THERESA May has warned the House of Lords not to try to amend the Article 50 Bill to force the UK Government to give Westminster a so-called meaningful vote on any agreement as this could “incentivise” the EU to offer Britain a bad Brexit deal.
One fear within Whitehall is that any weakening of the UK’s negotiating hand and the consequent prospect of a bad deal could encourage the EU in the belief that the UK’s vote to leave might in some way be reversed by MPs.
Tomorrow, peers are expected to vote on an amendment calling for Westminster to be given a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement ie that if MPs and peers did not like the final deal, then they could send the Prime Minister and her colleagues back to the negotiating table.
However, while Mrs May has promised Parliament a vote, she has been clear this can only take place on a "take it or leave it" basis, which would see the UK crash out of the EU without any deal if MPs rejected the package she had agreed with Brussels.
The PM believes she must maintain this position in order to secure her negotiating hand to convince EU negotiators and other member states she would be ready to walk away from the table if she did not like what was on offer.
But opposition MPs and peers argue Mrs May's position that "no deal is better than a bad deal" risks a sudden cliff-edge move onto World Trade Organisation tariffs, which would harm the UK economy.
Asked for the PM's message to peers preparing to vote on the European Union (Notification Of Withdrawal) Bill, Mrs May's spokesman explained: "She believes we should not commit to any process that would incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal.
"If we are in a position where any deal negotiated by the Prime Minister could be rejected by MPs, that gives strength potentially to the other parties in this negotiation."
The spokesman stressed that the UK Government was approaching the Brexit talks in good faith and remained confident a deal that was good for Britain and the EU could be successfully brokered. But he added: “We should not commit to anything that will incentivise the EU to offer us a bad deal in the hope of stopping us leaving.”
Last week, peers overwhelmingly passed an amendment, which called for an immediate guarantee of rights for EU nationals already in the UK.
The bigger-than-expected Government defeat by 358 votes to 256 came as a result of Labour, Liberal Democrats and Crossbenchers joining forces with a handful of rebel Tories.
On Tuesday, it is expected that Mrs May will potentially suffer an even larger defeat on the issue of a meaningful vote. MPs are due to debate the amendments next week.
While the PM, thanks to the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists, has a working majority of 32, it would only take 17 rebel Tories in the Commons for her government to be defeated.
One former Conservative minister has warned that he is prepared to vote against the Government unless Mrs May gave Westminster a proper say on any Brexit deal.
Asked on BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour if he would back the expected amendment, London MP Bob Neill said: "I'd certainly be inclined to vote in that way unless the Government is able to come up with alternative assurances on the floor of the Commons which has the effect of saying, 'it needn't be on the face of the Bill but this is what will happen'."
He added: "If there is no deal, that means that we would potentially leave the EU straight on to World Trade Organisation terms and without any transitional arrangements. That would be deeply damaging for this country and Parliament should have the right to consider that."
Commons Leader David Lidington told the BBC: "Parliament will get the chance to vote on the deal.
"Any idea that the PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27 were to play hardball, that somehow that means that Parliament would...try to reverse the referendum verdicts and to set aside the views of the British people; that would almost guarantee that it would be much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious, mutually beneficial deal for us and for the EU 27 that we want," he added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel