ANOTHER difficult week lies ahead of Theresa May. Monday to Friday, never mind the period between now and Brexit day, stretches out like a road of bones.
But she endures.
She suffered one of the most humiliating defeats any Prime Minister has suffered and still clung on.
The image of MPs pouring out of the chamber back through the Churchill arch after that vote must have been one to behold.
And the body language of the statues of Churchill and Lloyd George is notable in the context of that symbolic defeat.
Lloyd George on one side, index finger raised; Churchill on the other, hands on hips. Metaphors abound, but perhaps the closest thing to liken that defeat to was the heavy damage the original chamber suffered during the blitz.
After Plan A was left to hang from the gibbets for the sport of the crows, the Prime Minister decided to go with it again.
READ MORE: Nigel Evans: This is what would make me back Theresa May on Brexit
She made no attempt to say otherwise, either. Instead, she told Parliament that she would seek concessions on the backstop.
What will happen with the backstop is difficult to predict.
The threat of no-deal, some have said, means that Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (pictured below) could even face the choice of relenting on the backstop to avoid it – especially given that there has been the consistent line from the Irish government that they have not put any hard-border preparations in place.
For Theresa May, there are rumours of a DUP lifeline, if she can secure a time limit to the backstop.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said that the EU granting the UK more time to get a deal through was “feasible”; Chancellor Philip Hammond told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme that Euro politicians “understand the challenge” facing the UK Government and that “not all of them, but many of them – want to help”; Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested to the Queen that she should shut down Parliament.
Another notable intervention came from Mark Francois MP (pictured below). Appearing on BBC News, he launched into an attack on Airbus boss Tom Enders, who suggested that moving his business elsewhere had crossed his mind due to Brexit.
Despite the interviewer apparently moving on from the Airbus issue, he said: “My father, Reginald Francois, was a D-Day veteran. He never submitted to bullying by any German and neither will his son” – proceeding to tear up a letter, supposedly from Enders.
There are roughly 30 working days to go. Brexiteers continue their demand that the UK embrace no-deal.
One can only assume that the embrace of no-deal would be cut by Jermyn Street and carry notes of Eau Sauvage, Players and port.
A damning report from the Scottish Parliament Finance and Constitution Committee puts the notion into starker perspective.
A no-deal Brexit, they unanimously concurred, would damage Scotland’s economy and is “not in the national interest”.
On Tuesday, MPs will begin to table, debate and vote on amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement.
If MPs approve amendments calling for an extension of Article 50 – as per a Bill tabled by Yvette Cooper and Nick Boles – then the Government would be faced with a fresh crisis.
The same goes for Dominic Grieve’s amendment, backed by the SNP, which demands a People’s Vote.
Another notable amendment is led by Tory Dame Caroline Spelman and Labour MP Jack Dromey, who tabled an amendment designed to prevent no deal.
READ MORE: Kirsty Hughes: What would a no-deal Brexit really mean?
This would not be binding but would express the view of the house towards a no-deal.
What Jeremy Corbyn will do is another thing entirely. He has refused to take part in talks with the Prime Minister on the future of Brexit and may announce plans to table a draft bill on Labour’s alternative Brexit plan.
Of course, the PM could retain control of all of these possible outcomes in the end.
She could get her concessions from the EU on the backstop, win the support of the DUP and rebels and bring a new deal back to Parliament that could float.
Having ruled out an extension of Article 50 and a second referendum. Time is an ally of no one.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel