Just ask a simple question ... and No 10 will find way not to answer it

ANALYSIS IT was a simple enough question. Was the word “progress” used when Theresa May and her Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay briefed colleagues at yesterday’s weekly Cabinet meeting on the ongoing talks with Brussels?

“The Brexit Secretary said he had a constructive meeting. The PM has had very extensive engagement with foreign leaders. But obviously there is more work still to do and the PM will be continuing her discussions with Jean-claude Juncker tomorrow,” said the Prime Minister’s spokesman.

The response conspicuously did not contain the word “yes”.

Now, on the more generous side, it could be No 10 thinks that if it responded affirmatively, then the next question would be what progress, entangling the Government machine in a web of unhelpful inquiries. Given the delicate nature of the talks, one could understand why Downing Street would want to be even more reticent than usual.

On the less generous side, it could be no progress is being made; which would be worrying.

The speech on the legal move to unblock the impasse on the backstop due to be given by the ebullient Attorney General today has now been shifted back, probably to tomorrow. The Brexit jury is out on whether this is a good sign or a bad sign.

It is arguably the case that Geoffrey Cox is now the person with the most crucial role of all because he has to come up with a legally binding means, agreed with the EU27, to convince the likes of the DUP’S Nigel Dodds and the ERG’S Jacob Reesmogg that the current backstop is well and truly dead.

Now, given yet another helpful declaration by Brussels the “EU will not re-open the Withdrawal Agreement, we cannot accept a time-limit to the backstop or a unilateral exit clause,” then the UK’S room for manoeuvre appears somewhat restricted.

The time-limit and the unilateral exit clause are two of the three weapons Mrs May had in her Brexit arsenal; the only one remaining is the nebulous “alternative arrangements,” which relies on modern technology and which just a few months back the PM herself made clear did not exist.

So, where does this leave us? In a difficult spot; obviously. Or that should be in an even more difficult spot given time is now nipping at our heels.

Yesterday, Scottish Secretary David Mundell, along with Cabinet colleagues Amber

Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke, went en masse to see the PM to underline their total opposition to a no deal and to make their case for a limited extension to the Article 50 process should Mrs May return from Brussels by the time of next week’s vote empty-handed.

Last week, a Cabinet minister told me he was confident the PM would produce a “form of words,” that would make clear she would not allow Britain to leave the EU without a deal; more importantly, it would reassure the Tory Gang of Four so they would not resign either minutes before or minutes after next Wednesday’s vote.

No 10 declined to comment on the Gang of Four’s delegation but insisted Mrs May believed that extending Article 50 would do nothing more than put off the final decision. Brexit Minister Lord Callanan also insisted Britain would leave the EU on schedule on March 29.

Yet talk of an extension is gaining traction. Jose Manuel Barroso, the former European Commission President, said the bloc was likely to accept a request to extend Article 50.

But the choice facing the PM in the absence of that progress from Brussels – between keeping her Cabinet together and angering the Tory ERG – is not one she wants to have to make. But time could dictate she will have to and the only option will be to delay Brexit Day.