Theresa May has been urged by former Tory leader Lord Hague to call an early general election to avoid further parliamentary stand-offs over Brexit.
As the Prime Minister braced herself for potential defeat in the House of Lords, with many peers demanding Parliament gets a "meaningful" vote on the final Brexit deal, Lord Hague said she could reduce the risk of more close votes if she won an election.
The peer said there was "no doubt" Mrs May would have a better chance of making Brexit a success with a "decisive" majority in the Commons, warning her that different factions in Parliament will inevitably find parts of the exit deal "difficult to stomach".
READ MORE: May warns peers not to do anything to "incentivise" EU to offer Britain a bad deal
With Labour's prospects under Jeremy Corbyn apparently in dire straits according to opinion polls, Lord Hague urged the PM to repeal the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and call a snap election.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the peer said that while the Act was necessary under the coalition to satisfy the Liberal Democrats, the situation was now "very different" and "it is time to question whether a fixed parliamentary term is in the interests of the country as we withdraw from the European Union".
Lord Hague, the most senior Tory figure to publicly call for an early election, went on: "We have a new Prime Minister and Cabinet facing the most complex challenges of modern times: Brexit negotiations, the Trump administration, the threat from Scottish nationalists, and many other issues.
"There is no doubt that they would be in a stronger position to take the country through these challenges successfully if they had a large and decisive majority in the Commons and a new full term ahead of them."
Ahead of the expected clash between peers and the Government over Parliament's role in approving the final Brexit deal, Lord Hague went on: "Any deal is bound to be full of compromises which one group or another in Parliament finds difficult to stomach.
"As British law needs to be amended countless times to take account of leaving the EU treaties, the Government could face many close votes, concessions or defeats as it tries to implement Brexit.
"That prospect will embolden the EU negotiators, and makes an agreement that is good for the UK harder to achieve.
"It could also lead to a situation where the Prime Minister faces a stand-off with Parliament over a deal that will have taken two years to negotiate and is nearly impossible to change."
It came after Mrs May warned peers they could "incentivise" the EU to offer Britain a bad Brexit deal if they pass a further amendment to the Article 50 Bill.
The Lords is expected to vote at around 5pm on Tuesday on an amendment calling for Westminster to be given a "meaningful" vote on the withdrawal agreement secured by the PM during negotiations under Article 50 of the EU treaties.
Mrs May has promised Parliament a vote, but only on a "take it or leave it" basis, which would see the UK crash out of the EU without a deal if MPs reject the agreement she obtains.
She believes she must maintain this position in order to convince EU negotiators and other member states she is ready to walk away from the table if she does not like what is on offer.
READ MORE: May warns peers not to do anything to "incentivise" EU to offer Britain a bad deal
Many peers are insisting that they should be given the option of telling ministers to go back to the EU and renegotiating a better deal.
Opposition members have argued Mrs May's position that "no deal is better than a bad deal" risks a sudden "cliff-edge" move onto WTO tariffs which would harm the UK economy.
A Labour Lords source told the Press Association the party was confident its amendment on a meaningful vote would deliver "another likely handsome defeat for the Government, given the developing cross-party campaign on this issue".
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