May faces another row over Brexit Bill

May must set clear direction

THERESA MAY is facing another parliamentary bust-up over her flagship Brexit legislation after a compromise designed to keep critics in her own party on board was denounced as “unacceptable” by Tory Remainers.

The move was branded “sneaky” by one backbencher while another senior pro-EU Tory said the wording of a Government amendment was changed at the last minute to deny MPs the chance of blocking a “no deal” Brexit. A senior Minister was forced to deny having lied to pro-EU Conservatives about the plan, which was signed off by the Prime Minister.

Peers are to vote on Monday on a proposal to give MPs the power to dictate the Government’s response if it fails to reach a deal with Brussels.

Mrs May avoided almost certain defeat on Tuesday by inviting potential rebels into her private office and assuring them that their concerns about having a “meaningful vote” on the final Brexit deal would be addressed. However, the amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill tabled yesterday leaves Parliament facing a “deal or no deal” choice.

If MPs reject the agreement reached with Brussels – or if there is no deal by January 21 – Parliament will be offered the opportunity to vote on a “neutral motion” stating that it has considered a Minister’s statement on the issue. Crucially, it will be unamendable, meaning that MPs cannot insert a requirement for Mrs May to go back to the negotiating table, extend the Brexit transition or revoke the UK’s withdrawal under Article 50.

BREXIT SECRETARY David Davis has met the EU’s chief negotiator fewer times than he has threatened to resign this year, according to Labour.

Sir Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, mocked Mr Davis as he pushed for further details of the Government’s compromise with Tory rebels over giving Parliament a meaningful vote on the outcome of the EU withdrawal negotiations.

MPs heard Mr Davis had met Michel Barnier once in February, at a press conference in March and also earlier this week.

Cabinet Minister Mr Davis told MPs he cannot accept any amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which transfers EU law into UK law, that allow Parliament to “instruct Government on what steps it should take” in the negotiations.

But he refused to be drawn on further details about the concessions offered to Tory former attorney general Dominic Grieve and party colleagues concerned about Parliament’s role in the Brexit process.

Mr Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden, warned a second referendum risked causing “division and strife” in the UK and updated the Commons on the progress of the Brexit negotiations, noting that three quarters of the legal text had now been agreed with Brussels.

Speaking during Brexit questions, Labour’s Sir Keir said of Mr Davis: “It’s very good to see him in his place. I’ve done a quick tally, I think this year he’s threatened to resign more times than he’s met Michel Barnier.”

Sir Keir pressed Mr Davis over ensuring Parliament has a meaningful vote on the outcome of the Brexit talks, highlighting apparent contradictions in what Mr Grieve believed the Government was offering compared to the views of Solicitor General Robert Buckland.

Mr Davis reiterated the proposal put back to the Lords must meet three criteria, including that it does not overturn the referendum result, does not undermine negotiations and does not change the country’s constitutional structure which involves the Government negotiating.

Shadow Brexit Minister Paul Blomfield earlier asked why, until last Monday, Mr Davis had only met with Mr Barnier twice in six “critical” months. He said: “Is it because paralysis in the Cabinet leaves him with nothing to say, or is it simply because he’s been sidelined by officials closer to the Prime Minister?”

Mr Davis replied: “Isn’t it wonderful having the Labour Party of all people trying to accuse us... I just read a tweet this morning where the Labour whips office were celebrating the fact that only 75 Labour members rebelled against the motion yesterday.”

Tory MP Giles Watling (Clacton), who voted Remain in the EU referendum, also asked: “Do you agree with me that unity in strength is the only way forward and that holding a second referendum would be expensive madness, leading to further division and strife?”

Mr Davis replied: “Not only would it lead to division and strife, as you put it, it’d also create an incentive for the European Union to give us the worst deal possible.”

Theresa May has replaced Justice Minister Phillip Lee, who quit his official role to vote against the Government on Brexit. Edward Argar will be Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice.

Holding a second referendum would be expensive madness.

Conservative MP Giles Watling.

VOTERS COULD be forgiven for being completely baffled by where the Brexit process is going, whether they backed leave or remain, such is the degree of political disarray surrounding it.

As the Prime Minister yesterday tied herself in yet more knots attempting to reconcile her party’s warring factions, Labour appeared little more unified. The resignations of a frontbench spokesman and five parliamentary aides, allied to 90 of his MPs defying instructions on how to vote, suggested that Jeremy Corbyn’s grip on his own party is no more firm than Mrs May’s.

The crucial difference, though, is that Mrs May is charged with negotiating Britain’s exit from the EU, and dissent amongst her MPs makes achieving a favourable result for the country less likely with each passing day.

Tory infighting must stop. It is weakening the Government’s negotiating position, and in doing so strengthening the hand of those within the EU who would like to punish Britain for voting to leave.

Mrs May is attempting to square an impossible circle in trying to appease the rival factions in her party advocating either a hard or soft Brexit. Last night, it was the turn of pro-EU Conservative backbenchers to be unhappy at the removal of any mention in the EU Withdrawal Bill of Parliament approving a Minister’s statement on the way forward in the event of “no deal” Brexit.

But there remain a raft of issues where the future direction of travel is unclear, from the customs union to the Irish border. The policy muddle must end. The people, as well as Parliament, need to know where Brexit is heading.