At least Trump won’t threaten the corgis

The Queen greets President Mobutu on platform 2
at London Victoria

A Yorkshire Terrier called Cara sparked a minor diplomatic panic in 1973 when it emerged the dog had been smuggled into Britain from abroad, bypassing the country's strict quarantine laws, and could potentially come within biting distance of the Queen's prized corgis.

The dog had sneaked along with the party accompanying President Mobutu Sese Seko as he came to the UK that year, blessed with the honour of a state visit. Cara was first noticed at Gatwick Airport but was still allowed to reach Buckingham Palace.

There, according to a Times report at the time, the rules were explained to the Zairean ruler and he promptly ordered the dog to be dispatched to his country's embassy in Brussels until the visit was over.

The story reassuringly, added: 

‘During its four-hour stay at Buckingham Palace Cara remained in the Zaire suite and did not, according to a Palace spokesman, come into contact with the Queen’s corgis or any other animal.’ 

Phew!

As Mobutu's sojourn here shows, invariably, controversy accompanies state visits as reliably as night follows day.

And the impending state visit of the president of the United States to this country has got an awful lot of people, on all sides of the argument, very angry incredibly quickly.

It is inevitable that Donald Trump's arrival will prompt enormous demonstrations in the capital and they will do their best to disrupt his visit wherever they can. And the visit’s announcement triggered protests from the Labour Party with shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry saying:

‘This is a president who has systematically assaulted all the shared values that unite our two countries, and unless Theresa May is finally going to stand up to him and object to that behaviour, she has no business wasting taxpayers’ money on all the pomp, ceremony and policing costs that will come with this visit.’ 

Meanwhile, on the opposing side many are lining up to accuse those planning to demonstrate of petty politics, when our alliance with the US, especially post-Brexit, is undoubtedly critical, and hypocrisy for failing to stage similar demonstrations against previous unsavoury visitors including President Xi Jinping in 2015 and the three-day non-state visit of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2018.

Ross Clark in the Telegraph, pondering whether Mr Trump would be afforded the offer of addressing bother Houses of Parliament, wrote it ‘would be foolish and hypocritical for the Speaker to carry out his threat’ [to deny the US president such a privilege]. Adding:

‘…not least because he would inevitably be reminded of the oleaginous speech he made to Chinese President Xi Jinping before that leader was invited to address members of the Commons and Lords in October 2015. I don’t criticise Bercow for his toe-curling performance on that occasion. He was simply doing his job in welcoming a foreign leader whom the government had invited to Britain. Bercow was paying homage not to the individual but to the office he holds – as leader of the world’s second largest economy and a country with whom it is vital that we do business if we are to avoid global conflict.’

For the Queen, of course, the latest controversial welcome will hardly cause a ripple, she has seen it all before, and not just with Mobutu. Since succeeding to the throne in 1952 she has had to host a steady trickle of thoroughly unpleasant world leaders including Mobutu, Nicolae Ceausescu, Hasting Banda and Robert Mugabe.

Whether protests greeted Zaire's president, I haven't been able to establish but it's safe to say if they occurred, they were ignored. To be fair, at the time, the gross excesses to which Mobutu’s regime would later reach, the pillaging, the mind-boggling levels of courrption, the epic human rights abuses and his role in the Congo Wars of the 1990s, were scarcely imaginable, despite his ruthless role in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba. 

Colin Legum, writing in The Observer during the visit, noted: 

‘It is a hard thing to admit, but it is probably true that Zaire needed a leader like Mobutu to rescue it from its post-colonial fate.’

Historically, though, it’s hard to imagine a more awkward state visit than that of the Emperor Hirohito of Japan in 1971, who ruled from 1926 until the royalty became a constitutional monarchy in 1947 (though his reign lasted until his death in 1989).

This trip came just 26 years after the end of the Second World War, with memories still bitter and fresh. His few days here were part of a goodwill tour through Europe and, as he rattled down The Mall in an open top carriage with the Queen, he was met with the largest crowds of the whole trip. But the New York Times noted there were ‘few cheers, and the crowds were curiously quiet, considering their size’.

Queen Elizabeth II with Emperor Hirohito riding towards Buckingham

Palace in 1971.

One unidentified 27-year-old man threw his coat towards the emperor as he passed along The Mall prompting two Life Guards riding along with the royal carriage to wave their swords towards him. The coat-thrower faced no charge.

Lord Mountbatten of Burma, who accepted the surrender of Japanese forces, refused to attend the state banquet but a spokesman told The Times no snub was intended and he received invitations to attend 20 to 30 functions a week. It is hard, though, to imagine what invitation was so pressing that it topped a state banquet.

The Times also reported that a man laid a wreath at Bristol Cenotaph with a card reading: 

‘Our memories are not as short as government which today welcomes those who inspired your suffering and death.’

And memories are short. There were demonstrations against the state visit of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2007 - it was so serious the Liberal Democrats boycotted the whole affair - and against President Xi Jinping of China in 2015. The latter, though, was perhaps more notable for the strange crowds supporting the president wearing t-shirts reading I Heart China and messages such as ‘Welcome Big Buddy Xi’, all seemingly shipped over in an operation orchestrated by the Chinese State.

It’s fair to say, however, these protests will be dwarfed by the ones that will greet, and follow, President Trump. Politically, such a visit is a no brainer if a sign of desperation. Trade agreements with the US after Brexit will be vital though it’s currently hard to envisage how the UK government will be able to secure something of worth with such an unreliable and erratic President.

Equally, the protests are certain and perhaps, rather than bickering, the country should just accept and understand both inevitabilities. 

It could, of course, be that the reaction against Donald Trump is likely to be so large and vigorous, in comparison to earlier protests, precisely because the United States is our closest ally. The values of this country and the US should be closely aligned and people might hold the view that the current occupant of the Oval Office denigrates the history and standing of his position.

Morning might break over Brexit on Tuesday

Wasn’t the Christmas break invigorating? 

With Theresa May pulling the meaningful vote on her Brexit deal in December, every MP was able to scuttle back to their constituencies and have a well deserved rest. And, so the plan went, with a fresher mind, they would be able to consider calmly the merits of the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal safely away from the sturm und drang swirling through the corridors of Westminster.

Peace.

And thus, as the dawn of 2019 broke, we find... any such hopes have come to a shuddering halt; MPs are as firmly entrenched as they were before the festive season if not more so. The sherry, port and turkey have stiffened the sinews, ready for fresh battle.

As we look now, the Prime Minister could be defeated on a huge scale when the vote takes place on Tuesday night. According to BBC analysis she is as many as 114 MPs short from securing a deal. Translated, that would give her opponents a victory by more than 200 votes; it is scarcely possible to imagine a political humiliation of greater magnitude.

Today (Thursday) we hear that the Prime Minister held calls with a couple of union leaders trying to get them to put pressure on likely Labour MPs to switch their support to her. Having not even contacted Labour’s eminently reasonable shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer during the entire Brexit process to ask for his assistance, a last minute call to Sir Len McCluskey - to whom she has never spoken before - seems to be an act of desperation and unlikely to be the thing to turn the tide.

Having seen off a leadership challenge at the end of last year, and possessing the ability and determination to cling to power with a tenacity that would make a barnacle jealous, however huge the defeat, it is unlikely to spell the end of Mrs May's premiership.

It could finally, however, provide a moment of clarity in the whole Brexit drama.

After protesting loudly against Speaker John Bercow’s sleight of hand when he allowed an amendment to what everyone had hitherto understood to be a non-amendable motion, Brexiteer and Remainer MPs alike now know the Prime Minister must return to the House of Commons within three sitting days and present what she plans to do next.

Bercow’s ruling may well have been unprecedented, hasty and done without fully considering what the consequences may prove to be, but, he has consistently, since ascending to the office, said he would stand up for the voice of parliament. That is what he has done. 

At a time when the government has no-majority and both of the major parties have self-evidently failed to convince a sufficient number of MPs to coalesce around their own particular Brexit vision, that parliament can still drive the agenda forward in the hope a solution might be found is something of a relief.

After all, had Bercow not taken such a stance the government theoretically could have waited 21 days before indicating to Parliament its next intentions. With fewer than 80 days left before Article 50 comes into force and the U.K. leaves the EU, that would surely have been intolerable.

Theresa May, who is no stranger to twisting parliamentary procedure when it suits her government (see the FT's legal and Brexit blogger @davidallengreen's excellent thread here), she was, admittedly, always unlikely to wait so long before outlining her next strategy. Mrs May must know time is too precious. Heaven's above! Would the government stoop to playing low politics on such a crucial issue?

It seems likely, therefore, that after the defeat on Tuesday the prime minister will rise to the despatch box, or stand before a lectern in Downing Street later that night or on Wednesday morning, and tell the nation what’s going to happen next. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if another referendum was her answer with her deal and no Deal, later to be joined by Remain - following another bitterly contested amendment - appearing on the ballot paper. An extension of Article 50 to make time for fresh negotiations also seems to be gaining in likelihood.

There will be no easy resolution next week but fog may finally lift and some much-needed clarity should be visible. After the shadow boxing in of the last two years, that can only be a good thing.

Long grass helps hide government's immigration problems

There’s a crucial line in the government’s immigration white paper which admits its preferred options – a minimum salary threshold and high skill demands – would hit the economy. 

On page 111, in a rare passage that exposes the benefits of freedom of movement, the document says that by imposing a ‘salary threshold and skills threshold…. that GDP is likely to be lower than it would have been under free movement’. The government is pursuing a policy which it knows is likely to make all UK inhabitants financially worse off.

Apparently, despite this cost and the criticism coming from all sides, freedom of movement is still worth dumping.

The government sees immigration as one of its trump cards. It believes that taking a tough stance on the matter wins it votes. They have made the judgement that it is worth all the negative headlines, the repeated and very vocal concerns from business especially over the salary threshold just to appear robust.

Throughout her time in government Theresa May has stubbornly resisted any attempt to soften the policy. That it has failed year after year is of no consequence to her.

But, what actually has been promised?

The current cap on the number of skilled workers such as doctors or engineers will be scrapped. 

Low skilled workers will continue to be allowed in for a year until 2025, in an attempt to soften the blow for industries that rely on cheap labour.

The government says it wants its new system phased in from 2021. Surely this is highly improbable; I cannot remember the last time a major and complicated logistical project, which will undoubtedly require new IT and data provisions was delivered either on time or on budget.

Bizarrely, the government also cannot decide whether or not Mrs May’s never achieved target of reducing net migration annually to the tens of thousands is still in place. The Prime Minister insists it is but the Home Secretary has repeatedly refused to endorse it preferring instead to say net migration will come down to sustainable levels. It may well prove that sustainable levels are not too dissimilar from current levels.

The key aspect here is the government is clearly severely divided over a minimum salary threshold of £30,000. Several ministers, reportedly led by chancellor Philip Hammond, are opposed to the cap, thinking it far too high and they have the backing of business. The home secretary likes to frame the policy around being skill based, but an awful lot of people with skills earn under £30,000.

Rather than resolve the matter, it has been punted into the long grass, by promising a consultation. Doesn’t the long grass hide a lot of things these days?

It is this division that has delayed the White Paper so drastically; it was supposed to be published in the summer of 2017. Clearly, ministers were keen to get it published as soon as possible, partly to come before the meaningful vote takes place on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, but with the Brexit clock ticking, demands for it were deafening.

Even as late as yesterday, it was unclear if it would emerge today. It was only confirmed by an email from the Home Office at 7.33pm last night and the trail, with embargoed comments from Sajid Javid didn’t arrive until in my inbox until 7.51pm.

When I interviewed the home secretary a few months ago, Mr Javid described leaving the European Union as a ‘unique, once in a generation opportunity, to completely redesign our immigration system’. He added: ‘I’m in a privileged position to be able to do that.’

What has been produced so far, however, is little more than a wish list. With the fate of Brexit, and all its variables and implications, still unknown, this has the benefit of inbuilt pragmatism and flexibility – ‘sustainable levels’ can mean almost anything after all. The promise of stricter – and lower – immigration remains a political ploy to please Conservative voters; in reality, it may prove to be a mirage.

Details of the government's white paper on immigration can be found here

The mood music of Salzburg

The make-up, under the lights of the press conference in Salzburg, didn’t do Theresa May any favours. Her face ghostly pale, the foundation seemed to have been heavily caked-on in a vain attempt to hide layers of tiredness, frustration and anger.

But her disappointment and exasperation towards the leaders of the EU and the other 27 member states was vivid and unmistakable.

The Chequers deal, unveiled earlier this summer with the fanfares of apparent cabinet unity, was a considered attempt to bounce not only her government but backbenchers into what the prime minister considered a compromise plan. It was hoped that, while the EU might not approve of every aspect of the package, they would see it as a template to work with and, eager not to see Britain fall out of the European Union without a deal, would find a way to make it work. That there had been encouraging signals from the likes of EU negotiator Michel Barnier and European Council president Donald Tusk, makes the humiliation of the Salzburg summit – where the package has been dismissed as ‘unworkable’ – so painful.

The prime minister and her allies would not have expected Jacob Rees-Mogg’s European Research Group (ERG) to swing behind the deal.  They remain sizeable in number and the group has considered dethroning Theresa May.  But fractures are clearly visible in that movement, widening as they find themselves unable to forge an alternative plan that could be supported even amongst themselves, let alone by parliament. And, while it is undoubtedly true a no-deal would not, in fact, be ‘the end of the world’, the brighter members realise it could inflict chaos upon the country for which they may never be forgiven.

Downing Street did hope more pragmatic remainers would have reinforced her position. Instead, Mrs May has been under fire.  Justine Greening, for example, called the Chequers plan an ‘unpopular, undeliverable mess’, ‘less popular with the public than the poll tax’ and a ‘dead horse’. The prime minster, however, has continued to flog it. Even May loyalist Sir Mike Penning, who helped run Ms May’s leadership campaign, has performed the last rites on Chequers, calling it ‘dead as a dodo’.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party seem unhealthily obsessed with internal party democracy and functions and their position on Brexit remains vague, though Emily Thornberry did helpfully say the party would vote against any plan presented by the government.

Poor Theresa May, who has clung to her job with the tenacity of a limpet on a wave-lashed rock, looks as though she has been taken hostage by several intransigent gangs simultaneously, yet each cannot decide what ransom demands to issue.

Where does the prime minister go now? It’s hard to see a passage through which Brexit can be navigated with any semblance of control. In her Salzburg press conference, Ms May has a deadline of October to present a new solution to the Irish border question, a date, she confided to Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, which appeared impossible to hit. According to Donald Tusk, this remains ‘the moment of truth’, with the threat Brexit talks could collapse completely.

Theresa May is sticking with the Chequers deal for now, despite Rees-Mogg, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith, urging her to dump it, repeating her line – which is true – that it remains the ‘only deal on the table’.

It is worth noting the actions of EU leaders in Salzburg would not have done them any favours among the British public. Despite the suggestion that warm words would be ushered forth as part of a ‘Save Theresa’ campaign, and regardless of the few scattered comments of comfort from those who declared that they remained ‘hopeful of a deal’, the likes of Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron publicly humiliated the British prime minister today. Many die-hard remainers have made clear their disapproval of these methods. And leavers will point to today as evidence the EU cannot be negotiated with and we’re better off escaping the whole structure, regardless of the consequences.

In Peter Shaffer’s play ‘Amadeus’, the writer imagines Salzburg’s most famous son Mozart working himself to death, trying to finish his Requiem. With her authority draining away, it could prove that Theresa May is forced from office and the responsibility of delivering Brexit is handed on. But, May’s singular determination has been unappreciated before; it would be a bold prediction to write her off again.

The only road to Brexit

Brexit still means Brexit. Or possibly harder Brexit. This is the message from the government after Theresa May finally outlined the framework on which it intends to negotiate the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. While the government is clearly still searching for the details of its plan, at least it has the twelve chapter headings now.

Briefly, when the Prime Minister said both houses of Parliament would get a vote on the final deal, there were gasps of relief, particularly from Remainers, that it might be subject to proper scrutiny, be open to amendment and a settlement which satisfies the vast majority might be found. But, the government has been swift to knock such notions on the head. If MPs feel that the deal on offer isn't adequate, the only alternative would be no deal; better than a bad deal, as the Prime Minister said.

It renders any vote somewhat superfluous. A debate on the terms of exit is not what the government wants; instead, as David Davis told parliament after the Prime Minister had stopped speaking:

‘What we want to have is a vote so the House can be behind and support the policy, which we are quite sure they will approve of when we get there.’

A united parliament, a united country, pulling the same way. No longer little Britain, shackled by Europe, but a Britain looking outward to the world, trading freely with whomever it chooses. This is the vision of the government. With so much rhetorical bombast on display, one half expects Sir Francis Drake to set sail on the high seas once more and plunder the Spanish Main just to show we can.

Parliament, though, isn’t of one mind and neither is the country. No matter how much Theresa May and others might implore ‘Remoaners’ to join this national independence crusade, many are equally determined to hold their position, much like Brexiters would have done had the EU referendum result gone the opposite way.

The 48% then - those who opposed Britain leaving the EU - can they rely upon the official Opposition to champion their cause? Er, no. As far as the two major parties are concerned, their cause is lost and is best ignored. Only Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, makes any effort in this respect and argues that any final deal should be put in a referendum.

Instead, Jeremy Corbyn came out with this:

‘She [Theresa May] has said “leave the single market” then at the same time “we want access to the single market”. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to go down in Europe.... she seems to be wanting to have her cake and eat it.'

Before adding: ‘I think we need to have a deal that ensures we have access to the single market.’

Please excuse me for failing to see the enormous gulf in these two positions.

It is this type of leadership that has frustrated so many long time Labour supporters with Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is currently the subject of a ‘populist’ relaunch. 'Let Jeremy be Jeremy' is, apparently, the plan. Aware that he and the Labour Party are somewhat lagging behind Theresa May and her government, it is understandable why Mr Corbyn’s team thought the New Year provided an opportunity to repackage the Labour leader in the hope he might appear to lead a more dynamic opposition.

As part of this relaunch, just a week ago, Jeremy Corbyn delivered his own speech on Brexit which was supposed to provide clarity on Labour’s position. By the end of the day, Corbyn was insisting immigration from the EU wasn’t too high but Labour wasn’t wedded to freedom of movement.

Labour has a huge opportunity to tackle the government on a host of major issues, not just Brexit; the NHS lurches from one crisis to another, delayed decisions on Heathrow, complete inactivity on the Southern rail shambles. But, it seems that for many, on too many occasions, Labour has gone missing from the battlefield, its major figures just not up to the task, save for a few notable exceptions such as Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner and Sir Keir Starmer, the last of whom cannot be expected competently to tackle the government over its Brexit spasms while Labour lacks a coherent policy itself.

Of huge concern should be the Fabian Society report, published earlier in the month, which said it was virtually impossible for a ‘too weak’ Labour Party to win a general election. Support could shrink to as low as 20 per cent and at the next election it could be left with fewer seats than since the 1930s. Its only viable return to power would be to seek alliances with the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. They show no inclination to forge such a partnership with Mr Corbyn's Labour Party.

This underlines a continual agonising, gnawing fear felt by those Labour supporters who aren’t convinced by the Jeremy Corbyn project and by many who believe it is a vital for all governments to have a decent opposition; the fear that not only is this Labour opposition failing to challenge the government sufficiently, but also that for many years to come no viable opposition is likely to emerge. 

The government, for many understandable reasons, is struggling to make sense of a vote to leave the European Union; a vote that was never meant to be lost and was intended, by David Cameron, to salve the running sores within the Conservative Party. But, as it tries to formulate the most important policy package this country will face in many generations, there is hardly a time in recent history when a government needed a robust opposition more.

Farage loves a vacuum

It really shouldn’t be any surprise that we are in such uncertain territory over Brexit. It’s a pretty big issue after all. But, the longer the two majority parties vacillate over their positions, the bigger the vacuum being created for those who know exactly what they want to get from the June 23^rd vote.

For all the cast-iron guarantees from David Cameron, the referendum was a never a vote the former Prime Minister wanted to hold. The offer was to placate his troublesome backbenchers. When, to considerable surprise, Mr Cameron led the Conservative Party to a House of Commons majority and the referendum became inevitable, it was still a vote that, for the most part, the former Prime Minister expected to win with ease. So, what preparation was done in case of defeat? Remarkably little, from all appearances. 

Theresa May’s favourite phrase these days is a commitment to get the ‘best deal for the UK as we leave the EU’, which one would hope is the basic requirement of any British government. But it says little about the relationship the government actually wants with the EU. From the prime minister down, government ministers and officials have been insistent that there will be no running commentary on Brexit negotiations and that by revealing the government’s ambitions they would be undermining their position before talks have even begun.

This is what the prime minister seems to fear after last week’s High Court ruling on the process by which Article 50 is triggered. Just what will the House of Commons want for their vote. Suddenly, the government risks losing control. Even though the overwhelming likelihood is that MPs will give their backing for Article 50 to be invoked, only this morning (Sunday) health secretary Jeremy Hunt repeated their concerns, telling the Andrew Marr Programme the ‘impact on the economy will be far worse if through some parliamentary mechanisms Theresa May is forced to lay out her entire negotiating strategy’.

This strategy does, however, rely on the discretion of EU countries; it would hardly be a surprise if the moment they receive the UK’s demands these find their way into the newspapers.

Simultaneously, we are left with a Labour Party which also hasn’t decided what it wants from Brexit negotiations. Jeremy Corbyn made an appearance in the Sunday Mirror in which he indicated he was willing to block Article 50 if the government breached his four ‘bottom lines’ including ‘access to 500 million customers in Europe’s single market’.

The only hiccup with this strategy is that it appears he hadn’t discussed it with his deputy leader first. With the ink still almost wet, Tom Watson was on the radio saying the Labour Party wouldn’t try and block Article 50:

‘We are not going to hold this up. The British people have spoken and Article 50 will be triggered when it comes to Westminster. Ultimately, when the vote comes Labour will support Theresa May to trigger Article 50.’

And, in reference to the apparent contradiction between himself and his leader, Mr Watson added: ‘We missed each other on the phone today.’

In many ways, it’s perfectly reasonable for the government and the opposition to be struggling to formulate exactly what their strategies are. Theresa May’s government received the ultimate hospital pass from David Cameron’s administration; it shouldn’t be much of a surprise they are taking a little time trying to establish what they can create from the mess.

And Labour’s problems must surely stem from a leader who has long been lukewarm towards the European project if not downright hostile. Mr Corbyn, after all, voted against membership in 1975, against the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 and against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009

But, the failure of both to settle upon a position leaves the field wide open for those who do have agreed strategy and know exactly what they want from the Brexit vote.

The interim Ukip leader, still completely dominant within his own party, is the consummate campaigner of our age. In a time when mainstream politicians can be so fearful of the consequences of their words and deeds, Mr Farage benefits from being not highly electorally encumbered, letting him be nimble, proactive and impassioned. That many people can’t bear what he represents only fuels his enthusiasm for the fight.

In The Daily Telegraph last week, Nigel Farage wrote:

‘The British people voted to leave the single market, for full border controls and to take back control of things such as our territorial fishing waters. They expect to see all of this delivered.’

The British people, of course, voted for none of these things as they didn't appear on the ballot paper. Instead, voters were persuaded by a myriad of reasons to vote the way they did - principled, solipsistic and altruistic, and Brexit emerged the winner. But Mr Farage knows what he wants and, with a certainty of mind of which other politicians would rightly be jealous, can fill the airwaves and newspaper columns with his precise demands.

Corbyn's cabinet chaos will be forgotten, Cameron's EU chaos won't be

Strange days in politics. On the one hand, Jeremy Corbyn was supposed (or so we were led to believe) to be sacking Hilary Benn on the basis he rebelled against his leader during a free vote on whether a handful of British planes should occasionally bomb Daesh in Syria. On the other, we have the sight of a prime minister, suspending collective responsibility within the government, allowing ministers to campaign during the coming referendum either for or against staying within the European Union. Simultaneously, therefore, the government is abandoning any prospect of having a coherent EU policy ahead of a vote.

There is no doubt Corbyn’s handling of the reshuffle has been shambolic at best but in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant. David Cameron’s decision, however, has huge ramifications and he is running the very serious risk of placing himself in the unenviable position of being the prime minister who leads Britain out of the EU.

In 2006, Mr Cameron bemoaned how, while ‘parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life, [the Conservative Party was] banging on about Europe’. Indeed, it has been the dominating item of discussion and division within the Tory Party now for more than 25 years. Cameron doesn’t like to admit it, but he didn’t want to hold a referendum on the matter at all. It was just the latest in a series of concessions offered to Eurosceptics within his own party to try and keep them vaguely disciplined and on-side. Cameron’s desire to reform the EU may be genuine – and, my word, a rather huge amount of reform is surely necessary – but he certainly doesn’t want Britain to leave the organisation.

The latest concession, however, means that Cameron's authority has been seriously dented - and probably not just on the EU either; ministers will surely be tempted to test the boundaries of collective responsibility on other matters too.

The Prime Minster will return from Europe, claiming to have successfully negotiated a new deal; he will recommend that his government, the opposition and voters should choose to tick the box that will keep Britain in the EU. No new deal, though, no matter how overarching and comprehensive, will satisfy the Eurosceptics within his own party - and we shall witness the spectacle of some of Cameron's ministers campaigning to leave the EU. The government will not have an agreed vision for the future of the country.

Speaking to the World at One, Ken Clarke, a veteran EU loyalist, compared Cameron’s position to that of John Major’s during his Maastricht battles in the 1990s.

‘It is just like John Major, who tried to put people in the cabinet to get them to be more loyal, found that it didn’t work, they all briefed against him and were openly disloyal…. David probably has been forced into it because one or two of them (ministers) are obviously already briefing the newspapers and have been for some time.’

Of course, it’s worth bearing in mind that the polls currently indicate the Brexit campaign is losing. And, as we saw with the Scottish in/out referendum, voters are more likely to stick with the status quo rather than feel beguiled by the promise of drastic - but uncertain - change.

But, as pollsters and pundits saw at the General Election last year, predicting the minds of voters is especially hard at the moment. The Guardian recently reported that from the last 21 polls, 13 showed remaining in the EU in the lead, four gave quitting the EU a lead and four were tied. But, such is the overwhelming disenchantment with the major parties, voting against their wishes is terribly fashionable. It remains too close to call.

So, yes, Corbyn's discomfort is probably worth a brief click of the tongue at the wonder of it all, but ultimately, whatever happens to this shadow cabinet, the Right Honourable Mr Benn and others, it will be a mainly forgotten episode, perhaps an unfortunate footnote in a distressing time for the Labour Party. What David Cameron does in the coming weeks and months will have much more momentous consequences. What his decisions mean for Britain's membership of the European Union and, indeed, the long term future of the United Kingdom itself - as a vote to leave the EU may well trigger the SNP to force another Scottish independence referendum - has no chance of being forgotten whatsoever.