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 2 Version 3
Parliament to have final say on Brexit deal, David Davis announces Parliament to have 'take-it-or-leave-it' vote on final Brexit deal, Davis says
(about 3 hours 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. David Davis has promised to introduce legislation to parliament that will allow MPs to vote on the final Brexit deal but the concession was not enough to kill off a potential rebellion from 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 Brexit secretary announced the move in the Commons after it became clear that the government could face defeat on an amendment laid down by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve that calls for a meaningful vote.
“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 the withdrawal agreement to be subject to primary 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. Davis’s offer amounted to verbal assurance that parliament would be able to vote on the withdrawal agreement, covering issues such as citizen rights, the financial settlement and transitional arrangements, but would not include a future trade deal. He also added that it could not be used to undo 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. Citizens’ rights are the rights and protections offered to all EU citizens, including free movement and residence, equal treatment and a wide range of other rights under EU law regarding work, education, social security and health.
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. They are held by some 3.5 million citizens from other member states in the UK and about 1.2 million British nationals on the continent, and are a key part of the  negotiations that are taking Britain out of Europe. 
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. Read more on citizens' rights
Soubry told the Guardian: “The government is preparing for a hard Brexit – no deal.” More from the Brexit phrasebook
Grieve welcomed the offer but said that a verbal reassurance from ministers was not adequate, and confirmed that his amendment would remain in place for the time being. It is due to be voted on in the coming weeks as the existing EU withdrawal bill goes through its committee stage, although a firm date has not yet been set.
His Conservative colleague Anna Soubry confirmed that she and others were still ready to rebel, arguing that Davis’s announcement would not give politicians any say in a “no deal” scenario, under which the government failed to reach an agreement with the EU.
Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, called the announcement a “significant climbdown from a weak government on the verge of defeat” but added the detail would be critical, while some Labour backbenchers went further, dismissing the move as a “sham” and a “fake meaningful vote”.
Opponents of the government pointed out that MPs were not being given the power to send ministers back to the negotiating table in Brussels if they were unhappy with the deal. They said the offer amounted to a take-it-or-leave-it vote for parliament, under which the alternative would mean crashing out without any agreement.
The prominent Brexiter Owen Paterson asked Davis for reassurance that the UK would leave the EU on 29 March 2019 even if parliament rejected the final deal in the debate on the proposed bill. The Brexit secretary replied: “Yes.”
The cabinet minister also repeatedly made clear to MPs that politicians would not be able to slow or reverse the Brexit process simply by amending the proposed bill. Brexit-supporting MPs, including Suella Fernandes – chair of the Tories’ European Research Group, had asked for assurances the bill could not used to undo the process.
Sources added there would be no chance of reopening negotiations off the back of any amendments to the proposed bill and claimed the EU would not accept any changes at that stage. As such the vote would amount to a take-it-or-leave-it option.
Davis said his “principle policy aim” was for the EU deal to be ready by October, 2018, giving time for MPs to scrutinise and debate it before 29 March 2019, but he would not guarantee that to be the case. Some MPs said they feared the proposed vote for MPs could be delayed until after Brexit had already taken place.
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 welcomed the concession but told the Guardian that verbal assurances were not enough to fully placate potential rebels.
“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. The Tory rebel also criticised the government for putting forward what he called an “extraordinary amendment” last week under which the date of Brexit - 29 March 2019 - would be written on the face of the EU withdrawal bill. Grieve said that would tie the hands of ministers by taking away any possibility of extending article 50 in an emergency.
“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. Soubry added that incorporating the date into the bill meant MPs would have “no say” if the government failed to negotiate a deal in the timeframe on offer.
His colleague Chuka Umunna said it amounted to a “fake meaningful vote”, saying parliament would be sidelined if the UK ends up crashing out. Davis responded that the need for unanimity from 27 other EU countries to extend the timeline meant doing so was an unlikely option.
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 Soubry told the Guardian that she believed that the government was “preparing for a hard Brexit – no deal”, adding that she would still back Grieve’s amendment and was ready to rebel on the issue of the exit day.
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. The Labour MP Chris Leslie, who has laid down a number of amendments to the EU withdrawal bill being debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday, said he thought ministers would still face a rough ride.
When Owen Paterson asked if the UK would still leave the EU in March 2019, Davis simply replied: “Yes.” “David Davis was clearly trying to stave off rebellions but nobody seems to be buying it. It is quite clearly a con trick. Giving parliament a vote after the deal is signed and done is worthless,” he said. “It is clear that MPs should be able to shape the deal before it is signed and sealed.”
Nevertheless, Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, called it a “significant climbdown from a weak government on the verge of defeat”. His colleague, Chuka Umunna, said the move did not preclude Britain crashing out without a deal. “It is not a big concession ... He calls it a meaningful vote, it is a fake one,” he wrote on Twitter.
“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.”