Support for Theresa May’s deal is still a vote for a misplaced principle, even if Brexiteers are changing their tune

It seems highly unlikely that those who voted to leave the EU in 2016 would have envisaged a withdrawal of the sort negotiated by the prime minister and her officials

Are the hardline Brexiteers softening their stance? Certainly there have been indications in that direction.

Last week Jacob Rees-Mogg hinted he was prepared to be more flexible over demands the infamous Irish backstop be amended. Now a group of lawyers within the hardline, pro-Brexit European Research Group (ERG) have set out three tests that a new agreement regarding the backstop would have to meet to win their support.

While the demands are hardly unfamiliar – especially regarding the need to ensure that the backstop can only be temporary – the group, led by Sir Bill Cash, have suggested they are not wedded to any particular mechanism by which all this can be achieved.

In other words, the EU withdrawal deal negotiated by the prime minister may not itself need to be re-examined, provided that a legally binding annex, or discrete agreement on the key Irish question, can be concluded between the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, and EU negotiators.

In theory, that gives Theresa May more wriggle room to get her deal through the Commons when MPs get their next “meaningful vote” in just over a week.

Supporters of the beleaguered prime minister might argue that the Brexiteers’ manoeuvring is a vindication of her stubborn, long-game approach. By getting to the point where pro-Brexit MPs feel as if they might have to vote for her deal if they are to win any sort of departure from the EU (unhappy though they are with it), Ms May has certainly increased her chances of securing victory.

Add to that support from the chair, Sir Graham Brady, of the 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs. Despite voting against Ms May’s deal in January, he is now urging his colleagues to “pull together behind the prime minister” and support a revised version.

Still, it remains far from certain that enough MPs will fall in behind her, especially if Labour whips its members to vote against the deal – although some are likely to rebel. Moreover, there will almost certainly be a rump of hardline Conservatives who do not regard the present deal (with or without tweaks to the Irish backstop) as delivering Brexit in any real sense. They are unlikely to support the PM, even if – paradoxically – that means leaving open the possibility of a second referendum and of remaining in the EU as a full member.

In any event, it is still not clear whether the EU is prepared to give any further assurances over the Irish border – at least not of the order that the ERG would need if they are to give their backing to Ms May.

Either way, there is a danger in the current atmosphere that those who are responsible for doing the right thing for the country become blinded by the feverish atmosphere in which parliamentary machinations and mathematics are taking precedence over the key issues, which lest we forget are twofold: will the prime minister’s deal deliver what the public want; and will it be positive for the United Kingdom?

On the first point, it seems highly unlikely that those who voted to leave the EU in 2016 would have envisaged a withdrawal of the sort negotiated by Ms May and her officials. Such was the confidence of the Leave campaign, a departure on the current terms will feel like a damp squib to some.

In truth, only a referendum on Ms May’s terms of departure would give us a definitive view.

As to the second question, the vast majority of economic commentators remain convinced that leaving the EU will be a mistake, fuelling a downturn which will have negative consequences for years. Travel will be made more difficult; younger people in particular will miss out on opportunities their parents enjoyed. Loss of direct involvement in key European agencies will cause a host of problems.

A vote for Ms May’s deal remains, at best, a vote for a misplaced principle. When politicians come to consider their position and their consciences, they must examine the agreement in full – not only in the context of party or parliamentary tactics. If they are honest with themselves, they will find the deal wanting: just as it was always going to be.