Rishi Sunak confirmed on Monday that he had reached a deal with the EU to address problems with the Northern Ireland Protocol.
But after dealing with the press, he was sent to the House of Commons to face two and a half hours of questions from MPs of all stripes about the substance of the deal.
So, what did they think? We look at the main groups grilling the PM.
The Northern Ireland MPs
The leader of the DUP, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, is not ready to either condemn or praise the protocol’s replacement yet.
He told MPs “significant progress has been secured across a number of areas”, but “key issues of concern” remained.
“My party will want to study the detail of what has been published today,” he added, saying it would be compared to the party’s seven tests for an acceptable agreement.
More on Brexit
Related Topics:
But Sir Jeffrey told Mr Sunak that “sovereignty is crucial”, so going forward, the government needed to give Northern Ireland assurances there would be no EU laws making trade barriers between NI and the rest of the UK.
Image: DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is taking his time before giving his approval – or disapproval – for the deal.
His DUP colleague, Jim Shannon, seemed more certain about his position. He said the deal was “about more than solar panels and sausages” – it was about Northern Ireland’s place in the UK.
Advertisement
Mr Shannon spoke out about any involvement of the European courts in laws impacting them, saying “the real power must lie with Westminster not Brussels”.
He added: “The prime minister can strike no deal ever without bringing the majority of unionists on board.
“And to push another deal through this House without unionist buy-in will offer no result other than another failed deal.”
Another DUP MP, Sammy Wilson, described Mr Sunak’s statement to the Commons as “an 18 minute confession… about the damage the [Northern Ireland] Protocol his government signed has done to Northern Ireland”.
And he questioned the so-called Stormont brake – which is designed to allow the Assembly to put a pause on new EU laws and allow the UK government to veto them.
“We don’t have confidence in that,” said Mr Wilson, “and [it is] why we still fear our position in the United Kingdom is not going to be restored.”
But SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said his concerns about the brake were from a different perspective.
“There has been an awful lot of talk about the concerns of the DUP,” he said.
“But it is important to remember the majority of people in Northern Ireland opposed Brexit and want to see benefits of dual access to [the EU’s single Market] properly utilised.”
His point was echoed by Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party, who worried it could “add more instability” in Northern Ireland if that access is threatened.
The Tories
There were no outright condemnations of the framework from the Tory benches… as yet.
Neither Boris Johnson nor Liz Truss were in the House – though a source close to Mr Johnson told Sky News he “continues to study and reflect on the government’s proposals”.
Sir Edward Leigh came closest, warning that unless the deal got the NI Assembly up and running again “it is pretty futile – indeed it might be downright dangerous”.
He added: “I can assure him many of his colleagues on these benches are watching the DUP very carefully and we will go where they go.”
Theresa May – the first Conservative prime minister to try to negotiate a deal, who was ousted by her own MPs for failing to agree one they liked – congratulated Mr Sunak for the new offer, saying it would “make a huge difference”.
She said the Northern Ireland Protocol – negotiated by her immediate successor Boris Johnson – had been “the European Union’s preferred proposal of a border down the Irish Sea”.
She added: “The best move now is for everybody across this House to support this settlement, because that is what is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.”
Image: Theresa May gave her support to Rishi Sunak’s deal, while making some pointed criticism on Boris Johnson’s.
Ex-Brexit secretary and cheerleader of the cause, David Davis, gave his wholehearted support to the framework too.
He offered his “unreserved congratulations” to Mr Sunak, called it a “spectacular success”, and praised the “extraordinary mechanism” of the Stormont brake.
“It was a brilliant piece of negotiation, insight and imagination,” he said.
Andrea Leadsom – another leading campaigner for Brexit – said had this deal been brought forward at any point over the last five years, “those of us who were Brexiteers, Unionists and Remainers would have jumped on it”.
But Sir Bill Cash said “the devil as ever lies in the detail”.
The opposition views
Offering his support for the deal, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told the Commons: “We will not snipe. We will not seek to play political games.
“And when the prime minister puts this deal forward for a vote, Labour will vote for it.”
He said the plan “will never be perfect – it is a compromise”, but he added: “I have always been clear that, if implemented correctly, it is an arrangement that can work in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.
“And that now it’s been agreed, we all have an obligation to make it work.”
However, Sir Keir did use the opportunity to attack Boris Johnson for having told the public there would be no checks in the Irish Sea under his previous deal, saying the claim was “nonsense”.
“[It was] a point-blank refusal to engage with unionists in Northern Ireland in good faith, never mind take their concerns seriously,” he added. “And it inevitably contributed to the collapse of power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
“And I did wonder after the prime minister listed all the problems if he had forgotten who had negotiated it.
“So, when presenting what this agreement means in practice, I urge the prime minister to be utterly unlike his predecessor.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:09
‘We will not snipe’: Labour vows to back deal
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SNP MPs were less than impressed with the deal, believing the best thing would be to return to the EU.
“Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster,” said the party’s Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn.
“And what this deal does not do is create parity across these nations.”
He said Northern Ireland businesses would continue to have access to the EU’s single market, while Scotland would not.
“I do not begrudge Northern Ireland businesses, but I do regret Scotland does not have the same opportunities,” he added.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said his party needed to study the deal, but welcomed “the spirit of partnership and compromise between the UK government and the European Union” in coming to an agreement.
The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:49
European leaders sit down with Trump for talks
The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.
Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russiawould have a problem with it.
Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putinhad agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:50
Trump: No US troops on ground in Ukraine
Russia gives two fingers to the president
And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.
“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.
Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.
It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:02
Europe ‘undermining’ Ukraine talks
The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.
Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.
It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.
NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.
European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”
The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:57
Sky’s Mark Stone takes you inside Zelenskyy-Trump 2.0
Would Trump threaten force?
The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.
The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iranisn’t a nuclear power.
Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.
Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.
A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.
Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.
He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.
Image: Pic: Truth Social
That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.
The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.
At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.
Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.
Image: Pics: AP
Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.
Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).
He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.
Who are FARC, and are they still active?
The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.
It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.
It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.
According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.
Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.
It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.
The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday