The Tories will unite if we can fix the backstop

Nobody wants to introduce a hard border on the island of Ireland, so it should be possible to renegotiate

One of the many provocative allegations made by the European Union – and faithfully repeated by British broadcasters – is that while the House of Commons has frequently voted against a number of proposed variations on Brexit, it has never told them what it actually wants. This is, of course, untrue.

On January 29, the House passed the Brady amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement. This supported Theresa May’s deal on condition that the backstop was replaced by alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Achieving this would not just win the support of Parliament but also create a coherent position around which a Conservative Party that appears dangerously disunited could begin to coalesce.

The problems with the backstop arise solely out of the EU’S refusal to countenance any change to the wording of the Withdrawal

Agreement. But in recent days there have been a number of developments which completely change the dynamics of these discussions.

Many Brexiteers have long argued that the backstop was unnecessary because alternative arrangements could be put in place which would remove any need for a hard border. This argument has now received complete endorsement from the leaders of the EU.

Just a few days ago Leo Varadkar, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, told the Dail that under no circumstances would there be a border between the Republic and Northern Ireland. An identical assurance was given to the European Parliament by Jean-claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. And, on Tuesday of this week, the EU’S Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said that EU and Irish officials would find operational solutions to solve the problem of checking goods while maintaining an open border.

Since the UK Government has said it would not introduce any new checks on goods moving from Ireland into Northern Ireland, it is clear that the fears which have been long expressed about the dangers of a hard border are no longer credible.

What is more, on Friday of last week, Annegret Kramp-karrenbauer, the leader of Germany’s CDU and Angela Merkel’s anointed successor as chancellor, said: “If the UK now came to us and said, ‘Let’s spend five days negotiating non-stop on how to avoid the backstop,’ I can’t imagine anyone in Europe saying no.”

So it is little wonder that earlier this week Andrea Leadsom, the Leader of the House of Commons, suggested that we should indeed take advantage of this offer. Her words have only deepened the mystery as to why the Government has not yet responded to the German invitation.

These statements completely undermine the entire case for the backstop. If it is removed we would be left with an Agreement which, for all its imperfections, has already secured a majority in the House of Commons. And we could leave the EU without having to take part in elections to the European Parliament.

But there is another inference which can be drawn from these recent events. If, for reasons that are beyond my understanding, the Government persists in its refusal to resume negotiations, the House of Commons is left with the Withdrawal Agreement in its present form, backstop and all. But the Agreement includes an undertaking by the EU to use its “best endeavours” to find a way to avoid a hard border in Ireland, so making the activation of the backstop unnecessary.

Surely these statements mean it is now impossible for the EU to argue that the backstop is necessary? So the understandable concern of many Conservative MPS and the DUP, and which I myself have shared, that we could be trapped in the backstop indefinitely has been weakened virtually to vanishing point.

I fully understand that this is not the only reason why some have refused to support the Withdrawal Agreement, but the Brady amendment shows that it is the backstop which is the crucial factor in the Government’s inability, so far, to obtain a majority for it. So there are now powerful reasons for those who have opposed the agreement on these grounds to think again.

After all, if the Government proceeds with its declared intention of putting a further series of indicative votes to the House, we are quite likely to find that the amendment proposed by Kenneth Clarke, which would keep us in a full-blown customs union, will pass. This is the amendment which has come closest to passing in previous votes, but would make it impossible for us to enter into trading agreements with other countries. This would be very far from the Brexit for which I and more than 17 million others voted.

It is surely imperative, for our sense of national self-respect and respect for the result of the referendum, that we leave the EU before we need to take part in the elections to the European Parliament. It is clear that there are two ways in which this can be achieved. It is not too late.