Desperation gulch

It seems that 'Theresa May has come home from Brussels empty-handed and without hope of further negotiations over the Irish backstop, with the failure to achieve any kind of breakthrough leaving her brutally exposed', says the Guardian , to no great surprise. After secret negotiations, it looked as if there might be some compromise statements, but '[EC] leaders [when they met afterwards, without May] ripped up a prepared script on Thursday night in which they would have offered both warm words and the promise of further assurances in January.'

What remains for el Gordino? Anxiety is growing over a Second Referendum, it seems, since detailed investighations have revealed some 'mind-boggling complexities over timing, question(s) and how votes would be counted' 

However J Freedland thinks Remain could still win 'with Europe's help'. There are anxieties though:

It’s not just Brexiteers, fearful of losing the prize they won against the odds two and a half years ago, who dislike that possibility. Plenty of remainers too are nervous about a contest they fear they could lose, thereby closing the door for good on a close relationship with Europe. And others, many of them Labour MPs in pro-leave seats, tremble at the sheer hostility the prospect of a second vote arouses in the people they represent.

To overcome those, Freedland suggests:

an effort to make the referendum exercise itself both legitimate in the eyes of leavers and substantively different to the first one. On the first count, it will help if the ballot is seen as a move by May, rather than a demand successfully pressed by the People’s Vote campaign. Much as I admire the latter, leave voters are likelier to accept a plebiscite called by a Tory prime minister seeking to make Brexit happen than one effected by remainers bent on halting it.

It might work if voters are are dense as Freedland and the others like to assume, still easily fooled by naive conjuring tricks. The questions would not be loaded in any way, of course, oh dear me, no:

the two competing propositions on the ballot – and let’s make the hopeful assumption that no parliament would present a no-deal crash-out as if it were a viable option, since that would be criminally irresponsible – are both significantly different from the leave v remain choices of 2016. It’s easy to see how leave would differ this time around. In place of the abstract, wishful idea of leave – which Brexiteers cast as a pain-free cash bonanza and panacea for all Britain’s ills – would be a concrete, detailed plan for leaving: May’s plan, more or less.... [and] a “reformed remain” option, an alternative to leave that does not smack of a complacent desire to pretend Brexit never happened. For those Labour MPs in leave seats, their chief hope is that they can signal to their voters that both they and the EU itself have heard their concerns on one issue especially: immigration.

How realistic is the promise to reform?

a Britain that chose to stay in the EU would have more say on migration? No one is expecting an opt-out on free movement: the EU would never grant such a thing.[But there are milder options] Since the referendum, the EU has, for example, revised its rules to prevent workers’ pay and conditions being undercut by employees posted from abroad. [However, this is described below as] adding “some tinsel and coloured lights” to various EU loopholes on migration,

There is also a minor constitutional problem:

who exactly would negotiate this improved remain option with the EU? Brussels will only talk to governments; it would not open up a parallel track to a panel of remain-minded dissidents

 
The Guardian turns today to the last resort -- prayers by Anglican bishops for unity over Brexit. After such a hate-filled and patronising campaign by Remainers, they have some forkin chance!