SO Theresa May heeded Tony Blair’s cautionary words about running at full speed into a brick wall, and scrapped - at short notice - today’s crucial Commons vote on the withdrawal agreement with the EU. The move, in recognition that the deal had zero chance of winning parliamentary approval, buys her some time in which to hold emergency talks with EU leaders and discuss possible changes to the perennially troublesome issue of the Irish backstop.
She had little choice but to cancel the vote, even if her senior aides and colleagues had been making earnest assurances that it would go ahead. Discretion was unquestionably the better part of valour.
Even the Speaker, John Bercow, felt compelled to describe it a discourtesy to the House for the government to cancel the vote without giving MPs a say. The rebuke reflects the extraordinary nature of these times, of the endless confusion and conflict that Brexit has generated. Labour MP Angela Eagle’s observation that she has rarely seen a government in such a ‘farrago of chaos’ as this one will strike a chord with many voters.
So Mrs May will be going cap-in-hand to Brussels to discuss the backstop afresh. But what happens if she doesn’t make headway? Has she merely succeeded in delaying the inevitable? She made a point of saying that her government is to step up its No-Deal planning should MPs fail to agree to her new deal.
Pressure will grow for a vote of No Confidence and a general election, or for a second Brexit referendum, an option to which Mrs May remains resolutely opposed.
Mrs May delivered a robust performance yesterday, challenging her critics to be honest about the consequences of their preferred options, and referring to non-DUP voters in Northern Ireland. But the inescapable fact is that the hazardous uncertainty caused by the absence of an agreed withdrawal deal will continue for several months yet. The CBI’s warning of a ‘national crisis’ if no deal is agreed soon deserves to be heeded.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here