THERESA May’s “screeching U-turn” on giving MPs the chance to delay Exit Day has been branded a betrayal by Tory Brexiteers, who suspect it is part of a plot to stop Brexit.
In tense Commons exchanges, Peter Bone, the Northamptonshire MP, told the Prime Minister: "She has said 108 times we will leave the EU on March 29. If that's not possible, doesn't she think the country will regard that as a betrayal?"
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Chairman of the European Research Group of Leave-backing Tory MPs, said: "My suspicion is that any delay to Brexit is a plot to stop Brexit. This would be the most grievous error that politicians could commit."
The backlash to Mrs May’s dramatic move came as a UK Government analysis on a no-deal scenario warned Britons were largely not prepared for such an outcome, which would result in higher food prices, delays at Dover lasting months and an extra £13 billion hit in costs to businesses.
In yet another twist to Westminster’s Brexit drama, the PM changed tack less than 24 hours after insisting a delay would be pointless and she was determined Britain would leave the EU on the scheduled date of March 29 with a deal.
Her cave-in came after it emerged 23 rebels had secretly met the night before in the Commons to discuss how to stop a no-deal outcome with as many as 15 said to be prepared to resign.
Three ministers, Claire Perry, Richard Harrington and Margot James went public to “implore” Mrs May to extend the Article 50 process if her deal were rejected by Parliament by March 13. It followed a similar request at the weekend by three Secretaries of State - Amber Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke - who were denounced by one colleague as “kamikaze Cabinet ministers”.
Earlier this month, The Herald revealed how a Cabinet minister had predicted the PM would come up with a last-minute “form of words” to allay ministers’ fears to make clear Britain would not leave on March 29 without a deal.
In a Commons statement ahead of yet another next steps vote today, the PM said she appreciated how MPs from all parties were “genuinely worried” that time was running out and, if the Government lost another meaningful vote, Parliament would not have time to make its voice heard on the next steps.
So she pledged to give three further commitments:
*to hold a second meaningful vote on the Government’s new plan by Tuesday March 12;
*if the Government lost that vote, it would table a motion to be voted on by Wednesday March 13, asking if MPs supported leaving the EU without a deal and
*if MPs rejected the Government’s proposal and a no-deal outcome, then they would vote on a “short limited extension to Article 50”.
Mrs May made clear: “So the UK will only leave without a deal on March 29, if there is explicit consent in this House for that outcome.”
But she pointedly refused to say how she would vote on the second key vote: on leaving without a deal.
Labour’s Owen Smith accused the PM of carrying out a "screeching U-turn" and asked: "Could she be clear - because she hasn't been thus far - if we have that vote on March 12 or 13, will her Government be voting in favour of no-deal or against it?"
The PM replied: "I'm getting conflicting views from across the chamber; on one hand, I'm told nothing has changed, on the other hand, I'm told we've done a U-turn."
Quizzed about why Mrs May had changed course, her spokesman insisted it had nothing to do with ministerial threats of resignation but an “acknowledgement” of strong views on all sides of the argument.
In her statement, the PM insisted she did not want to extend Article 50 and her “absolute focus” was on getting a deal by March 29.
However, she pointed out an extension beyond the end of June would mean the UK taking part in the European Parliament elections and asked: “What kind of message would that send to the more than 17 million people who voted to leave the EU nearly three years ago now?”
Mrs May claimed a short extension would “almost certainly have to be a one-off” and would create a “much sharper cliff-edge in a few months’ time”.
Across the dispatch box Jeremy Corbyn denounced her “grotesquely reckless" delays.
He told MPs: “The Prime Minister continues to say it is her deal or no-deal but this House has decisively rejected her deal and has clearly rejected no-deal. It is the Prime Minister's obstinacy that is blocking a resolution."
Ian Blackford claimed Mrs May "could not be trusted" not to "dodge" another meaningful vote.
The SNP leader said it was the “height of irresponsibility” for any government to threaten its citizens with the consequences of a no-deal Brexit.
"Rule out no-deal, extend Article 50 but do it today; this should not be left until the middle of March," declared the Highland MP.
The PM explained the deal would not be brought back to MPs until March 12 because the Government was still negotiating.
“If he wants to end the uncertainty and deal with the issues he raised...then he should vote for a deal. Simples," she added.
Ken Clarke, the former Chancellor, asked about the length of any delay, saying: "She seems to be giving us a date for a new cliff-edge at the end of June but isn't the danger that we will merely continue the present pantomime performance through the next three months and the public will be dismayed as we approach that date and find there is similar chaos about where we're going."
Mrs May made clear she wanted any extension to be “as short as possible”.
Later, her spokesman was asked what would happen if MPs voted against all three options - the PM’s new plan, a no-deal Brexit and extending Article 50 - he replied: “That would be quite contradictory and an unexpected thing to happen.”
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