EU would not accept clarifications, and nor should the UK

They are useless because the EU would never for one moment accept ‘clarification’ before making a huge concession to a member state in a negotiation. It would insist on legally binding text that formed part of the agreement.

That is what the UK should be doing. The fact, however, that the Withdrawal Agreement had already been agreed with the UK now makes such binding changes seem a remote prospect.

So the clarifications have no force, and are, as said, useless.

But they are worse than useless because they are insulting. There is a presumption that British voters will accept benign sounding statements full of good intentions.

A similarly insulting logic applied when the Irish government and Brussels talked about ‘de dramatising’ checks in the Irish Sea, as if the nature or visibility of checks were the problem. The problem was the fact of the checks, which meant that there would be a greater ease of goods movement between Northern Ireland and a neighbouring jurisdiction than between NI and other parts of the same country.

If people here were expected to be assuaged by the ‘de dramatising’ of a concept, why then will the Irish not accept de dramatisation of the Irish land frontier?

The vote tonight on the Withdrawal Agreement will almost certainly be lost by the government, and quite possibly by a margin of more than 100 votes.

That will be, in part, an indication that the UK is not going to accept any terms out of fear of a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

But it will not be a remotely good situation. Forces are amassing in Parliament that intend to stop Britain’s departure from the EU, and if they succeed the 2016 referendum will have been usurped in its role for deciding the matter.