HAPLESS Theresa May had the daft notion that the parliamentary recess would cool the raging civil war inside the Tory Party over Brexit. Predictably, her calculation has proven as wide of the mark as her ill-judged decision last year to call a general election. All the summer holidays have provided is more time away from the Westminster day job for Conservative backbenchers and assorted Brexit nutters to connive against the Prime Minister and her diminishing band of loyalists. Meanwhile the clock is ticking remorselessly towards a hard Brexit.

READ MORE: Brexiteer protects himself from the effects of Brexit

However, there’s been one demonstrable shift in the political tectonics during August – the fragmented Remain forces have started to get their act together. To date, the assorted Remainers have lacked a collective plan of resistance. For instance, city bankers have lobbied discretely for a “business as usual” transition period that could be lengthened indefinitely. This “eternal delay” plan is essentially the core of May’s Chequers blueprint.

KEVIN MCKENNA: There’s no risk with Brexit for the callous elite responsible for it

Unfortunately for the bankers, the Brexiteers have clocked their manoeuvre. Jacob Rees-Mogg has spent the vacation moving heaven and earth to mobilise Tory backbench opposition to the Chequers plan. Consider it dead on arrival.

Meanwhile the LibDems have been trying to mobilise a line of resistance based on calling a second EU referendum to (hopefully) reverse the 2016 result. This manoeuvre has been used before with some success. The Irish voted against the Treaty of Lisbon in June 2008 but were persuaded to change their minds in a second referendum in October 2009.

However, in the Irish case, all the establishment parties wanted the Lisbon Treaty approved, so getting political support for a second vote was relatively easy. Here in the UK, the situation is vastly more complicated.

ROBERT J SOMYNNE: Brexit, Irish Borders and the Scottish Question 

First up, May and the closet Tory Remainers are more worried about splitting the Conservative Party than destroying the UK economy. Calling a second EU referendum is precisely the move that will split the Tories like a meat cleaver and put Labour in Downing Street.

Then, there is the Corbyn factor. Jeremy is a closet Brexit man. Besides, lots of pro-EU centrist and Blairite Labour MPs got a fright when their constituents voted Leave. They want to keep their seats, so they are unwilling – to date – to take the lead in calling for a second bite of the EU referendum cherry. At least, that is, until there is evidence of a backlash against a hard Brexit.

Is there any evidence of a popular change of mind? Polling conducted over the past three months shows (on average) Remain at 52% and Leave at 48%. But that’s within margins of error. Even if accurate, it suggests the result is so close that anything could happen in the heat of a second referendum campaign. True, there are more than 100 constituencies, mostly Labour, that voted Leave but now seem to be going the other way. That could persuade some Labour MPs to be more vocal in supporting a second vote.

The National:

There is one new piece of evidence that could tip the balance. Polls show that those who did not vote in the 2016 referendum are more likely to back Remain in any second ballot. They are also more inclined to support Labour. This could be grounds for Corbyn edging towards supporting a recall referendum, if only on the opportunist grounds it will cause more division inside Conservative ranks.

My own view is that we are more likely to see a fresh general election before we see a second EU referendum. The growing Tory backbench revolt against May’s Chequers plan virtually guarantees it will not pass the Commons. In that circumstance, the Prime Minister will have no option but to go to the country. Labour would prefer that, partly because it gets them off the hook regarding supporting a second referendum, and partly because they could win.

Of course, the prospect of yet another general election could accelerate the creation of a new Centre Party, given that Labour Blairites and “moderates” would find it hard to support a hard-left manifesto written by Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. On the other hand, being in government has its attractions, even for those Labour MPs who hate Jeremy. Besides, Corbyn and McDonnell have been showing growing signs of pragmatism, now that Downing Street beckons. What better proof of pragmatism than offering a second EU referendum as part of Labour’s general election manifesto. That would get everyone off the hook.

Where does this leave Scotland? Nicola has been biding her time this summer, letting the big UK parties dig their own Brexit graves. The generous pay settlement for Scottish NHS workers indicates she is quietly building popular support for the SNP government.

However, biding your time is different from being neutral in a fight. Eventually the SNP leadership is going to have to choose what kind of second referendum it is backing: indyref2, another EU poll, or even both? And it is going to have to choose soon. As it is, the party faces a strange annual conference in October, where both prospective referendums and the Growth Commission Report are missing from the formal agenda.

A recent YouGov opinion poll in Scotland shows SNP voters back a referendum on the final outcome of any Brexit deal by a margin of more than four to one. Scottish Labour voters back such a second poll by three to one. Attentive readers will know that I favour the Scottish Government holding such a referendum, as a way of putting maximum pressure on May and Jeremy Corbyn. Nicola should threaten to call a unilateral EU poll once the Brexit negotiations are completed. If Scotland rejected Brexit in those circumstances, the way would be open to holding indyref2.

Some Yes supporters argue that an EU poll would be a diversion from a fresh independence vote. Why not cut to the chase? Don’t we already have an indyref2 mandate from the last Holyrood election? Should we not use it or lose it? But surely, the choice is a tactical one. The public divide is focused on Brexit. We can maximise political support in Scotland behind opposition to a hard Brexit and the economic chaos that will follow. First, consolidate that majority support – then we can argue the best way of keeping Scotland economically sound is by governing ourselves.

In fact, the two issues can be combined. Question one on the ballot form would read: “Do you support the outcome of the British Government’s negotiations on future relations with the EU. Yes or No.” Then a second question: “If No, do you give the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate directly with the EU to secure Scotland’s continuing membership; and with UK Government to secure Scotland’s independence. Yes or No.”

What happens if there’s a general election following Westminster refusing to endorse May’s peely-wally Chequers plan, triggering a hard Brexit? Why not simply ask for a direct mandate to negotiate independence, to be ratified on completion by another referendum? If we get a majority of SNP MPs, surely that’s a sufficient democratic mandate to govern ourselves and stay European?