Advertisement

Theresa May has returned from Brussels virtually empty-handed – but there's still hope

There is a joke doing the rounds in Brussels that has been credited to a Scandinavian diplomat: “There are two sorts of nations in the European Union; small nations and those that don’t realise they’re small nations.”

It may be dawning on the British just how small they are these days. At the EU summit, Theresa May found her proposed “reassurances” being vetoed by the likes of Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark. She has had to look for help from Austria, which holds the rotating EU presidency.

In any event, the prime minister returns from her latest trip virtually empty-handed, if not humiliated. After a public spat with the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, about whether he called her or the British policy “nebulous”, she made the best of the “conclusions” published by the remaining EU27. Ms May declared proudly, as if some great prize had been secured, that the conclusions have “legal status”. So they do, but they are imprecise and hardly exacting: “The European Council also underlines that, if the backstop were nevertheless to be triggered, it would apply temporarily, unless and until it is superseded by a subsequent agreement that ensures that a hard border is avoided. In such a case, the EU would use its best endeavours to negotiate and conclude expeditiously a subsequent agreement that would replace the backstop, and would expect the same of the United Kingdom, so that the backstop would only be in place for as long as strictly necessary.”

What Ms May has wished for is the approval and publication of a document, a “joint interpretative instrument”, in the jargon, something that Ms May believes will get the UK-EU withdrawal agreement over the line in time for the parliamentary vote, due by 21 January.

She didn’t get it. Partly this was because the EU is disinclined to contradict the hard-fought withdrawal agreement, as a strategic priority. It was also denied because nations such as the Netherlands apparently fear that to offer the necessary words now would merely whet MPs’ appetites, and Ms May would soon be back asking for more.

Optimistically, from her point of view, there appears to be some goodwill remaining for the UK. It is perfectly possible that, in a month’s time or so, Ms May will be given some sort of piece of paper with the kinds of formulations she is demanding.

Will that be enough to satisfy the rebels and the DUP? Would it be enough to attract potential allies in other opposition parties to back her deal?

She will have more chance of winning the vital votes if she is able to portray a choice between her deal – plus the legally binding side letter – and no-deal Brexit. To do that she needs to avoid any parliamentary manoeuvres by the likes of Dominic Grieve or Hilary Benn that would rule out for good the so-called chaotic Brexit. As things stand, that is the only form of Brexit that has been legislated for, and will come into effect on 29 March.

Much can change between now and the middle of January. It seems more likely than not that some way of parliament exercising its judgement will be discovered, and that the prospect of hard Brexit can be ruled out.

The option of a second referendum that offers the people the final say on the terms of Brexit is increasingly attractive as a way to break the deadlock – and as a moral imperative. If democracy means anything it is that the British electorate must be given the opportunity to affirm their consent to an action that no one ever knew would be the outcome of these talks. Ms May’s work will not be over until she receives the support of the sovereign British people for what she is doing. Without that, whatever happens will never be sustainable or accepted as democratically legitimate.