Impassioned speeches, but the real showdown was in the shadows

It was the most crucial debate of the year. Yet it wasn’t the speeches that mattered. It was the chatter in the background. While each MP in turn held forth on the Lords amendments to the Brexit Bill, countless other MPS could be seen conferring, conspiring, debating plans and plotting deals. Tory Remainers huddled in little groups, sharing sweets and muttering to each other, hands over their mouths to frustrate lip-readers in the gallery. Desperate to avert a humiliating defeat for the Prime Minister, Government whips beetled back and forth about the chamber, pleading with rebels and updating anxious ministers. People were constantly changing seats, or slipping out of the chamber for more private talks.

There was Julian Smith, the Chief Whip, whispering to Justine Greening and George Freeman (two potential Tory rebels). Now here was Mr Smith scuttling across to David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, and Robert Buckland, the Solicitor General. And now here, at the Bar of the House, was Kate Hoey, a Labour Brexiteer, murmuring to Sir Bill Cash, a Tory Brexiteer.

All the while, the speeches went on: loud, impassioned, and almost entirely irrelevant. The real politics was happening in the shadows.

The one speech that clearly did count, though, came from Dominic Grieve (Con, Beaconsfield), the most formidable of the potential rebels, and

‘Mr Buckland spoke so gingerly, so delicately, he might have been negotiating a hostage’s release’

the brains behind the amendment most likely to defeat Mrs May. So worried was the Government that a minister, Mr Buckland, interrupted his speech several times, to beg Mr Grieve to back down. Mr Buckland spoke so gingerly, so delicately, he might have been negotiating a hostage’s release.

Would Mr Grieve please agree to meet ministers tomorrow, to iron out their little differences? Surely they could come to some arrangement … There was no need to do anything hasty … Ministers had read his proposals “very carefully” and were “willing to engage positively” … They would be delighted to discuss them with him “at the earliest opportunity” … Provided, of course, that Mr Grieve would be so kind as to avoid bringing down the Prime Minister in the meantime … She really would be most grateful …

Magnanimously Mr Grieve indicated his willingness to talk. In the shadows, the conferring resumed. George Hollingbery, parliamentary private secretary to Mrs May, could be seen leading Mr Grieve from the chamber; Mr Smith escorted the other potential rebels.

Shortly before the debate ended, the rebels returned. One of them, Antoinette Sandbach (Con, Eddisbury), rose to speak. “The Solicitor General has given an important concession,” she announced. “I would have supported the Lords amendment, had that concession not been made. “But …”

At that precise moment, the Speaker called a halt: debate over, time to vote. The outcome, though, was already clear. The Government had averted defeat. The rebels, meanwhile, had played hardball, made their demands, negotiated, and ultimately forced the other side to concede.

A pity they’re Remainers, or we could have sent them to Brussels.