PM tells Commons of four steps that must be taken before final 5% of EU deal is done

Theresa May faced down Conservative critics of her Brexit negotiating strategy in a critical Commons debate in which she pleaded to be given time to “deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for”.

The prime minister told her jittery MPs it was time “we hold our nerve” as the Brexit talks approach their endgame during nearly two hours of exchanges, which were not attended by leadership rivals Boris Johnson and David Davis.

May's four tests before she will sign off on Irish border backstop deal Read more

May told MPs if sticking to her position in the Brexit negotiations “means I get difficult days in Brussels, then so be it. The Brexit talks are not about my interests. They are about the national interest – and the interests of the whole of our United Kingdom.”

She walked into a packed Commons a day after anonymous critics from her own party told Sunday newspapers she had entered “the killing zone” and would need to “bring her own noose” if she went to the party’s backbench 1992 committee.

MPs from all sides condemned the briefings, with one of the most active backbench critics of her Brexit policy, Steve Baker, saying: “I very much hope that they are discovered and I hope that she will withdraw the whip from them.”

Speculation intensified over the weekend that May could face a vote of no confidence this week, which would be triggered if 48 letters were sent to the 1922 Committee by unhappy MPs.

But only familiar critics such as John Redwood were hostile to May’s negotiating approach in the debate, while some MPs, such as former transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin, spoke in support.

The prime minister set out four goals in her attempt “to break the impasse” in the Brexit negotiations and reach an agreement in principle with the EU by the end of November, which would then have to be ratified by MPs.

The first, she said, would be to make the UK-wide backstop legally binding, meaning a Northern Ireland-only second stage of the policy would no longer be needed.

She described agreement on this insurance policy – which would only come into force if a free trade deal cannot be negotiated – as “critical”, although the EU has so far refused to concede.

The second was to extend the transition period during which the UK would remain in the single market and customs union as an alternative to the backstop, which May said “might be preferable”.

However, May risked upsetting Brexiters by saying the extended transition period might only end “well before the end of this parliament” – early summer 2022. During this period the UK could be liable to pay billions more into the EU budget.

Extending the transition period had emerged as an idea at last week’s European summit in Brussels. At that point, May had said it would only last a “few months” into 2021, while a comprehensive future trade deal was being negotiated.

John Whittingdale, a former cabinet minister, warned the prime minister that voters had already waited too long to leave the EU. He asked if May would “appreciate the frustration felt by many of my constituents and others that it is two years since the referendum and we have agreed that we will not regain control of our laws, borders and money for over four years.”

Jeremy Corbyn, responding for Labour, said May had been forced to consider extending the transition period as a result of her party’s own incompetence: “The Conservative party has spent the last two years arguing with itself,” he said.

“Their Brexit negotiations have been a litany of missed deadlines, shambolic failure and now they’re begging for extra time.”

The third element laid out by the prime minister would be a guarantee that neither a backstop nor the transition period could be indefinite; and the fourth would be a further commitment “on full continued access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market”.

British officials are locked in negotiations with their EU counterparts as they seek to conclude a deal in principle by the end of next month to allow enough time for parliament to approve it in time for March 2019.

Cabinet colleagues are particularly keen to ensure that the UK can persuade the EU to agree on a mechanism to time limit the backstop, although there is considerable anxiety about the prospect in Ireland.

Adrian O’Neill, Ireland’s ambassador to the UK, told a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly that the prospect of a hard Brexit, which would lead to the reinstatement of a hard border, was causing “genuine anxiety” in his country.

The diplomat argued that time-limiting the backstop would make it redundant: “Since the backstop is designed to operate in all circumstances, the proscribed time limit would rather defeat the stated purpose.”

There was relief for May when Baker withdrew an amendment to the Northern Ireland bill, to be debated later this week, which could have ended up making it illegal for the UK to sign up to a Northern Ireland-only backstop, even as a last resort.

The amendment proposed that any such plan be endorsed by the Stormont assembly, which has not sat since 2017, but the Brexiter MP said he had withdrawn the amendments as it “would not be in the public interest” to push ahead.

Pro-remain Conservative and Labour MPs also voiced concern that the government was trying to prevent the Commons from seeking to amend the motion that would approve whatever final deal May is able to bring back from Brussels. Second referendum campaigners are considering using this point to ask MPs to vote on whether to have a second national poll before signing off May’s deal.

Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, came to the Commons immediately before May to answer a question from Tory rebel Dominic Grieve. Raab said that, while it would be theoretically possible to amend the approval motion in the so-called “meaningful final vote”, the deal could only be signed off in a “clean motion”.

Raab said: “If I understand correctly, he [Grieve] may wish to change the terms of the agreement that has been struck. I think that would come up against the very real and practical and diplomatic obstacles that, so late in the day, there wouldn’t be time to revisit the negotiation.”

Grieve, a former attorney general, said he found Raab’s conclusion entirely unsatisfactory. “It departs from the plain assurances given repeatedly to the House that we would be enabled to express a desire for alternatives when voting to reject or accept a deal.”