Brexit: Theresa May's compromise plan falls apart as pro-EU rebels brand it 'unacceptable'

Lead pro-EU rebel Dominic Grieve told The Independent the government changed the wording of its compromise proposal despite agreeing it with him

Joe Watts
Political Editor
Thursday 14 June 2018 18:47 BST
Comments
Can Brexit be reversed?

Theresa May has been plunged into a fresh Brexit crisis after her attempt to compromise with pro-EU rebels collapsed.

Tory MPs who say the prime minister promised them plans that would give parliament more power to block a no-deal Brexit have said her proposals fall far short of what was pledged.

Ex-Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve told The Independent he spent the morning negotiating with ministers and agreeing a wording to a new amendment, but claimed what was tabled later in the afternoon had been altered.

Another pro-EU rebel and senior Conservative MP accused the government of adding a “sneaky sting in the tail” to the amendment after hours of negotiations with Mr Grieve, while another accused pro-Brexit MPs of threatening the government in order to make ministers water the compromise down.

It means the prime minister now faces the prospect of having her proposals discarded by the Lords next week, after which pro-EU rebels will likely push for a vote in the Commons which could see parliament put in the Brexit driving seat if no deal is reached by November.

Speaking to The Independent after the government published its amendment to Ms May’s EU (Withdrawal) Bill, Mr Grieve said: “At the very last minute the government suddenly altered the words of the final part, which I thought had been agreed before lunch when I left.”

The row was sparked by the Lords last month passing a plan to give parliament power to direct Ms May’s actions if she failed to seal a Brexit deal later this year, meaning it would be unlikely she could take the UK out of Europe with no deal.

Jeremy Corbyn asks Theresa May is she has let Donald Trump take over Brexit negotations

Ms May was set to lose a vote on that plan in the commons on Tuesday, which would have made it law, and had also rejected a compromise from Mr Grieve – but in a last minute move that saw her avoid a major defeat, she personally met pro-EU rebels and promised to bring forward her own compromise proposals.

The MPs left the meeting believing parliament would at least be given power to approve or reject her approach in the event that no deal is reached with the EU, but what was published on Tuesday gave them no binding vote.

What has been announced is not in the spirit of what we agreed, it completely cuts off its effectiveness

Conservative MP Dominic Grieve

​Beaconsfield MP Mr Grieve went on: “What has been announced is not in the spirit of what we agreed, it completely cuts off its effectiveness.

“I thought we had it resolved and I regret it hasn’t happened. I am sorry about that. What we had agreed was a sensible arrangement – it was good and flexible.”

The MP called the government’s final proposal “unacceptable”, but would not speculate on why it had been changed at the last moment, adding only: “I have nothing but praise for those people I was negotiating with. Managing Brexit is an incredibly difficult thing to do.”

Nicky Morgan: Parliament will have a 'real say' if the government fails to secure a Brexit deal

But other rebels took a more cynical view, claiming that the working Mr Grieve had agreed with ministers had been blocked and rewritten under pressure from Brexiteers in the party.

One told The Independent: “I’m sure they have called up and warned that I cannot pass. Taken a perfectly sensible arrangement agreed between MPs and the government and blocked it.”

Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston, who also chairs the health committee, said on Twitter: “Ah ha, so just to be clear, we are now going to have to amend the ‘unamendable’ after the agreed amendable amendment acquired a sneaky sting in the tail. What a time to be alive...”

Meanwhile shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said: “The government’s amendment is simply not good enough. Theresa May has gone back on her word and offered an amendment that takes the meaning out of the meaningful vote.

“Parliament cannot – and should not – accept it.”

A government spokesperson made no comment on whether their proposal was in the spirit of what was personally promised to pro-EU rebels by Ms May, instead saying that it “respects the tests set out by the prime minister and the Brexit secretary”.

He went on: “We have listened to those across the house who called for the ability to express their views, in the unlikely event that our preferred scenario did not come to pass.”

The spokesperson said there were three situations which would trigger a vote in both houses – one, should parliament reject the government’s deal, two, that no agreement can be reached, or, three, that there is no deal agreed by 21 January 2019.

He said this would ensure “that in all circumstances parliament can hold government to account, while also allowing government to deliver on the will of the British people” – but rebels said that unless the votes have some kind of effect on the government’s actions then they have little meaning.

Tory minister Phillip Lee announces his resignation over Brexit during think tank speech

He added: “This remains hypothetical and the government is confident we will agree a good deal with the EU, which parliament will support.”

But the words are unlikely to allow the government to avoid major collision with pro-EU Lords next week, who will most probably seek to rewrite the government’s proposal along the lines of Mr Grieve’s original plan.

Under those proposals, if Ms May has not secured a deal by November she will have to tell parliament what her next steps are and put them to a vote in parliament.

Then, if she has still not secured a deal by February she would have to undertake whatever steps parliament decided up following a vote in both upper and lower chambers.

If the Lords do pass Mr Grieve’s original plan and then it is also passed by the Commons, it means parliament will effectively strip Ms May of control of Brexit if she fails to secure a deal by February.

Some in Westminster are already speculating that it would cause a constitutional crisis, that would precipitate the collapse of Ms May’s administration.

Tom Tugendhat, the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, has also said there would be a “new government” if MPs vote down the final agreement the prime minister makes with Brussels.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in