James Forsyth

Theresa May’s pledge to go before the second stage of the Brexit negotiation if her deal passes, is already reaping some rewards. Boris Johnson has told a meeting of the ERG that he is now backing the deal. His argument is that what is going on in Parliament means there is a real chance of losing Brexit and that a change of personnel will lead to a change of policy in stage two. This addresses his concern that Theresa May would interpret the withdrawal agreement passing as a license to go and negotiate a Chequers-style agreement. Boris Johnson isn’t the only big beast shifting tonight. Iain Duncan Smith, who played a crucial role in persuading May to make this offer, has also said he will now back it. Charlie Elphicke, the secretary of the ERG, has also swung in.

With Oliver Letwin’s amendment passing, MPs will seize control of the order paper on Wednesday afternoon to hold indicative votes. These votes will come before any third vote on May’s deal. The not-so-secret hope of many in government is that they might help the withdrawal agreement get over the line. Theory one is that they’ll show that the majority in the Commons is for a softer Brexit, and so push some reluctant ERGers into the government column. Some ministers also hope that the DUP will not be keen to go for an early election at this moment; and will be more inclined to compromise if they think that the government will go back to the country rather than accept a customs union.

At the moment, the Brexit deal isn’t going to pass. As I say in The Sun this morning, getting it through was always going to be tough, but the errors that Mrs May has made this week have made it even more difficult. As one Secretary of State puts it, ‘She would have been much better off spending three days in bed.’ By putting no deal back on the table, she encouraged the ERG—the Brexit hardliners in her own party—to believe that voting against her deal would get them what they want. Her speech on Wednesday night criticising MPs was also ill-judged, given that they are who she needs to win over. It was particularly mistaken given that May had turned down an invitation to address her own MPs that evening.

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.

As we wait for the text of Theresa May’s letter requesting an Article 50 extension, it is worth remembering that once the UK government and the EU have agreed an extension then the UK will continue to be an EU member under international law—and international law trumps domestic law. A Department for Exiting the European Union briefing note for ministers points out that the Vienna Convention declares: '''A party may not invoke the provision of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." As a matter of EU law, it follows that in these circumstances we would remain a member state after 29 March, and the EU law consequences of that would continue to flow in the UK.

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.

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.

The prospects of Theresa May’s Brexit deal passing now hinge on what risk there is of the UK being trapped in the backstop against its will. A compelling new legal analysis by Policy Exchange suggests that this risk is significantly lower than thought. Written by three distinguished lawyers—a professor of international law at King’s College London, a former first parliamentary counsel and an Oxford professor—the paper makes clear that the new protections on the backstop have greater force than appreciated. First, the ‘good faith’ obligation in international law is more meaningful than thought.

Almost three years have passed since Britain voted to leave the European Union, and yet we are still no closer to a Brexit resolution than we were on that June morning. No one is in control and this country’s whole system of governance is creaking. We are in an interregnum that shows no sign of ending. What is remarkable about this moment in our history is that something must break the impasse. This means that, although Theresa May’s deal suffered the biggest defeat ever for a piece of government business and was defeated a second time by a three-figure margin, it is not dead yet. Many cabinet ministers, including several of those who are very critical of May, think there is a chance that the deal will pass at the third time of asking.

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.