Theresa may

As a hack who lived and breathed the financial crisis, you might think that at the start of 2008 and 2009 I would have been more anxious about what lay ahead than I am today. Wrong. In my understanding of the mechanistic link between a bust banking system and the wallop to our prosperity, I could at least broadcast about what needed to be done to clean up the mess. A problem understood is a mendable problem. I am more unsettled today than at any time in 35 years as a journalist because of a political paralysis that makes the destiny of this nation so uncertain. The Prime Minister’s Brexit plan, which would have us pay £39 billion for a largely unknown future relationship with the EU, is set to be defeated. But then what?

As MPs prepare to return to Westminster following the Christmas recess, the Prime Minister has given her first TV interview of the new year. With the deadline for Brexit fast approaching, Theresa May again put the case for her Brexit deal, on which she postponed a crucial Commons vote in December. Andrew Marr asked her if this time, the vote would definitely be going ahead: TM: Yes we are going to hold the vote... The debate will start next week and it will carry on until the following week, but we will be holding the vote. AM: We’re talking about the 15th or 14th? TM: That sort of timing, yes. However, when Marr asked if she would invite the Commons to vote for her deal again if it was rejected first time round, May was non-committal.

How does Theresa May break the Brexit logjam? Well, as I write in the Sun this morning, there are three ways to do this being discussed by Cabinet Ministers—the situation is now such that ministers don’t feel there’s anything disloyal about discussing contingency plans. The first option would see the government back an amendment to May’s deal when it comes to the Commons for a vote in January. The government would accept an amendment that added a sunset clause to the backstop, this would mean that it would expire after a defined period of time unless parliament voted to keep it going. With that change, May’s deal would have a fighting chance of passing the Commons. Some in government think that this might just be enough to win over the DUP.

After a nightmare EU Council summit, Theresa May attempted to put on a brave face in her summit press conference. The Prime Minister told hacks that despite the fact the EU had refused to agree to her request for a 12 month limit to the backstop, progress had been made. As for that heated exchange between May and Jean Claude Juncker in which she appeared to call the European Commission president out for describing her as nebulous, that was merely the type of 'robust' conversation good friends can have. While there is reason to believe Juncker was being disingenuous in calling May 'nebulous' over her requests (the UK side insist the EU side know what it wants), this press conference did manage to fall into the nebulous category.

Theresa May has survived the vote, but her authority is weakened still further. More than a third of Tory MPs have voted against her and this is after she pledged not to fight the next election and to get legally enforceable changes to the backstop. If May had kept the number of those voting against her below 100, it would have been a good result for her. If she had kept it to below 80, it would have strengthened her position considerably. But anything over 105 was always going to be tricky for her as that meant a 1/3rd of her MPs didn’t have confidence in her. This became truer as the day went on and May offered concessions to try and win over wavering MPs.

Speaker Bercow has told MPs that they do deserve a vote on the government’s plan to delay its Brexit deal vote. He told the Commons this afternoon that ‘any courteous, respectful and mature environment, allowing the House to have its say on the matter would be the right and obvious course to take’. We will find out more details on the procedural aspects of the government’s plan later when Andrea Leadsom gives a statement. Bercow’s statement shows why Labour were so keen to protect him as Speaker when his job was in peril over the bullying and harassment scandal. He was always likely to be an interventionist speaker over Brexit, and in this instance, he is making life as uncomfortable for the government as he possibly can.