The Government briefs optimistically about obtaining an ECJ opinion that would give some reassurance that the backstop is genuinely temporary. Their optimism is misplaced; if the court were to produce one it would be counterproductive, confirming suspicions that it is more a political than legal court. Even less convincing are assurances of more Parliamentary involvement in the application of the Agreement, when Article 4 of that very document states that EU law would be superior, making the views of our elected representatives merely advisory.

Perhaps the Government’s most convincing argument is that there is no other deal available, and the consequences of rejecting it will take us into uncharted waters. Even this is a thin one, and was conclusively squashed by a brilliant letter to the Telegraph from Mr Jerry Doyle of Liverpool, who wrote in to point out that: “Britain became a superpower by exploring uncharted waters.”

With no arguments in favour of the deal, apparently the Government’s new, although hardly credible, strategy is to make the House of Commons vote again and again until eventually it tires of the issue and passes the Agreement. Yet under parliamentary procedure, the same question may not normally be put twice in a session. It would certainly not be in order to propose the same motion every day for a month.

This leaves the Government reduced to threating Leavers and Remainers alike. The former are told “fail to back the deal and we will not leave,” the latter that we will “crash out” if the Agreement is not passed. Unfortunately, these two sides talk to each other and have realised that they are being played. The only real chance for the Government is, as it has always been, to say to the EU that if it wants our £39 billion it must in return give the UK a trade deal and a smooth transition. Instead of pursuing this the Government ploughs on regardless.