EU will reject late changes to withdrawal agreement

THE European Union is likely to reject any last-minute attempt by Parliament to re-open the terms of the Article 50 divorce agreement, EU sources have told The Daily Telegraph.

Under plans announced by David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, last night, Parliament will be given the chance to scrutinise and potentially amend the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

Mr Davis conceded that plan raised the prospect of the British government returning to Brussels at the 11th hour to ask for an amended version of the divorce deal to be considered by the European side.

Asked what would happen if Parliament changed aspects of the divorce deal, including potentially contentious elements covering the so-called €60 billion divorce bill and citizens’ rights, including potentially the right to send UK benefits abroad, Mr Davis said the UK would go back to Brussels.

“That will be taken by the Government as an instruction to go back and speak to them,” he told the Commons. “Whether that will deliver any outcome I don’t know.”

Asked about what the “outcome” might be, senior EU sources said it was “extremely difficult to imagine” that the European side would entertain lastminute revisions or a request to reopen a negotiation that had been deemed finished.

“If the UK Government comes back at 11pm on March 29 2019 saying the House of Commons has amended X, Y and Z, then we would need to go back to council and parliament,” the source explained. “But it is extremely difficult to imagine member states will start this whole process again once it has been ratified, particularly given how challenging the time is already.”

‘It is crucial that Parliament has the same role in the event of a disastrous ‘no deal’ outcome’

Under the timetable set out by Michel Barnier, the EU’S chief negotiator, a deal between the EU and the UK should be concluded by Oct 2018 in order to give six months for the deal to be ratified. The source pointed back to the text of Article 50, which says that the deal will be agreed by a “qualified majority” of the EU member states in the European Council, “after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament”.

In practice, the official added, given Mr Barnier’s close liaison with the European Parliament and EU member states, it would be reasonable to assume that any deal agreed in negotiations in Oct 2018 will be acceptable to the European parliament and council.

The likelihood that the EU will not entertain UK attempts to re-litigate the withdrawal agreement at the 11th hour has raised questions about how meaningful the Government’s offer of a vote on the deal really is.

The only alternative would be for the UK to request either a suspension of Article 50, or an extension which requires unanimous consent of the 27 EU member states. It is not clear whether this would be forthcoming.

Campaigners against a hard Brexit are determined that MPS should not be faced with a “non choice” between accepting the deal brought back from Brussels, or voting it down and triggering a cliff-edge Brexit.

Open Britain, the pro-eu pressure group, dismissed the Government offer as a “sham” and a tactical move by whips, given the limited options facing the UK if Parliament rejected the withdrawal agreement.

“What could have been a very welcome concession by the Government, instead looks like a sham that pretends to respect the sovereignty of Parliament but falls well short of what is required,” said Chris Leslie, a Labour MP and lead support of the group.

“It is crucial that this meaningful vote takes place well before we leave, that defeat for the Government’s legislation will not imply leaving the EU with no deal, and that Parliament has the same role in the event of a disastrous ‘no deal’ outcome.”

However pro-brexit groups, such as Open Europe, the think-tank, argue that the push for a “meaningful vote” is essentially a way of stopping Brexit.

“The argument by remain MPS to have a meaningful vote on exit terms has always seemed hard to comprehend when you consider the implication of voting it down,” said Henry Newman, Open Europe’s director. “It looks to me like a frustrating tactic not a legitimate attempt at scrutiny.”