Theresa may

Theresa May’s statement tonight wasn’t particularly dramatic. She had no new policies to announce or arguments to make. Rather, she once again attempted to frame the choice before MPs as her deal, no deal or no Brexit. She tried to position herself as the defender of the referendum result and attacked MPs for failing to take a decision. As a political journalist my reaction to the statement was, is that it? But the question is whether the attack on MPs for the endless motions and amendments and for not talking about anything else will resonate with the public, and lead to them putting pressure on their MPs to back the deal. May said, as she had in the House earlier, that she won’t delay Brexit beyond June 30th.

Allies of Theresa May have long talked about how she wants her legacy to be about more than Brexit. But the brutal truth is that there is no such legacy available to her. Rather, her choice is between being the Prime Minister who got a withdrawal agreement through or the one who had to ask for a long, humiliating extension. If May wants to increase the chances of the former being her legacy and not the latter, then she is going to have to promise to go at some point before the next meaningful vote. Earlier today, one office holder in the ERG told me that if May said she would leave once the Withdrawal Agreement Bill was through the number of Brexiteer rebels would reduce to 20 or so. But it is not just on the ERG side that the prospect of a new prime minister would help.

Is this the week Theresa May sets out an exit date for her departure from No. 10? There is hope in government that this will be the week the Prime Minister passes her Brexit deal. However, the price of her doing so could include a promise to resign before the second stage of negotiations begin later this year. No. 10 are working to try and ensure May passes her deal before this week's EU council meeting where she has to try and seek an Article 50 extension. In a bid to try and do this, ministers have been locked in talks with the DUP all weekend on what could be done to make the deal palatable to them.

This weekend all eyes are on the DUP. As I say in The Sun this morning, if the government can satisfy them, then Theresa May has a chance of winning the vote on Tuesday because of the domino effect that them coming across will set off. But if the DUP won’t come over, there’s no point holding a third meaningful vote. The DUP spent yesterday in intensive talks with senior government figures. I understand that these talks were broadly positive. One Cabinet Minister close to the process tells me that the chances of the DUP backing the deal are ‘a bit better than 50:50. I’d put it at 60:40.

I had lunch yesterday with a friend from London who brought grim tidings from Albion. Like me, he is an advocate of national sovereignty. He thinks the people of the United Kingdom ought to be allowed to govern themselves. So he, again like me, is an advocate for Brexit. He had no idea what was going to happen with Brexit. Yesterday was a busy day. I also chatted with friends about the crisis at our southern border. All honest people acknowledge that there is a crisis, that thousands upon thousands of people, most without English and without skills, are pouring over the border.

As if the government did not have enough troubles right now, a major row has erupted between the Whips’ Office and Number 10. The whips think that a Number 10 aide was telling ministers they were safe to abstain on the no to no deal motion, when there was a three-line whip to vote against it. After the amendment ruling out no deal in any circumstances passed, the government decided to whip against its own motion rather than allowing a free vote on it. This irritated a slew of Remain / soft Brexit ministers who wanted to vote against no deal. Sarah Newton resigned as a Minister of State to do so. A handful of Cabinet Ministers — Amber Rudd, David Gauke, Greg Clark, David Mundell and Claire Perry — abstained.

There was no triumphalism in Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker’s press conference. Nor was there much detail. May talked about how the joint interpretative instrument meant that the backstop could be challenged and taken to arbitration if the EU was trying to apply ‘the backstop indefinitely’. What May did not mention was how this arbitration mechanism would work. Multiple Cabinet Ministers think, after discussion tonight, that the arbitration does not refer to the ECJ. If that is the case, it will convince a slug of Tory MPs that this arbitration mechanism has teeth. The second aspect is the aspiration to have alternative arrangements in place by the end of December 2020, in other words at the end of the transition.

The government’s efforts to get changes to the backstop have run into a brick wall in Brussels. The EU thinks, with justification, that MPs won’t allow no deal and so feels under no pressure to make significant concessions. As I write in The Sun this morning, one minister fully briefed on the negotiations says ‘we’re at what the hell do we do time’ But without a change to the backstop, Theresa May’s deal is going down to another heavy defeat on Tuesday. That won’t be the end of the matter, though. For the next day, parliament will vote against leaving on March 29th with no deal. Parliament will then almost certainly vote to request an extension to Article 50. At this moment, the UK would be in the EU’s hands.

Theresa May is in Grimsby today putting in a last ditch effort to convince MPs to back her deal when it returns to the House of Commons on Tuesday. The view in both Downing Street and the Cabinet is that as things stand it will be rejected for a second time. With no concession on the backstop as of yet from Brussels, there is little chance of Brexiteers rallying around the Prime Minister's deal. May's speech this lunchtime has only served to hammer this point home. The Prime Minister used the set piece to turn her ire on Brussels for the lack of progress. May warned EU leaders that it wasn't just MPs who have a choice to make – the EU must too: 'Just as MPs will face a big choice next week, the EU has to make a choice too. We are both participants in this process.

MPs have 10 days to pass Theresa May’s Brexit deal or calamity strikes, I say in The Sun this morning. May’s deal is far from perfect. But what will happen if it doesn’t pass is truly appalling. If May’s deal hasn’t won a Commons vote by March 12th, the Commons will vote on whether to proceed with no deal. The parliamentary arithmetic is such that no deal will almost certainly be defeated. The next day, parliament will then vote on whether to request an extension from the EU. This vote will almost certainly pass. At this point, the United Kingdom would be in the weakest position it has ever been in this negotiation. Whether to grant an extension or not would be up to the EU and would require all 27 member states to agree.

The only certainty in the Brexit process is that there is no certainty. Brexiteers had long sought solace in the fact that, by law, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 29 March with or without a deal. But it’s now clear that this is not necessarily the case  —  or even likely. As we have seen this week, Theresa May is not in control of her party any more than Jeremy Corbyn is in control of his. Corbyn has been forced to move towards the idea of another ‘public vote’ on Brexit, though he has no enthusiasm for one, because he fears that if he doesn’t, MPs would leave his party and join the new Independent Group.

Brexit is back in the Commons next week. As I write in The Sun this morning, two of the big questions are: what will Eurosceptic Tories accept in terms of changes to the backstop and will the Cooper amendment pass. A document circulating among Tory Eurosceptics sets out what MPs should and shouldn’t regard as a meaningful change to the backstop. It warns that assurances from the EU Council would be ‘worthless’ and that changes to the political declaration would be ‘not legally binding’. It says that an interpretative instrument would have, ‘Some legal value’ but ‘would be a face-saver that would be legally pretty meaningless.

When Theresa May goes to Brussels next week to bat for changes to the backstop, she’ll do so with a large crack in her bat—I say in The Sun this morning. The symbolic defeat that MPs inflicted on her Brexit plan on Thursday night has significantly weakened her negotiating position. The EU doesn’t want to make significant changes to the backstop. When the Brady amendment passed the House of Commons, saying parliament would accept the deal if the backstop was replaced, the EU responded by saying that they didn’t think this parliament majority was ‘stable’. Thursday night’s vote helps them make that argument.