The draft agreement fails the Lancaster House tests set by Mrs May. It has no chance in the Commons

The silence in Brussels is revealing. If the draft Withdrawal Agreement had included wins for Britain, and compromises by the Europeans, the Commission would have been spinning furiously. It knows it has won hands down, so it feels no need to reassure its own audiences.

Of course, British compromises were inevitable. But the proposal presented to Cabinet is a capitulation. Worse, it is a capitulation not only to Brussels, but to the fears of the British negotiators themselves, who have shown by their actions that they never believed Brexit can be a success.

This includes, I say with the heaviest of hearts, the Prime Minister. If you believe people voted for Brexit to control immigration, and you fear it brings only economic downsides, you might consider the draft agreement the least bad outcome for Britain. If you believe Brexit can restore surrendered sovereignty, reform our economy and change the country, you will find it a horror show.

Of course, if you never accepted Brexit, you will insist we should remain within the European Union after all. Before the referendum, these politicians insisted we could not leave because we would have to abide by rules over which we had no say. Then, when Theresa May set out her original, now abandoned, Brexit strategy, they rebelled and said we must align with EU laws.

Now ministers are doing what the Remain-supporting politicians demanded, they pretend to be shocked, and say we are better off in after all. Their behaviour is as dishonest as it is undemocratic, and the Prime Minister will regret ever dancing to their tune.

With a ticking clock, and inadequate preparations for a no-deal Brexit, ministers felt compelled to accept the PM’s proposal. Eurosceptics among them concede they missed their chance, weeks and months ago, to push for a Canada-plus trade deal. None is enthusiastic about what they have agreed, and none believes the proposal can win a majority in the House of Commons.

View more!

When the proposal is presented to Parliament, MPs should ask themselves six questions. Does it leave us in control of our own laws? Does it imperil the Union, by creating new barriers to living and doing business within the UK? Does it give us control of immigration? Does it allow us to negotiate a trade deal with the EU? Does it allow us to strike trade deals elsewhere? And does it end Britain’s annual payments to the EU budget?

These are not random tests set by the European Research Group. They are the key principles the Prime Minister set out in her Lancaster House speech, which I drafted for her, in January 2017.

She will be able to argue that the agreement, as it stands, wins back control of immigration, although if a deal on the future relationship is struck later, we will see what compromises are made on that front.

But the draft agreement fails the remaining Lancaster House tests. As Sabine Weyand, the European Commission negotiator, said in private, the agreement “requires the customs union as the basis of the future relationship”. The UK must align its rules with the EU, “but the EU will retain all the controls”. In sum, Ms Weyand boasted, Brussels “retains its leverage”.

This is because the “backstop”, the agreement to avoid a hard border with Ireland if the future relationship is not agreed at the end of the transition, locks the UK into the EU’s customs union and ties us to swathes of EU laws. Because we will be unable, unilaterally, to bring the backstop to an end, Brussels has us where it wants us.

On this subject, I am told the Attorney General’s legal advice – which will be presented to Parliament – is “not overly helpful” to the Government’s case.

And that means, once we leave the EU, we will not be able to negotiate a Canada-plus deal, nor trade deals with any other countries. We will have surrendered the chance to take control of our laws. And we will be forced to make payments to Brussels for the privilege of our access to the single market.

Even worse, we will jeopardise the Union. Northern Ireland will be tied to single market rules to an even greater extent than Great Britain. This creates the “new barriers to living and doing business within the UK” that the Prime Minister warned against at Lancaster House. It risks, therefore, inciting separatism in Northern Ireland and in Scotland too.

The only alternative to this capitulation, we are told, is to leave the EU with no deal at all. But there are four and a half months until the Article 50 deadline expires. More delay means more uncertainty, but we must escape this trap.

With the stakes raised so high, the Government should be prepared, at last, to use all its leverage, including Britain’s contribution to European security.

When Parliament rejects the Prime Minister’s proposal, as surely it will, there will still be time for ministers to negotiate something better.