This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/parliament-to-have-final-say-on-brexit-deal-david-davis-announces
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Parliament to have final say on Brexit deal, David Davis announces | Parliament to have final say on Brexit deal, David Davis announces |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| David Davis has promised that British MPs and peers will be able to debate, scrutinise and vote on the final Brexit agreement through primary legislation in a concession to pro-EU Conservative backbenchers. | |
| The secretary of state announced the move in the Commons as the government faces possible defeat on an amendment laid down by Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, which had called for a meaningful vote on the final deal. | The secretary of state announced the move in the Commons as the government faces possible defeat on an amendment laid down by Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, which had called for a meaningful vote on the final deal. |
| “It is clear that we need to take further steps to provide clarity and certainty both in the negotiations and at home regarding the implementation of any agreement into United Kingdom law,” said Davis, outlining the plans for legislation. “This agreement will only hold if parliament approves it.” | “It is clear that we need to take further steps to provide clarity and certainty both in the negotiations and at home regarding the implementation of any agreement into United Kingdom law,” said Davis, outlining the plans for legislation. “This agreement will only hold if parliament approves it.” |
| However, the offer was immediately attacked by both Labour and Conservative politicians, who expressed anger that it did not give parliament any say in the case of a no-deal Brexit. | However, the offer was immediately attacked by both Labour and Conservative politicians, who expressed anger that it did not give parliament any say in the case of a no-deal Brexit. |
| Others said the lack of promise to hold the vote before Britain’s EU exit date, 29 March 2019, which the government is now planning to write into law, meant the offer was meaningless. They raised concerns that if politicians voted down the deal, Britain would simply crash out of the EU anyway. | Others said the lack of promise to hold the vote before Britain’s EU exit date, 29 March 2019, which the government is now planning to write into law, meant the offer was meaningless. They raised concerns that if politicians voted down the deal, Britain would simply crash out of the EU anyway. |
| In theory the legislation will be amendable, but Davis has made clear that the vote would amount to a take it or leave it option for MPs, with no offer to return to the negotiating table if politicians demand tweaks. | |
| The Conservative MP Anna Soubry asked Davis if she was right to assume MPs had no say if there was no deal. “We can’t have a withdrawal deal bill if there is no withdrawal bill,” he admitted in response. | The Conservative MP Anna Soubry asked Davis if she was right to assume MPs had no say if there was no deal. “We can’t have a withdrawal deal bill if there is no withdrawal bill,” he admitted in response. |
| Soubry told the Guardian: “The government is preparing for a hard Brexit – no deal.” | Soubry told the Guardian: “The government is preparing for a hard Brexit – no deal.” |
| A hard Brexit would take Britain out of the EU’s single market and customs union and ends its obligations to respect the four freedoms, make big EU budget payments and accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ: what Brexiters mean by “taking back control” of Britain’s borders, laws and money. It would mean a return of trade tariffs, depending on what (if any) FTA was agreed. See our full Brexit phrasebook. | A hard Brexit would take Britain out of the EU’s single market and customs union and ends its obligations to respect the four freedoms, make big EU budget payments and accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ: what Brexiters mean by “taking back control” of Britain’s borders, laws and money. It would mean a return of trade tariffs, depending on what (if any) FTA was agreed. See our full Brexit phrasebook. |
| Grieve expressed concern that ministers were making a verbal promise alone, and said the policy needed to be written into the EU withdrawal bill. | Grieve expressed concern that ministers were making a verbal promise alone, and said the policy needed to be written into the EU withdrawal bill. |
| “I welcome the announcement today that parliament will be asked to approve any withdrawal agreement by statute but it remains the case that the bill as drafted does not reflect what the government is now promising – and the bill will therefore have to be changed to meet the government’s promise,” he said. | “I welcome the announcement today that parliament will be asked to approve any withdrawal agreement by statute but it remains the case that the bill as drafted does not reflect what the government is now promising – and the bill will therefore have to be changed to meet the government’s promise,” he said. |
| ”I hope that my amendment won’t be necessary but it will remain there to be debated and if necessary voted on.” | ”I hope that my amendment won’t be necessary but it will remain there to be debated and if necessary voted on.” |
| Labour’s Chris Leslie, who supports Open Britain, called the move a “sham” – arguing that it was an “eleventh hour” act to save the government from losing votes in the House of Commons. | |
| “Ministers need to do much better. 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,” he said. | “Ministers need to do much better. 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,” he said. |
| His colleague Chuka Umunna said it amounted to a “fake meaningful vote”, saying parliament would be sidelined if the UK ends up crashing out. | His colleague Chuka Umunna said it amounted to a “fake meaningful vote”, saying parliament would be sidelined if the UK ends up crashing out. |
| David Davis' announcement just now that there will be an Act of Parliament to approve a final EU deal is totally insufficient: he gave no guarantee of a meaningful vote before 29 March 2019 and this doesn't cover the event of there being no deal /1 | David Davis' announcement just now that there will be an Act of Parliament to approve a final EU deal is totally insufficient: he gave no guarantee of a meaningful vote before 29 March 2019 and this doesn't cover the event of there being no deal /1 |
| Brexit-supporting MPs, including Suella Fernandes, chair of the Tories’ European Research Group, asked for assurance the bill would not be used to reverse Brexit. Davis said it would be a meaningful vote but that it would not undo the process. | |
| When Owen Paterson asked if the UK would still leave the EU in March 2019, Davis simply replied: “Yes.” | When Owen Paterson asked if the UK would still leave the EU in March 2019, Davis simply replied: “Yes.” |
| Nevertheless, Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, called it a “significant climbdown from a weak government on the verge of defeat”. | Nevertheless, Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, called it a “significant climbdown from a weak government on the verge of defeat”. |
| “For months, Labour has been calling on ministers to guarantee parliament a final say on the withdrawal agreement. With less than 24 hours before they had to defend their flawed bill to parliament they have finally backed down. However, like everything with this government the devil will be in the detail,” he said. | |
| “Ministers must now go further. They need to accept Labour’s amendments that would ensure transitional arrangements, and protect jobs and economy from a cliff-edge.” |