‘Mutineers’ warn May: enshrining Brexit date in law risks harming Britain’s interests

The parliamentary sums in favour of an EU deal add up, but it still won’t save Tories from bloody strife

A GROUP of 15 pro-european Tory MP rebels have insisted they are not trying to frustrate Brexit but warned that Theresa May’s plans to enshrine a leaving date in law risks “harming our country’s interests”.

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, they warn that the Prime Minister’s plan to fix a date when Britain leaves the EU in law is “too rigid” and say more time may be needed to negotiate. It comes amid growing fears among ministers that the scale of the rebellion, which is now thought to have risen to more than 20 Tory MPS and includes several former ministers, means they will have to withdraw the amendment.

The group, labelled the “Brexit mutineers”, have told senior party figures that they will join forces with Labour to block measures to enshrine the date of Brexit in law.

Mrs May told MPS yesterday that the Government was “listening carefully”, adding that it was “right and proper” to have a “lively” debate. The letter says: “We do not seek to delay or thwart Britain’s exit from the EU however much we may regret it... What looks at first blush an uncontroversial proposal, could accidentally harm our country’s interest. Putting a date in law is too rigid. As negotiations reach their close, the Government may need a small amount of additional time to conclude, for example, the best transitional deal.”

David Davis’s commitment on Monday – that the Government would allow Parliament a vote on the agreement it strikes with the European Union – seems to have taken MPS by surprise. This is odd, because ministers have said since the start of the year that there will be a vote on the final deal, and the choice will be “to accept the deal or move ahead without a deal”.

The vote can only be binary. Parliament cannot vote for an agreement that the EU has not offered. It cannot approve an agreement that has not been reached. And it cannot extend the two-year negotiating period set out by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. It should be obvious that Britain cannot unilaterally change international law. That so many Remainers wish they could do so – in the name of keeping us inside or closely aligned to a supranational organisation – is an irony they seem to miss.

Anyway, they have already made their decision. When MPS voted to trigger Article 50, they agreed we would leave Europe at the end of the negotiating period. As Lord Pannick said in the Supreme Court, when he argued against the invocation of Article 50 without parliamentary approval: “The bullet has been fired and nothing that can be done will bring the bullet back to the gun.”

So what will MPS do when they are asked to vote for the deal or departure without a deal?

First, let us consider its content. It will probably include the terms of our departure, a transition, and a “heads of terms” agreement: the broad outlines of Britain’s future relationship with Europe. Suppose the Government agrees a significant exit payment, a two-year transition in which nothing much changes, and the headlines of a trading relationship that does not replicate single market membership, but secures good market access for British companies.

Suppose, consistent with their objectives, ministers make compromises. The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in Britain would end, but a panel of UK and EU judges would adjudicate trade disputes. There would be immigration control, but a preferential system for EU nationals. We would be free to set our own laws, but agree that our regulatory systems do not diverge too far.

I believe such an agreement is possible, and may even be likely. In diplomatic terms it would constitute a success for both sides. But how would MPS respond?

Conservative Remainers could vote for a deal they consider less than perfect, or they could vote against it, making inevitable the very thing they oppose: a no-deal outcome. Conservative Leavers could also vote for the deal. But those who favour a clean break, and those concerned by the compromises that will be necessary, might be tempted to vote against, forcing Britain to leave with no deal.

What about the other parties? Assuming the agreement avoids a hard border in Ireland, the DUP will vote in favour. The Lib Dems might vote against, and so might Plaid Cymru. If the trade agreement is good enough, the SNP may not vote against. A chaotic Brexit would hardly be the best advertisement for Scottish independence, while Nicola Sturgeon has no desire to bring down the Government and face another election with her party in the doldrums.

What about Labour? It says leaving without a deal is the worst outcome. But it would be unable to resist claiming that the deal was not good enough, the Government should fall, and Labour should be elected to negotiate something better. It could ask the EU for a limited standstill period to give itself credibility. Brussels might say yes or no, but Labour would still have its pretext to vote against.

Conservatives tempted to vote against the deal must contemplate what this might entail. It would mean a new election, and the risk of an unreconstructed socialist government. It would mean Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, negotiating a new deal, the result of which would be less palatable to Conservatives than what had been negotiated by Theresa May.

In this scenario, Leavers and Remainers alike in the Conservative Party would surely vote for the Government’s deal, and so too would at least a handful of Labour MPS.

If Conservative Leavers are still not convinced of the risks of voting against, they might contemplate another danger. To help them to manage their coalition of Leave and Remain-supporting MPS, activists and voters, Labour could offer a second referendum, allowing voters to choose between its new deal and re-entry into the EU. The game theory is complicated, but – if they get a decent agreement, even if that agreement requires difficult compromises – Theresa May and David Davis might have more room for manoeuvre in Parliament than many realise.

The recriminations will not, however, end with the vote. With Europe, Tory wounds are too deep: there will still, in the end, be blood.