The EU's deputy chief negotiator Sabine Weyand said yesterday that there is a high risk of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal by accident.
She also made a point of saying that the Withdrawal Agreement was shaped hugely by the parameters set by the UK and not the EU.
'We’re not going to reopen the Agreement. The result of the negotiation has been very much shaped by the UK negotiators, much more than they actually get credit for. This is a bit like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The backstop was very much shaped by UK.'
She also made the observation that
'In fact much of the conversation is uninhibited by any knowledge of what is actually in the WA.'
She reaffirmed the point that from the EU point of view that a time-limit to the Irish backstop defeated the purpose of having one. Remember the point of the backstop is to protect the integrity of the GFA.
Tonight is shaping up as follows:
Murrison II has been dropped in favour of the much more vague Brady Amendment. The government are now backing this, which would tie May into having to go back to the EU and talk about the backstop. Which if you refer to the above, was instigated and agreed to in no small part by May's own team.
The ERG are not happy about this, as they think they are being stitched up to be fully signed up to the WA.
The Brady amendment is being sold as enabling a mystery alternative solution. Which the government have said "well you'll have to vote for the amendment to find out what it is". Yes really.
This leaves the ERG split as to what to do. (Remember May needs pretty much a full house of support for a majority). And the DUP, after Sammy Wilson said today it was time for us to 'exploit the chaos of the EU', are also holding off making a decision.
The ERG then instead said that they will support an amendment by the PM herself which is crystal clear in its intent to remove the backstop and reopen the WA. Something May had ruled out. Then the ERG came up with the Malthouse Compromise and May has suddenly said that she will unilaterally reopen the WA.... Despite the EU ruling this out yesterday.
Remember Weyland said about the concept of Max Fac as an alternative to the backstop:
'We looked at every border on this earth, every border EU has with a 3rd country - there’s simply no way you can do away with checks & controls. The negotiators have not been able to explain them to us and that’s not their fault, it’s because they don’t exist.'
Before stressing:
'I still think the Political Declaration is a work of art because it bridges the unbridgeable and it leaves choices open. It doesn’t pretend to be able to make choices that have not been made in the UK. That’s the area where we do have room for manoeuvre.'
In other words, this is all in OUR hands to work out between ourselves and not the EU. We STILL have to decide what we want. But it STILL has to answer certain questions and issues that the EU have.
As far as numbers stand, the latest for the Brady was that between 20 (according to the gov whips) and 40 (according to the ERG) ERG rebels were holding out, whilst up to 10 remain tories are thinking of rebelling. Thats not anywhere near enough for May without large numbers of Labour rebels. BUT that was before the Malthouse Compromise came out.
Meanwhile the Cooper-Boles amendment has finally got a three line whip supporting it from Labour. But there is no word on what Tories might do. The last word on numbers was that there were just 3 votes in it - so it needs ALL MPs even the lazy ones to show up. Its proper squeaky bum time on that one. It even raises the possibility of the spectacle of the Speaker voting. And as previously mentioned if it passes as well as Brady it becomes sticky as to how it would work, the EU might not go for it anyway and it doesn't necessarily stop No Deal is certain situations.
In reality the worst outcome from the amendment votes today would be that nothing passes. It doesn't move us forward in anyway. Even Brady passing would lead us somewhere rather than the state of purgatory we are currently mired in.
Might the new 'Maltman Compromise' between Mogg, Morgan and Baker complete with its 'frontstop' instead of backstop and its magic new protocol which everyone will agree to but is completely be devoid of detail, be the way forward instead? Boris Johnson has declared it a breakthrough.
Of course not. Its best described as everyone's unicorns strapped together and its complete lack of compatibility with the EU's criteria make it a time wasting exercise just to make the Tories feel good about themselves and united in their belief that the EU is being mean to them.
Its almost as if those writing the Malthouse Compromise didn't understand what the EU have been saying all along...
In reality its a political device to whip May with and to waste time and to try and frame the EU as bad guys once again, not a serious proposal. But with widespread support within the Tory party May is going to find it hard to kill it off, even when the EU do.
If you weren't already going cross eyed by this point, this should finish you off. The Brady Amendment is vague enough to accomodate the Malthouse Compromise within it. Which might be the thing that gets the Brady Amendment through in the end anyway. Who knows?
If you've managed to follow all this even vaguely, then you are doing well. Please do ask questions if you are confused as hell, we'll all try and make some sense of it together!!!
Westministenders Abbreviation FAQ