PMQs: “Well, none of that was clear to me” – Corbyn sums it up

Following last night’s sort-of-mixed bag of key Brexit votes, we were offered a punchy PMQs today. But as usual, Jeremy Corbyn’s questions went largely unanswered by the Prime Minister. One of his exasperated responses – “Well, none of that was clear to me, I don’t know about anybody else…” – just about summed up proceedings. Nothing has changed there.

The Labour leader accurately pinpointed the main areas of interest: the mysterious “alternative arrangements” replacing the backstop, which Theresa May has pledged to secure from the EU against all the odds, and whether the latest symbolic vote against ‘no deal’ will be respected. Quite a bit of shouting followed and not much light was shed, however.

As we know, no deus ex machina moment has arrived and the government is still stuck on the same old anti-backstop ideas that were rejected months ago. It was no surprise, then, that the PM could only tell the Commons that “a number of proposals” are being considered. The executive is “engaging positively” with ideas such as backstop changes including “a unilateral exit mechanism or a time limit” or the new ‘Malthouse Compromise’, she informed MPs.

We’ve been here before. The ability to unilaterally pull out from the backstop or place a time limit on that insurance policy makes it redundant. Those are non-starters. The new Malthouse plan is a rehash of ‘max fac’, again conclusively dismissed last year as it relies on expensive and – more importantly – undetermined border technology. As Corbyn pointedly asked: “Can the Prime Minister be very clear what technological advances is she expecting to be made in the next 58 days?”

The Labour leader pressed May on her red lines. She grabbed an opportunity here to mock the opposition leader for not taking an intervention from Labour backbencher Angela Smith yesterday – as if she has a leg to stand on when it comes to party unity, or would give into calls for a fresh EU referendum. The PM didn’t name any red lines that could change, confirming that she is not yet willing to shift towards Labour’s demands. Instead, she continues to assume the EU would rather capitulate to hers than risk ‘no deal’.

Finally, Corbyn’s central request.”I would be grateful if the Prime Minister would actually acknowledge that the House has voted to take no deal off the table,” he said. “And can she assure the House that if she is unable to secure any legal changes to the backstop, that she would work to find a solution based on a comprehensive customs union, a strong single market deal and the guaranteeing of rights and protections, rather than go back to the alternative that she’s been threatening everybody with for months and months, which was to crash out without any deal whatsoever?”

The Prime Minister is right to say that ruling out ‘no deal’ is “not the end of the story”, and he agrees, but that is the opposition leader’s basic negotiating demand. Without conceding on this point, their 3pm meeting this afternoon will be as unproductive as any PMQs session. That is bound to be the case: just as ruling out ‘no deal’ is key to Corbyn’s negotiations with May, the Prime Minister reckons keeping the risk of ‘no deal’ on the table is crucial to her negotiations with the EU.