Uk politics

When Theresa May stood up at the CBI conference earlier this month and declared that under the new Brexit immigration system, EU nationals would no longer be able to 'jump the queue', she met a hostile reaction. The rhetoric led to fellow leaders, MPs and voters going on the offensive over the comments. Today Theresa May took the opportunity to apologise for that comment. Asked in the Chamber by the SNP’s Philippa Whitford whether she wished to apologise for insulting EU nationals like Whitford's husband, a German national and a doctor, who have contributed to society and made a home here, May said she should not have used that phrase: 'I should not have used that language in that speech'.

‘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.

The most contentious part of Theresa May’s Brexit deal are the Northern Ireland specific provisions of the backstop. These would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU. If they came into force, they would create—in some areas—a kind of regulatory border in the Irish Sea. But, as I say in The Sun this morning, these provisions might be illegal under European Human Rights law. A case in 1999 brought against the UK government, the Matthews case, at the European Court of Human Rights established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.

The campaign for a second referendum continues to grow. On the Conservative side, nearly a dozen Tory MPs now support a 'People's Vote’ and if Theresa May's deal gets voted down, this number is likely to rise further. Among Labour MPs, support is even greater; if it wasn't for Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, it seems safe to say that a second vote would almost certainly be Labour party policy by now, with the SNP and the Lib Dems also on board with the idea. But a question remains: have those calling for a second vote really thought about the possible consequences? It is clear that many of those campaigning for another referendum have a simple objective: to block Brexit. But this could easily end up backfiring. Take the 2014 Scottish independence referendum.

First things first. There has been a widespread misunderstanding of why Angela Merkel made it known yesterday that if the Brexit deal – Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration – wasn't done and dusted by today, she would not be bothering to turn up in Brussels to formally ratify it on Sunday. Her conspicuous intervention was not aimed at putting pressure on Theresa May to be more emollient in the last leg of negotiations. The German Chancellor was in fact asking the likes of the Spanish premier Pedro Sanchez to stop misbehaving and causing unnecessary bother (Sanchez has been playing to a domestic audience by saying he would block any agreement that deprived him of a veto on the future of Gibraltar). "The chancellor was doing the PM a favour" said an official.