Uk politics

The letter from Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk ahead of tomorrow’s vote is not the cavalry arriving. It is more a restatement of what has gone before than anything else. If the EU is to make a big play to help Theresa May’s deal pass it will come before a second vote; as one Secretary of State lamented to me last week the EU has already written off this vote. But the letter is a reminder that May hasn’t sold this deal as well as she could. As the letter states, ‘the Withdrawal Agreement is also clear that any new act that the European Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee’.

Today’s Sunday Times splash – about a ‘coup’ being plotted by Tory rebels to take over Brexit – looks and feels like it was dreamed up in No. 10. It wasn’t and the story shouldn’t be dismissed because of that. The Speaker’s actions last week have changed the calculations: something previously judged procedurally impossible (for rebels to call the shots in parliament) is now a genuine risk. In my view, it risks the very stability of the government. The story so far: that Dominic Grieve and Oliver Letwin are seeking a way to seize control of business in the Commons, so that backbench motions take precedence over government motions. This matters because, until last week, a whole load of options were unthinkable.

Before the big vote on Tuesday night, the EU's 27 government heads will provide greater reassurances - probably in the form of a collective letter to Theresa May, and within the mandate confirmed at the last EU Council - that the controversial Northern Ireland backstop will not and cannot be forever. What does that mean? Well for those MPs agonising about whether or not to support the PM's Brexit plan, and who think the word of political leaders counts for something, a few votes may move in Theresa May's direction. And maybe, in the words of one senior British minister, May will be able to frame the letter as being both 'substantive' and 'legally' significant.

People are talking about the ugly protests outside parliament as if they are a new and strange phenomenon in British politics. The rough bellowing at politicians. The hollering of the word ‘Nazi!’ at people who clearly aren’t Nazis. The attempt to shout down politicians and journalists who simply want to make a political point. It is all so shocking and strange and un-British, commentators claim. Really? To me, the protests look and sound incredibly familiar. They look like another expression of the nasty, censorious, violent-minded political correctness that has been growing for years in this country. These protests aren’t fascism in action — they’re political correctness in action. All the elements are there.

John Bercow has been an excellent, reforming Speaker of the House of Commons. He has supercharged backbenchers with greater use of urgent questions, for instance, and has also made Parliament more family-friendly. His pomposity while chairing Prime Minister's Questions - the endless chiding about what the public might think of MPs' behaviour, often accompanied with tedious jokes about certain members needing to take 'a soothing medicament' - was something even the MPs in question could forgive, given they had a Speaker who was making the legislature bolder. But in the past few months, there has been a shift in the Parliamentary mood.

Another day, another defeat for the government—this time on Dominic Grieve’s amendment, which requires Theresa May to set out within three sitting days what she’ll do next if the meaningful vote doesn’t pass. The significance of this is that Grieve thinks that the motion the government would put down would be amendable, so MPs would be able to tell the government what they want to happen. But what does this mean in practise? Well, the first thing to note is that there isn’t currently a majority for anything in the Commons. This suggest that no amendment—whether it be for a second referendum or Norway Plus—would be able to pass the Commons. So, the will of parliament would not be clear.