Rebels accuse May of ‘betrayal’ on meaningful vote amendment
THERESA MAY faces a fresh battle with Tory rebels next week after they accused her of an “unforgivable” and “sneaky” betrayal over Brexit.
The Prime Minister’s latest attempt at a peace deal with the rebels over a so-called “meaningful vote” on Brexit ended in acrimony, with each side accusing the other of dishonesty.
It means she faces a fresh rebellion over the all-important EU Withdrawal Bill when it returns to the House of Commons next week.
Remainers led by Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, believed it had won a major concession from Mrs May to give Parliament a bigger say.
But Mr Grieve claimed ministers had reneged on the deal by changing the wording of an agreement after he had left London for a BBC Question Time appearance in Wales.
Brexiteers hit back, accusing Mr Grieve of having a “hidden agenda” to stop Brexit, even though the MP insisted that had not been his intention.
Mr Grieve told The Daily Telegraph: “I’m afraid that after thinking we were about to come to a sensible agreement, at the last minute an element of it has been changed in a way that is unacceptable and turns it into a complete damp squib. I’m sorry, but the debate will have to go on next week.”
On Tuesday Mrs May headed off a rebellion over the Bill by making “personal assurances” to a dozen rebels that she would address their concerns over Parliament being given a meaningful vote on how the Government should proceed in the event of a “no deal” or MPS rejecting the deal on offer.
The rebels backed down as a result and spent two days thrashing out the wording of a new amendment that they thought would empower Parliament and end the prospect of a “no deal”.
But when the final amendment was tabled with the House of Lords at 5pm last night, it made clear that the Commons would only be able to pass a motion saying that it had “considered” the matter, which critics said rendered the meaningful vote “meaningless”.
The motion on the final deal – or on a decision to leave without a deal – will not be subject to amendment, meaning MPS will not be able to steer the negotiations, but merely record an opinion.
Sarah Wollaston, a Tory rebel, described the alleged change of wording as a “sneaky sting in the tail”, while Remainer Anna Soubry said: “This is unforgivable. People took the Prime Minister at her word.”
The Government will almost certainly reword the amendment, but sources insisted Mrs May would not budge from her “red lines” that Parliament must not dictate the Brexit process and that Brexit could not be halted.
A senior Brexiteer said: “Mr Grieve wants to table amendments… why? Does he have a hidden agenda? Is the goal to allow MPS to have a legitimate say or is it to frustrate or halt Brexit?”