Politics

Theresa May has been in Northern Ireland today attempting to ease concerns over her commitment to avoiding a hard border. The Prime Minister told business leaders in Belfast that while Parliament wanted 'changes to the backstop as it currently exists', her commitment to no hard border in Northern Ireland was 'unshakeable'. However, May's words also went some way to highlight the difference in expectation as to what No. 10 think is an acceptable change to the backstop – and what the Brexiteers in the European Research Group believe is acceptable.

Has the time come to hold a referendum on Irish unity? The best way for the UK to leave the EU would be via a Canada-style free trade agreement, an option that was offered by the EU last year. But as things stand, the 1.8 million population of Northern Ireland is preventing the rest of the UK from leaving on the most favourable terms for both the UK and the EU27. More precisely, the section of the population represented by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) is blocking this mutually beneficial agreement. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 represented a major change in strategy for the British government. It created a pathway to Irish unity.

As Theresa May attempts to reopen negotiations on the terms of the backstop, there is a view in Downing Street that May won't be able to win any substantial changes until Yvette Cooper's no deal amendment has been defeated for a second time. The Prime Minister will put down a neutral motion next Wednesday and amendments to that motion are expected to be voted on the following day. The expectation is that Cooper will bring back her amendment which would force the government to try and extend Article 50 if a no deal scenario looked likely. There's a concern in government that this time the amendment could pass. A number of Tory MPs may become more anxious about the prospect of no deal when it's two weeks closer ad a deal still doesn't look imminent.

Oh dear. It's only Monday and already Theresa May's week appears to have taken a turn for the worse. The Prime Minister's plan to renegotiate the terms of the backstop has received a strongly-worded rebuke from the European Commission. MPs from the Commons Brexit committee were in Brussels this morning meeting with Martin Selmayr, the commission’s secretary general. Some of those present reported that they left the meeting believing the UK would be able to secure legally-binding concessions on the issue of the backstop. However, on seeing this account reported, Selmayr has taken to social media to put forward a different account of what took place.

Nearly one week on from Tory MPs uniting around a Brexit position and the cracks are starting to show. After Brexiteers and Remainers alike came together to vote for the Brady amendment on Tuesday calling for the backstop to be replaced with alternative arrangements, Theresa May was triumphant that she could now tell Brussels there was a majority in the Commons for a Brexit deal so long as the EU was willing to play ball. However, this weekend things hit a bump in the road after May penned an article for The Telegraph. In it, the Prime Minister said that the vote for the Brady amendment had shown there was majority support for her deal so long as the backstop was renegotiated – hinting that this could be done by a side agreement or codicil.

Here is what members of the cabinet said to me when I pointed them towards a statement made in the Sunday Telegraph by the Prime Minister that she is 'determined to deliver Brexit and determined to deliver on time – on March 29 2019'. 'Farcical' said one. 'Total delusion' said another. 'Verifiably untrue' said a third. It's not that they doubt Theresa May is working to take the UK out of the EU. It's just they cannot see how it is remotely possible that departure can be achieved in the less than eight weeks remaining before the official leaving day.

Sajid Javid: No-deal UK ‘will still be a very safe country’ This morning Andrew Marr was joined by the Home Secretary Sajid Javid. With the possibility of a no-deal Brexit on the horizon, the interview turned to the implications that could have for the UK’s national security. When Marr asked if security could be diminished, Javid avoided a direct answer, repeatedly telling Marr that ‘we will still be a very safe country’: https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1092016349818236929 SJ: There will be a change in capability, and there are capabilities that I’d want to keep... but they require cooperation with the EU, and I have to proceed on the basis that in a ‘no-deal scenario’ the EU will no longer allow us access to those capabilities...

There’s a famous (or infamous) method of negotiation or interrogation called ‘Good cop, bad cop’. You’re probably familiar with the idea. An individual whose cooperation is sought is approached by an apparently reasonable negotiator whose friendly advice is to co-operate because if he doesn’t then his colleague, who has a nasty temper, may fly into a rage — in which case our friend cannot answer for what this dreadful fellow might do. The good cop holds himself out as anxious to protect the individual from somebody much worse than himself. He does not of course condone this person’s behaviour in any way, but he’s sadly beyond his control.

The House of Commons does work better than it seems to, I promise you. When a big subject comes up, it spends weeks, months, even years, posturing and sparring, but it has a way of working out when a choice is truly important. Brexit has taken years, and is truly important. We saw the first signs of this realisation dawning on Parliament when it rejected Mrs May’s original deal so decisively. We saw the second signs on Tuesday night. As that series of covert Remain amendments — most notably Cooper-Boles — fell, a pattern became apparent. Enough MPs now understand that if the institution of parliament is ever to command respect again, Brexit must happen, and the minimally acceptable way in which it must happen is that the permanent Irish backstop goes.