Is the Daily Mail having second thoughts about having championed Theresa May to become Tory leader and instant prime minister?

In a fascinating leading article on Monday, Brexit - Theresa must show us she means it, the paper betrayed a nervousness about May’s intentions should she win the leadership contest.

The Mail wondered whether the woman who once said she was in favour of leaving the European Union, and who then adopted the remain cause during the EU referendum campaign, was really committed to Brexit after all.

It is worried by the way in which pro-remain supporters - “the political elite” - are mounting a camapign “to ignore the will of the people” and keep Britain in the EU

“This,” said the Mail, “is why it is so vital that Theresa May, whom this paper backs for No 10, should offer cast-iron assurances that there will be no back-tracking on the referendum by a government led by her.” It continued:



“In particular, she must take every opportunity to stress that if she wins, she will veto any deal that denies us control of our borders or allows the EU to overrule parliament or our courts. Yesterday, Michael Gove and Andrea Leadsom made eloquent pleas that the next leader should be firmly committed to Brexit. If Mrs May is to win, she must lay their doubts about her to rest.”

But the Mail did boost May with a spread based on her “hope” to put a clamp on immigration, a report based on her interview with Robert Peston in his ITV show.

It was illustrated with a picture of a smiling May and her husband, Philip, perched on a sofa at their home. In an adjacent box, the Mail said the couple had “found comfort in their happy 35-year marriage” despite not being able to have children.

And there was also a sidebar by defence secretary Michael Fallon in which he announced his support for May, praising her focus and her record at the home office. “She and I voted, reluctantly, to remain,” he wrote. “But we are all Brexiteers now.”

But is May a true Brexiteer? The Mail appears to have a case of the jitters after its decision to back her. Was editor Paul Dacre too quick off the mark in giving her his paper’s endorsement?