‘Abject surrender’: May told she must quit over new Brexit delay

● Brexiteers turn on Prime Minister over six-month extension ● Corbyn says government must compromise for talks to work

Theresa May was accused of an “abject surrender” in Brussels and told to quit by one of her own MPS after she agreed to delay Brexit until 31 October.

Challenging her in the Commons, Brexiteers questioned whether the Prime Minister understood the level of “anger” across the country after having “broken promises 100 times” on not pushing back the date of the UK’S withdrawal from the EU.

And former ministers David Davis and Greg Hands joined calls for new leadership to reset Brexit negotiations.

Mrs May faced MPS following a late-night agreement with the EU to delay Brexit by up to a further six months, ensuring the UK will take part in EU elections unless the Withdrawal Agreement can be passed before 22 May.

Mark Francois, the deputy leader of the pro-brexit European Research Group of MPS, said the Prime Minister was guilty of “sheer obstinacy”, and Tory grandee Sir Bill Cash claimed the agreement “undermines our democracy”.

“Does the Prime Minister appreciate the anger that her abject surrender last night has generated across the country, having broken promises 100 times not to extend the time?” Mr Cash asked, before adding: “Will she resign?”

Mrs May replied: “I think you know the answer to that.”

Setting out the terms of the agreement in Brussels, which will see the UK retain full privileges of EU membership, the

“Does the Prime Minister appreciate the anger that her abject surrender last night has generated across the country?” SIR BILL CASH

Prime Minister told MPS: “Sadly, not sufficient numbers of members across this House voted to leave the European Union on those dates and hence the extension has been requested to enable us to come to a position where this House can agree on a majority on a deal that we can deliver on leaving the European Union.”

She said she had fought off attempts by French president Emmanuel Macron to force tough conditions on the UK during an extension, including the possible removal of its EU Commissioner and its veto over budget issues.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the second Brexit extension in the space of a fortnight represents “not only a diplomatic failure, but is another milestone in the government’s mishandling of the entire Brexit process”.

But the two leaders tried to sound a positive note on talks between their parties which now represent the last chance for the government to have a say in the Brexit process.

Negotiators from the two front benches met yesterday for a second time this week, but little immediate progress is expected with MPS told that with an extension secured, they can return to their constituencies for the remainder of the Easter holiday.

Mr Corbyn said talks between Labour and the Conservatives to find a Brexit compromise were “serious, detailed and ongoing”, and on the central Labour demand that the UK stay in the EU customs union, Mrs May said: “I think there is actually more agreement in relation to a customs union than is often given credit for when different language is used.”

But the Labour leader warned that “all options should remain on the table, including the option of a public vote,” adding: “If these talks are to be a success... the government will have to compromise.”

Mrs May replied: “I’m not prepared just to accept Labour’s policies, the Labour Party isn’t prepared to just accept our policies. This takes compromise on both sides.”

Earlier, Attorney General Geoffrey Cox said the government would “listen” to the option of a second referendum, responding to a question from SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

Financial giant PWC advises that when you “buy an asset or a company or invest in a major project you need as much detail about what you’re investing in as possible”. The firm’s due diligence service, it adds, “investigates the attractiveness of an investment to help you understand what makes a transaction successful”.

Before the 2016 EU referendum, it’s probably fair to say that Remainers and Brexiteers had little understanding about the attractiveness or otherwise of Brexit & Co. However, quite a bit of due diligence has been done since and there is a widespread acceptance that it will have a negative effect on the economy. A no-deal Brexit has even been compared to the 2008 financial crash, prompting warnings from both the Confederation of British Industry and Trades Union Congress.

But leaving the EU was always about more than the pounds and pence and, for many Brexiteers, it is still the right thing to do – “taking back control” of our affairs. Some even think that a no-deal Brexit is a price worth paying, which in The Scotsman’s opinion is a recklessly dangerous view.

The journalist Peter Oborne, writing for the opendemocracy website,

explained why he had voted for Brexit. “It’s an exaggeration to say the European Union is anti-democratic, but it is not democratic. This leads to a problem. The politicians operating at a national level are accountable for decisions made in Brussels or Berlin for which they have no responsibility,” he explained.

And this democratic disconnect is indeed a real problem for the EU, which has to be solved if it is to thrive.

But the main point of Oborne’s article was to explain why he now wanted to “suspend” Brexit. “If we are honest, we Brexiteers have to admit that the economic arguments for Brexit have been destroyed by a series of shattering blows,” he wrote.

In essence, what he is saying is that Brexit, as currently formulated, has failed the informal due diligence process and we should hold off from concluding the deal. The gridlock in Parliament is further evidence of this – there appears to be no way to leave the EU that is good enough to win over the majority of MPS. And even if they managed to cobble together a majority for some kind of deal, would this really be what people voted for? Only a second referendum would tell us for sure.