May's deal rejected - an inevitable outcome

Theresa May (Photo: BBC)

And so, the inevitable has finally happened.

There was never any other realistic outcome since 23rd June 2016.

David Cameron was never going to hang around once his ill-conceived attempt at simultaneously uniting his party on Europe while neutralising UKIP's threat backfired spectacularly.

And whoever became PM following Cameron's resignation was going to have to inherit his impossible legacy. Yes, Theresa May has proved inept beyond belief, but it is questionable whether Andrea Leadsom, Boris Johnson or Michael Gove would have fared any better in No. 10. Ultimately all of them would have tried, as May has, to deliver a Brexit that kept everyone on board - from reluctant acceptees of the result to die-hard ERG types. And it would have ended in the same way - failure.

Why? Because "the easiest deal in history" was always going to be anything but, and if you want to secure a good deal for the future then it's advisable to go in with a plan. Unfortunately, during the campaigning, no-one on the government side ever thought of putting even the loosest of proposals together as to what would happen in the eventuality of a leave vote. This was irresponsible and meant the referendum simply asked a generalised question rather than established the electorate's view on a specific proposal. This complete lack of regard to forward thinking was also inherited by May's administration - who believed that arbitrary red lines and a refusal to accept basic facts somehow represented an adequate substitute for preparation.

The Prime Minister also called a General Election she promised she wouldn't, simply because she believed the supposed guaranteed increased majority would secure unconditional support for her deal, however bad it was. It might just have paid off, but she appointed Nick Timothy as her campaign manager. And then there was the inability to consider the particularly tricky issue of the border with Ireland, added to the Prime Minister's delaying tactics that made this final outcome no less inevitable.

Like Cameron, Theresa May has been undone by her hubris and determination to put party interest before national interest. She has committed herself - and the country - into committing an act of national self-harm for reasons no-one either remembers or is any longer remotely interested in. "The people have spoken" has become an excuse for intransigent government strategy rather than the expression of a desire to uphold democratic values.

If Mrs May had been willing to listen, she might have come to understand that no amount of wrapping herself in the flag, offering blue passports and making populist noises on immigration was going to convince the ERG or Nigel Farage to support "her" Brexit. She never sought to create a parliamentary consensus - simply impose one via a General Election she vainly believed she would win with ease. Treating Parliament with obvious disdain (on several occasions) only served to unite MPs against her in some of the strangest defeats any government has ever suffered, with MPs such as Jo Swinson and Chuka Umunna going through the no lobby alongside Peter Bone and Esther McVey.

The likes of Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Nadine Dorries and Bill Cash were never going to support the PM's deal. Securing a deal inevitably requires some compromise - not for them the tricky business of negotiation and having to actually attempt to answer difficult questions. There were always going to be those who sniped from the sidelines, complaining that their idealised "Unicorn" Brexit wasn't being delivered. May's mistake was to value the support of such people, and to pander to their whims.

There has been a concerted effort, especially from some Conservative MPs, to blame the EU for the Prime Minister's inability to come back to the House with an acceptable deal. Such arguments are simply wrong. The EU gave Theresa May the deal she wanted - including her backstop. It was Mrs May's failure to firstly listen to Parliament and, secondly, to sell her agreement to MPs that has resulted in this disaster. Her confidence that MPs could be bullied into accepting a deal, however bad, was as foolish as her belief that the public viewed her as a tower of "strength and stability".

Was this avoidable? Well, yes - but that would have required a different approach from the Prime Minister from the outset. The lack of openness, the threat to use Henry VIII powers, the "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric, the "citizens of nowhere" insults...all combined to give the impression of a PM determined to steamroller on regardless. She never sought agreement, never formulated a coherent set of proposals. Her only strategy was to bully her way to a deal - any deal - and then blame the public ("they voted for it, I'm delivering") and the EU ("they won't give me what I want!"). At no point has the Prime Minister ever looked ready to take responsibility for her own decisions. Mrs May's failure has been inevitable from the day she took the reins of power promising to "make Brexit a success" without first finding consensus on what that actually involved. Not only has this defeat been inevitable, it's been fully deserved.

The withdrawal agreement was a terrible deal for so many reasons, but it was in all probability the best deal that could realistically have been obtained under the self-imposed constraints and ERG-satisfying red lines. The tragedy for the Prime Minister is that her bluster and unrealistic aspirational rhetoric blinded so many to this reality. She went to Brussels looking for a deal, and got it. She came back telling us what a good deal it was, before rapidly changing her tune after the "meaningful" Commons vote. She never stood by "her" deal, never defended it; instead, like a 12-year old caught with a cigarette, sought to deny her involvement and blame others.

The comings and goings - and all the speculation - around Westminster of late have been absolutely fascinating, even if mainly for the wrong reasons. It has been in turn stimulating, entertaining, shocking, dramatic, sensational and baffling. But there can be no escaping that this has served democracy largely badly, has created a constitutional mess and resulted in crippling uncertainty. To paraphrase Pierre Bosquet, "c'est magnifique mais ce n'est pas la politique: c'est de la folie".

This is surely the end for the Prime Minister. She has no power or authority; unlike John Major in his final days, she does not even command much respect. Even in such unusual times as these, I suspect she cannot go on for much longer. As for Brexit - there's a long way to go yet, but if it happens it will certainly not be Theresa May's Brexit. That Brexit is no more, has ceased to be, is bereft of life. It is, to misquote the famous Monty Python sketch, an ex-Brexit.

We will now have a parliamentary vote on whether to leave the EU without a deal. While I think ultimately there isn't a majority for "no deal", what happens in the eventuality of that being rejected is anyone's guess. This has to be the worst game of "Deal or No Deal" ever.