Brexit

Theresa May, William Hague and others say that the EU will not want to trap Britain in the backstop because it is not in its interest. It will want to move to a free-trade agreement for its own benefit. If that is so, why is the backstop the thing above all others upon which the EU insists? One reason why Brexiteers have to oppose the backstop absolutely is that it is yet another manifestation of Britain’s delusion in every European negotiation over nearly 50 years, which is that we should grab ‘practical’ advantages and concede ‘windy’ principles. This sounds good, but it invariably means that we are trapped later. The principles acquire legal force.

We've all been focussing on the crisis that would ensue if – as expected – the PM loses the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal ‪on 11 December‬. But just for a moment think about the implications if she wins, because they too would be momentous. To state the obvious, we'd be out of the EU on terms that are semi-blind – we wouldn't know our long-term destination. But we would be out. And she, the PM, would rein supreme. She would have crushed her opponents, who would have lost all hope of political advancement or favour. And having delivered Brexit against the odds, she could be pretty confident in staying PM for as long as she wanted, perhaps well beyond the next election – and the election itself would be off the cards till 2022.

‘Away with the cant of “measures not men”! — the idle supposition that it is the harness and not the horses that draw the chariot along. No, Sir, if the comparison must be made, if the distinction must be taken, men are everything, measures comparatively nothing.’ George Canning said this in 1801 and recent events remind us that he was right. In the end the only way to change the policy is to change the person, as the individual determines the direction and is rarely willing to try a different route. As I have known this quotation for decades, it was naïve of me to expect the Prime Minister to change her policy. It is not how it works: the wrong policy means the wrong person.

In this week’s Spectator, Martin Howe QC gives the legal verdict on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, and finds: ‘This is not a bad deal. It is an atrocious deal.’ His analysis was so widely circulated amongst MPs that No. 10 has written a response to it. For more on Theresa May’s bad deal, here’s Mr Steerpike’s list of the top 40 horrors lurking in it. Claim Once the Protocol is in force, the UK cannot leave it except by ‘joint’ decision of the UK and the EU. This gives the EU a right of veto over the UK’s exit. In agreeing to this clause, the government has caved in over seeking a right to leave. Response The Protocol is explicit in the legal text that it is intended to be a temporary arrangement.