Politics

Why did Britain vote for Brexit? As Parliament gazes into the abyss, the question seems worth asking, even if I don’t pretend to be able to offer a simple answer. And that’s the point, really. Britain is teetering on the brink of a grand failure of policy and politics because, insofar as anyone involved has even wondered why a majority of voters rejected Britain’s political-economic settlement in June 2016, they have generally come up with simple, shallow answers. Among No Deal Leavers, most explanations for the referendum result these days refer to “control” (especially over immigration policy) or “sovereignty” or some nebulous idea of the economic opportunities that lie in

Today’s Sunday Times splash – about a ‘coup’ being plotted by Tory rebels to take over Brexit – looks and feels like it was dreamed up in No. 10. It wasn’t and the story shouldn’t be dismissed because of that. The Speaker’s actions last week have changed the calculations: something previously judged procedurally impossible (for rebels to call the shots in parliament) is now a genuine risk. In my view, it risks the very stability of the government. The story so far: that Dominic Grieve and Oliver Letwin are seeking a way to seize control of business in the Commons, so that backbench motions take precedence over government motions. This matters

Before the big vote on Tuesday night, the EU’s 27 government heads will provide greater reassurances – probably in the form of a collective letter to Theresa May, and within the mandate confirmed at the last EU Council – that the controversial Northern Ireland backstop will not and cannot be forever. What does that mean? Well for those MPs agonising about whether or not to support the PM’s Brexit plan, and who think the word of political leaders counts for something, a few votes may move in Theresa May’s direction. And maybe, in the words of one senior British minister, May will be able to frame the letter as being