The Sketch: Opposition scores with penalty shot in PM's backtrack on poor countries

Was the Prime Minister humiliated in Seville? There is one totally, absolutely, utterly unambiguous answer to that, and the Prime Minister gave it to us right between the eyes - it was yes and no.

He had gone to Spain in an agenda-setting way to ram through proposals to take away development aid to poor countries who allowed their people to flee to Britain. The European Union leaders – they can be flint-hearted – rebuffed the eye-catching initiative though our Prime Minister was so personally associated with it.

Iain Thing pointed out Mr Blair had gone to Seville supremely confident, saying: "I have no doubt we'll reach agreement." Labour members heckled: "They did reach agreement." That is known as spin. The agreement reached was that the proposal was too eye-catching so it was chucked out. The Prime Minister of Sweden described it as "stupid", Mr Thing told us. Sweden called it "unworkable" and "a historic mistake."

Instead, the summit agreed to a European border police force which Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had promised "would not feature" at all in negotiations. A deathly, and perhaps rather deadly silence hung over the Labour benches.

When the Prime Minister replied, "We never wanted to penalise poor countries", the silence deepened perceptibly. This has been a week, after all, when 54 per cent of people said they no longer believed what Mr Blair said. "We never wanted to penalise poor countries." He never explained why, in that case, he set out to penalise poor countries.

Charles Kennedy continued the quiet assault. "Sanctions and punishment of the poorest nations is not the way forward," he said. The words "morally repugnant" were used. And a clever jibe comparing Europe's role with us with our claimed role vis-à-vis President Bush: Europe had been "something of a candid friend" to Britain.

The House reacted in an odd way, particularly the Labour half. They didn't do anything. It was hot, perhaps? Perhaps they were stunned by Euro-babble? ("If we find they are not co-operating we reserve the right to adopt positions that we agree on," Mr Blair said at one stage).

Or perhaps they were – and this really is going where no commentator has gone before – ashamed? Gordon Brown left the front bench first, I think.

Suddenly he was gone. Robin Cook disappeared. David Blunkett followed, Tessa Jowell and Hilary Armstrong went. Suddenly just four or five front bench juniors were left to support the Prime Ministerial presence.

Tory John Maples pressed the Prime Minister into an unusual display of shiftiness. Were there absolutely no circumstances in which Mr Blair would agree to these border guards patrolling on British territory? Mr Blair prevaricated away in his most unambiguous way: "This proposal isn't for us. Or for Spain. Or for France," he said with a fine show of exasperation. The suggestion was "fatuous" and "wrong". But then, pressed, barracked, harassed, he covered his other flank and said he'd make up his mind on the arguments when the feasibility study came out.

Only one other ministerial creature in recent history has made such skilful use of the ambiguities of public discourse: Stephen Byers.

His song is ended but the melody lingers on.

simoncarr75@hotmail.com