this House of Commons about their plan for the Brexit negotiations?
Mr Davis
It is not possible by trying to thwart the will of the people by all sorts of parliamentary games, but what I will say to the right hon. Gentleman is this: I agree that we want to unify the people of Britain about a common position, but in truth there are very few differences across this divide. When I looked at what the Leader of the Opposition said on Sunday, I thought I could agree with at least two thirds of it. I do not think the divide is quite as wide as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) thinks.
Members of parliament were asking for more transparency and the building of a national consensus in 2016 but Davis thought there were 'few differences across this divide'. What planet was he on?
Davis probably knew at the time, and certainly before triggering Article 50, that there were huge differences even inside the cabinet itself and across parliament. That was the time to be open and honest about the problems, not with just a few weeks to our departure. In truth, they spun the roulette wheel on March 29th 2017 and have now lost.
I hope the Conservative party pays the price at the ballot box at the next general election, which may be sooner than we think.
Professor John Curtice gives a nice insight into the state of public opinion on Brexit (HERE) which is well worth reading.
