Lord Bridges, who served in the Department for Exiting the European Union between July 2016 and June 2017, joined a chorus of criticism after the Prime Minister raised the possibility of the new concession

Theresa May is facing the most dangerous week of her premiership after angering Tories of all stripes over her proposal to extend the Brexit transition period, an idea one former Brexit minister called 'dead on arrival'.

Remainer Lord Bridges, who served in the Department for Exiting the European Union between July 2016 and June 2017, joined a chorus of criticism last night after the Prime Minister raised the possibility of the new concession.

The news has unleashed a new frenzy of plotting against the Prime Minister, with former Brexit secretary David Davis calling round ministers to call for a change in the negotiations - prompting rumours of a leadership challenge.

'He is definitely on manoeuvres,' one recipient of a call told The Times.

Although friends of Mr Davis insist he is only seeking a reversal of policy, not a change in leader, there are said to be a small but growing group of Tory MPs who would like to install him in a caretaker capacity.

One senior Conservative said the 'current was flowing' against Mrs May as Brexiteer MPs met to discuss submitting letters of no confidence - with 48 needed to dislodge her.

Mrs May's willingness to extend the transition is thought to have the support of some prominent Cabinet ministers. She is seen yesterday in Brussels

Eurosceptic Nadine Dorries urged MPs to follow her own lead by submitting a letter of no confidence in the PM.

Jacob Rees-Mogg said a longer transition was a 'poor attempt at kicking the can down the road', while a source on the European Research Group said Tory MPs were 'on a hair trigger' to call for Mrs May to go.

On the Remain side, groups representing more than 100 pro-EU Tory MPs held a meeting to discuss ways of blocking a no-deal Brexit.

Former minister Nick Boles, who campaigned for Remain, warned that Mrs May was 'losing the confidence of the party'.

Extending the transition – which is due to finish at the end of December 2020 – means the UK would continue to accept EU laws and the free movement of people, and would involve billions more in payments on top of the £39billion divorce bill. Critics said an extra year could cost £16billion.

There were indications in Brussels that Mrs May's gambit could break the deadlock over the issue of the Irish border, which has threatened to derail hopes of a deal.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel was reported to have told EU leaders it was time to show 'flexibility' in Brexit negotiations.

But this did little to put out the political firestorm at home, with both Brexiteers and some Remainers warning that the concessions were a step too far.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (Seen today) was reported to have told EU leaders it was time to show 'flexibility' in Brexit negotiations

There was also concern that Mrs May did not dispute a claim by Helen McEntee, Ireland's Europe minister, that she had dropped her demand for a fixed end date on a backstop plan that could see the UK remain in a temporary customs union after the transition ends.

It was unclear, however, whether the anger would end in a leadership challenge, with much of the criticism coming from those who were already attacking Mrs May's approach. A Tory source added: 'It's the same people, they're just shouting louder.'

Despite the firestorm of opposition, Mrs May's willingness to extend the transition is also thought to have the support of some prominent Cabinet ministers.

Business Secretary Greg Clark, Chancellor Philip Hammond and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox all told the PM she was on the right track.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove and Commons leader Andrea Leadsom – both Brexiteers – are also said to have indicated they could live with the compromise. Yesterday, other Tories urged the party to get behind Theresa May and stop sniping.

Ease up on Theresa May, Merkel and Macron tell Barnier Germany and France have told Michel Barnier to be 'more flexible' with the embattled Prime Minister over the Irish border question. Angela Merkel and Emanuel Macron used a private meeting of European leaders on Wednesday to urge the EU's chief negotiator to give Mrs May a legal guarantee that any deal would not include a customers border at the Irish Sea, diplomats told The Times. They are said to be worried that without such a guarantee there would be no way for Mrs May to get a Brexit deal through Parliament. Brussels has insisted the only way of avoiding a hard border is for Northern Ireland to stay under its customs jurisdiction. But Mrs May says that would be unacceptable as it would split up the UK. Critically, the premier's DUP allies - who prop her up in power - are adamant they will not allow it to happen. Advertisement

Former minister Gary Streeter said: 'We are making the mistake of reacting to the ebb and flow of negotiations rather than judging the deal at the end.'

The row came as:

Chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier hinted at a breakthrough, saying he was 'ready to resume negotiations'.

Irish PM Leo Varadkar brandished a newspaper warning of a return to IRA violence as he tried to persuade EU leaders to continue backing his hardline stance on the Irish border.

Deputy DUP leader Nigel Dodds warned extending the transition would 'do nothing on the key issue of the unacceptable issue of the Irish backstop'.

But there were positive noises from Brussels, with European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker saying an extended transition was 'a good idea' and a deal 'will be done'.

Speaking in Brussels, Mrs May played down the criticism back home, and hinted that further concessions may be needed to seal a deal, warning of 'more difficult moments as we enter the final stages'.

However, some Brexiteer ministers gave coded criticisms, with International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt dismissing the idea of staying bound to the EU for longer, adding: 'That is not the position. The Prime Minister has been very clear about when the implementation period will come to an end.'

Tory MP: I wouldn't even vote for my party now Johnny Mercer, an ex-Army officer who was elected in 2015, described Mrs May’s administration as a ‘s**t show’. He is pictured in 2015 A Tory MP launched an extraordinary attack on his own Government last night as Theresa May faced open speculation in the party about her future as leader. Johnny Mercer, an ex-Army officer who was elected in 2015, described Mrs May’s administration as a ‘s**t show’, questioned whether the party still shared his ‘values and ethos’ and said he would never have run for Parliament ‘if the situation was like it is now’. In an interview with The House magazine, he warned that if Tory Brexit rows let in Jeremy Corbyn ‘I don’t think we’d be forgiven for a generation and we wouldn’t deserve to be’. The Remain supporter said that with hindsight his pre-MP self ‘wouldn’t vote’, adding: ‘There’s no doubt about it that my set of values and ethos, I was comfortable that it was aligned with the Conservative Party. I’m not as comfortable that that’s the case any more.’ Mr Mercer claimed Mrs May is too focused on Brexit and accused her of being a ‘technocrat’ leading the Tories in the wrong direction. He branded Mrs May’s Chequers deal ‘your classic professional politician’s answer because it is down the middle.’ He added: ‘It doesn’t make anybody happy. I think if we forget that at the crucial moment on Brexit, and I say that as a Remainer, the disdain with which people have held politicians will reach a crescendo if we don’t deliver on that referendum result and make people feel like they’ve left the European Union.’ He said Mrs May needs to change course and stop taking the country or MPs for granted, adding that it is not just Brexiteers who could topple her. “I’m not going to sit at the back of the bus and watch it head towards the edge of the cliff. I’m not going to let us go down without a serious s**t fight’. Advertisement

Mr Gove said it was vital that Brexit occurred 'at the earliest possible point'.

But Tory moderates urged MPs to back the PM. Simon Hart, founder of the Brexit Delivery Group of 80 Tory MPs, said critics were 'weakening our negotiating position'.

A Whitehall source said Mrs May had offered concessions on the Irish border to 'unblock' talks that collapsed at the weekend, adding: 'We have got to get movement on this issue. It is holding everything back. If we don't solve it, we're stuck.'

So is it a sell-out - Or plain common sense?

Calm down dears - the plan may work, says Dominic Sandbrook

On the face of it, Theresa May's suggestion that Britain could extend its period of transition after leaving the EU looks like weakness.

And it's easy to see why ardent Brexiteers are infuriated, not least because it could leave us facing a bill for an extra £10billion. And this on top of a divorce bill currently standing at some £39billion!

But there is a difference between a sign of weakness and a recognition of reality. And Mrs May is nothing if not a realist. The central, unanswerable fact is that negotiations with the 27 member states have stalled over the Irish border.

Theresa May made her speech in the lurid European Council room (pictured today) before leaving the EU leaders to discuss Brexit over dinner

And although some insist the issue can be solved through some miraculous but hitherto undiscovered technological fix, no such solution has presented itself.

Mrs May's idea of an extended transition is an attempt to deal with that problem. In effect, she is offering to keep Britain inside the customs union and single market for another year – or as she puts it, a few months – so there is no border in Northern Ireland before a new arrangement is found.

Judging by some of her opponents' more hysterical effusions, you might think she had offered to tear down Nelson's Column and invited Jean-Claude Juncker to move into Buckingham Palace. In fact, she has merely suggested it might be worth abiding by EU rules for a little bit longer – if it buys us a better deal. Of course it's not ideal. I don't like the idea of paying an extra £10billion more than anybody else. But given that we have spent the last 45 years in the EU, a delay of a few months, even a year, should not strike even the most ardent Leaver as the end of the world.

Also, an extra £10billion seems a small price to pay to avoid crashing out without a deal. A no-deal would be a disaster. A drop of 2 per cent in our annual economic growth in the next two years – which would be an unrealistically good outcome – would cost us at least £22billion.

By comparison, even an additional 12 months under the EU's umbrella, would hardly be economic Armageddon. We might not like it in principle, but in practice I suspect most of us would barely notice.

The fact that Mrs May is a pragmatist is why her MPs put her in Downing Street in the first place. It would be an unconscionable act of treachery and irresponsibility if they stabbed her in the back now.

Betrayal leaves us humiliated, says Daniel Hannan

Let me ask you a question. What do you think is the worst imaginable outcome of our EU talks? Is there something so ghastly that Eurosceptics and Europhiles alike would see it as more painful than either leaving or staying?

How about this? What if we kept every dot and comma of our existing EU obligations with only one change, namely that we lost our say over what they were. All of us, surely, can agree that that would be the most injurious status of all. We'd still be subject to the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, to freedom of movement, to the budget levies, to the supremacy of EU over British law.

The only difference is that we'd no longer be able to block proposals we didn't like. Indeed, the EU might bring forward measures that were specifically designed to hurt us – by, for example, seeking to shift financial services from London to Frankfurt – and we'd have to comply.

After the summit meeting on Wednesday night (clockwise around the table from back right) French President Emmanuel Macron, Mrs Merkel, Belgian PM Charles Michel and Luxembourg PM Xavier Bettel went out for drinks at a bar in Brussels

You can see why Brussels likes the idea of extending the transition period. It is better than anything Eurocrats had hoped for – better even than the prospect of undoing Brexit, and seeing a humiliated Britain begging for readmission without its rebate. It would give them full control of the UK economy with no British veto.

Why are we contemplating the idea? If reports are to be believed, we are ready to be a Euro-colony for at least three years. I say 'at least' because, once Brussels had us in such a position, it would have no incentive to discuss anything further. Our thraldom might become permanent.

We're told that we need time to sort out the outstanding withdrawal issues, but hardly anyone believes that. The only outstanding issue is the Irish border. Even if you accept there is a problem – and the relevant customs officials say there is no logistical need for physical checks at the frontier – it is hard to see how an extra year would solve anything.

The two sides have set out their positions, and either London or Brussels will have to give way. If that's going to happen, it might as well happen now. An extra year won't solve anything.

Supporters of this climbdown seem to think that the only thing that matters is having something that can be technically called 'Brexit' – even if that something patently fails to address all the concerns that both Leavers and Remainers have expressed. In fact, literally any outcome – Norway, Switzerland, no deal, postponing our departure – would be better than non-voting membership. It's extraordinary that that should need saying.

What is the Brexit transition and how could it be extended? What is the Brexit transition period? The EU and UK agreed in March that there would be a 21-month transition after Brexit day on March 29, 2019. It is due to expire on December 31, 2020. In the period Britain will still obey all EU rules without having any say in setting them, pay membership fees, and have the same trade terms. The current plan has not yet been voted on in Parliament. How long could it be extended? There is a new proposal to extend transition for another few months, possibly to the end of 2021. Why is there talk of extending it? March's agreement also included a commitment to create a 'backstop' on the Irish border - a back up plan to ensure the border stays open in the absence of a long term trade deal. There is a deep dispute over how this should work so the new suggestion is a longer transition could allow a full trade deal to be completed in time for the backstop never to be used. The theory is this takes pressure off the exact form of the backstop, making it easier to agree and solving the last issue in the divorce deal. Does anyone support extending it? The EU says it is willing to adopt a longer transition if Britain asks for it. Theresa May says Britain is not asking for a longer transition - but might accept a mechanism for extending the current transition. Tory Brexiteers hate the idea, fearing it will just be extended again and again and leave Britain facing billions in extra charges. Government sources tried to calm the row today by insisting an extension would only be acceptable if the EU accepted the UK's version of the backstop. Would it solve the Irish problem? Nobody knows. Both sides are still far apart on how the backstop will work and there is doubt a full trade deal can be finished even by the end of 2021. What happens if transition is extended? Britain would continue to follow all EU rules without having a say on how new ones are made - meaning continued free movement, European Court judgements and bills to Brussels. Trade across the Channel would also continue under today's rules. Advertisement

EU banks could be BANNED from trading in US markets if Brussels imposes 'completely irresponsible' new trading rules on Brexit Britain

By Tim Sculthorpe, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

European banks could be banned from trading in US markets if Brussels forces new reading trading rules on Brexit Britain.

A top US regulator said the EU's threats were 'completely irresponsible' and 'wholly unacceptable'.

Christopher Giancarlo, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), said the EU should not be ordering rafts of regulatory changes.

Christopher Giancarlo, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), said the EU should not be ordering rafts of regulatory changes

European Union financial regulators want more oversight of how markets outside the EU handle transactions customers inside the bloc.

The rules are due to be in place before March and would apply to the City of London after Brexit.

Mr Giancarlo warned the changes are too 'expansive' and must be blocked or could be subject to sanction by the US.

He said the CFTC has 'strong and blunt' tools it can deploy unilaterally as a last resort without new legislation - including a ban on US firms using European banks.

Mr Giancarlo added: 'I am ready to jump on even more planes, trains and automobiles bound for any European capital to work out a sensible approach.'

The watchdog has privately warned European officials that the bloc would suffer far more than the United States in an all-out clearing war because US firms are much larger liquidity providers to European exchanges than vice versa.

The rules are due to be in place before March and would apply to the City of London (file image) after Brexit

European Commission spokesman Johannes Bahrke said the proposed EU regulations were actually based on existing US rules.

He said: 'It is the prerogative of the EU legislator to set the general supervisory framework for central counterparties (CCPs) active in the EU and we would expect third country authorities to respect that, just as we respect the rules and legislative procedures in other countries.

'We reiterate that the cooperative oversight we have proposed is modelled for systemically important cross-border CCPs on the United States' own supervisory system.'