May has marched us up, down and round and round. And still we are standing exactly where we began with no clue and no direction of where to go.
She may have survived a leadership challenge but it has resolved precisely nothing. And whilst many here are relieved because they feared an ERG proxy PM and the consequences and chaos of yet more lost time, May herself is a road block to any sort of resolution. Her inflexible approach and seeming lack of ideas are not helping matters.
May's rhetoric is that she will pursue a no deal v her deal strategy in extreme brinkmanship. Her efforts to reopen a negotiation that the UK had already agreed to have fallen flat with rising irritation for the EU. Indeed the EU seem to be toughing language (though it must be noted their position has remained exactly the same since the beginning)
The backstop is their red line, because its in essence the GFA.
May's promises to the DUP and to her own party were always unachievable; she should never have made them. She only did so to save her own neck, but in doing so, she makes it harder to force her deal though.
The all important vote it seems has been postponed until after Christmas. The deadline is 21st Jan. If there is no resolution the government have to make a statement in 5 days. Its still impossible to see it passing.
The Grieve III motion which was supposed to neutralise the threat of no deal has been rendered all but useless by the delay. Whether MPs realise this is another matter though. It could lead to a false sense of safety and not taking the prospect of no deal seriously.
Both May's actions and strategy and the false hope of Grieve III / revocation also weaken the prospect of alternative solutions to the WA, such as a Norway Plus or a People's Vote.
No deal preparations in the meantime have been stepped up.
May has promised that she will not revoke A50. The ERG clearly don't necessarily believe that or they wouldn't have launched their leadership challenge.
Would she though? Was it strategy or a slip when she said it was a choice between no deal, her deal or no brexit? And is this statement helpful or an additional problem in itself given subsequent developments?
I find it hard to forget her pig headed stubbornness and how she has persued court cases for no other reason other than to make a point, or for what looks like pure spite. I think she would no deal and take the fall out over revocation out of duty to her party and what she sees as her duty to the country to 'respect the vote'. The consequences be damned.
However the ever sceptical James Patrick does think she would revoke at the last minute because of her duty to the country and what no deal would do to the country. And she has proved she is for turning under extreme pressure.
The hard core of the ERG are also not done. They are avowed to do anything to stop a deal. Labour’s strategy seems to be tied to how serious the ERG and the DUP are with this. They are holding out for the prospect of a non-binding no confidence vote. Which is meaningless. Unless they have the numbers to challenge the Fixed Term Act then their current strategy is utterly pointless and just for the viewing consumption of those who don't understand how pointless this is. It's hard to see Labour’s real strategy as supporting anything but no deal in practice. Although the one ray of hope is that they did support Grieve III. They do need to wake up to the reality of the threat though.
Ultimately I fear it will come down to how MPs make this judgement call. Do they share my fears or do they share James Patrick's position.
And that is nothing but a gamble.
I fear Brexit will ultimately be decided on a gamble of What Would May Do. There isn't any other realistic prospect presenting itself at this stage.