Fresh Brexit intrigue made my first week go with a bang

I arrived this week in the political editor’s chair, replacing the estimable Joe Watts, after many years spent prowling the corridors of Westminster for the Press Association news agency. I’m looking forward to the chance to shine some light into the murk and confusion of the current political scene on behalf of the country’s most independent-minded readers.

As is inevitable nowadays, on arrival I was immediately thrust into the turmoil of the latest attempt to salvage Theresa May’s Brexit deal. The news slipped out of Downing Street late in the evening after talks between the PM and Jeremy Corbyn. No 10 breezily announced that the tete-a-tete had been “useful and constructive”, but Labour’s account was altogether more gloomy, speaking of Corbyn’s concern about May’s ability to deliver.

And well might he be concerned. Tory Brexiteers and the DUP were quick to brand the plan unacceptable and it began to seem the announcement of a vote on the withdrawal agreement was little more than a ruse to get the PM past a showdown with the grandees of the 1922 Committee executive on Thursday. If she could persuade them she was bringing the whole terrible process to a head one way or another, perhaps they would give her a stay of execution at least until the summer?

The assumption in Westminster is that May can’t get her bill through without a watertight cross-party agreement with Labour. But even this might not be enough, as the customs union deal that this would certainly involve would be poison to so many on her own benches.

A cat was thrown among the pigeons when a senior Labour spokesperson kept the option open of the party’s MPs being whipped to abstain on second reading. Under heavy questioning, the spokesperson would say only that the party would “not support” the bill without a cross-party agreement, which is the kind of careful phrasing that always raises suspicions among hacks. Abstention would be a lifeline to the drowning PM, howled pro-Remain MPs.

In what appears to be a mini-power struggle within Labour’s upper echelons, shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry testily noted that it was elected politicians who made the decisions, and Sir Keir Starmer put the matter beyond doubt the next morning, telling the Commons that Labour would “vote against” the bill if no agreement was forthcoming.

So we are back where we were – another vote, no sign of consensus, another humiliation looming for the prime minister. As ever with Brexit, frantic activity seems to produce no progress at all – and the clock keeps on ticking.

Yours,

Andrew Woodcock

Political editor