Theresa May can point to some wins, but ultimately she has ended up pleasing no one

Theresa May has again confounded her critics, just as she did at previous crunch points in the tortuous Brexit process. After intense negotiations, UK and EU officials have drafted a withdrawal agreement running to almost 500 pages. Ms May called several anxious ministers to Downing Street for one-to-one meetings to try to allay their deep misgivings, before asking the cabinet to endorse the deal on Wednesday.

After five hours of what Ms May admitted was “impassioned debate” about difficult choices, she announced that the cabinet had backed the deal – without saying the decision was unanimous. She insisted it was the only alternative to leaving the EU with no deal and “no Brexit at all”. She promised that the agreement would give the UK back control over its laws and borders, end free movement and protect jobs, security and the union.

Unfortunately, her argument about “control” has been undermined by Sabine Weyand, the deputy to EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier. She reportedly told EU ambassadors the supposedly temporary customs arrangement under the backstop to prevent a hard Irish border would align the UK with EU rules, “but the EU will retain all the controls”.

Ms May can point to some wins in the negotiations. The customs backstop will be UK-wide rather than apply only to Northern Ireland. She will claim to have seen off the EU’s demand for a “backstop to the backstop”, which would have created a customs border in the Irish Sea. But the 10 Democratic Unionist Party MPs believe that Northern Ireland will instead have to follow single market rules more closely than the rest of the UK, and threaten to oppose the agreement. The 13 Scottish Conservatives have expressed concern that, despite the prime minister’s words, EU fishermen will have access to UK waters after the “status quo” transitional period ends in December 2020.

Many Tory MPs share such concerns. The biggest group of critics, the European Research Group chaired by Jacob Rees-Mogg, do not believe the deal is a “real Brexit”. They are worried the UK will not be able to leave the backstop unilaterally. They are threatening to trigger a vote of confidence in Ms May as Tory leader; this time it might really happen. Ominously, Eurosceptic and pro-EU Tories alike worry that the UK will be subject to EU regulations without having any say over them. Ms May will doubtless present her deal as a middle way between extremists who either want to stop Brexit or leave without a deal. The truth is that she has ended up pleasing virtually no one; even loyalists prepared to support her deal know it is a bad one.

The prime minister may have won the grudging support of her cabinet but, as things stand, risks a humiliating defeat in the Commons. Of course, some people will be relieved that an agreement is finally within sight. Business is desperate to avoid a cliff-edge exit next March without a transitional period. But business figures should think carefully before being coerced by No 10 into publicly endorsing a bad deal that would not win the approval of the cabinet or Commons if they were allowed a free vote.

Similarly, MPs should not accept the false choice they will be offered between her bad deal and the chaos of a no-deal departure. Playing on fears of “no deal” in all parties – and Tory fears of a general election and Corbyn government – gives the prime minister her only chance of scraping together a majority in next month’s crucial Commons vote on the deal. It is a grubby way to frame what for most MPs will be the most momentous vote they cast.

No prime minister could take the UK out of the EU without a deal against the will of parliament. MPs have the power – and the numbers – to prevent such a calamitous exit. They should make clear now that they are not afraid to use their muscle, so the Commons gets a wider choice. Its options would include: extending the Article 50 process for further negotiations; a “Norway-plus” deal of European Economic Area membership and customs union; and, as The Independent advocates, asking the public what they now want in a Final Say referendum.