Hunt is unrealistic to believe we can renegotiate a deal if he asks nicely

Jeremy Hunt has set out his stall as the “good cop” negotiator should he win the race to become prime minister, promising to deliver a new deal rather than a “no deal”.

Like his rivals, he accepts that Theresa May’s failed Withdrawal Agreement will need to be changed to win approval in Parliament, but he

eschews the confrontational approach of the likes of Dominic Raab.

Both Mr Raab and Boris Johnson argue that if the EU really believe that the UK is prepared to leave without a deal, then the EU will blink at the 11th hour. Mr Hunt disagrees.

He rules out “no deal”, arguing that the reason Mrs May failed to win concessions on the Irish backstop was because EU leaders were never truly convinced they would actually deliver the deal. Rightly, as it turned out.

Mr Hunt believes that a “reasonable and statesmanlike” request, delivered after broad consultation with the DUP, the Welsh and Scottish parties and the Tory party’s Brexiteer wing, the ERG, could make Europe see things differently. Could it work? Well, it might sound hopelessly naive but Mr Hunt is correct on his first point, which is that the 27 EU leaders did indeed lose confidence in Mrs May, and frequently cited her political weakness as a reason for not making deal-clinching concessions.

Where his plan is totally unrealistic, is in the belief that the EU leaders will renegotiate because he asks nicely.

And to just ram the message home, Jean-claude Juncker said last night he was “crystal clear” that there would “no renegotiation” of the Withdrawal Agreement.

The EU is wedded to the need for the Irish backstop for substantive reasons – because the UK cannot answer the question of how it will deliver an invisible border in Ireland while leaving the EU customs union and single market.

Mr Hunt’s blithe assertion that technology offers “great promise” brings blood to the boil very quickly in Brussels and Dublin. Simply stated, no one there believes that it does.

But Mr Hunt’s promise to involve other parties, while ludicrous on the face of it – picture the scene of Jacob Rees-mogg and Nigel Dodds of the DUP ranged against Michel Barnier and his team – does touch on one potentially fruitful line of attack. The EU will not give up the backstop, but it might find itself in a delicate position if a British prime minister would, say, attach a five-year time limit to the Irish backstop as a condition of passing the Withdrawal Agreement – and demonstrate a clear majority for this in Parliament.

It is true the EU has repeatedly ruled out time-limiting the backstop, but behind the scenes last January there were serious discussions about the idea as the price of a deal – before Mrs May lost by huge margins and embraced the Malthouse “compromise” that the EU so utterly rejects.

The idea of a time limit has never been tested in the context of a deliverable deal. Senior EU officials and diplomats privately do not rule out how such an offer might be received by European leaders. One suggestion is that it would ultimately be the choice of Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach, who might think differently if the stark choice is “no deal” in five weeks rather than in five years – and plenty of EU leaders might quietly encourage him to think that way.

There are plenty of unknowns here. Is Parliament now simply too polarised to accept such a deal on the UK side? Would the EU still say “no”, bearing in mind the precedent of capitulation it would set for the coming trade negotiations?

There is no clear answer but it is the kind of ticklish question that EU negotiators have feared being asked. Only a prime minister who carries the House with them will get to pose it.