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/2019/oct/22/soft-brexit-tories-might-back-deal-if-wto-loophole-closed

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
More Tories might back PM's Brexit timetable if no-deal loophole closed Boris Johnson faces clash with soft Brexit Tories over WTO default
(about 1 hour later)
Soft-Brexit Conservatives could back Boris Johnson’s plan to push through his deal in three days if the government agrees to close a loophole that would allow the UK to crash out on World Trade Organization terms at the end of next year. Boris Johnson faces a clash with soft Brexit MPs that could derail his Brexit bill, as Downing Street indicated it would not give way to demands to potentially extend the transition period beyond 2020 if this avoided a default to World Trade Organisation terms.
Rory Stewart, one of the 21 Tories who had the whip withdrawn, said he and some of his fellow rebels had been negotiating “through the night” to give parliament more control over the next phase of the Brexit negotiations, including being able to vote for an extension to the talks. Philip Hammond, among a series of moderate Conservatives and ex-Conservatives who have expressed concern at the bill’s rapid parliamentary timetable, told the Times that the bill was “a camouflage to a no-deal Brexit at the end of 2020”.
He said a “central role” in the trade negotiations would be more important than guaranteeing that the UK remains in a customs union with the EU, which Labour is looking to secure. Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has also been in the discussions. Rory Stewart, another of the 21 Tories who had the whip withdrawn last month, said he and some of his fellow rebels had been negotiating “through the night” to give parliament more control over the next phase of the Brexit negotiations, including being able to vote for an extension to the talks.
“I think there is a bigger prize, which is making sure that any parliament that is sitting has proper control over the mandate for the future trading negotiations,” Stewart told the BBC. MPs have been given just three days to consider the withdrawal agreement bill (WAB), the legislation which formally puts the Brexit deal into law under treaty, prompting concern the process is being rushed.
“Parliament should be involved in the mandate, the progress of those and the outcome and determining the extension. That’s the bigger prize. If we can make sure that parliament has a central role in the future negotiations then that’s our democratic opportunity.” The Commons will vote on Monday evening on the so-called programme motion, which sets out this timetable, shortly after voting on the second reading for the bill.
Several MPs have raised the worry that a clause of the WAB allowing an extension to the transition period beyond the end of 2020 can only be triggered by ministers, not parliament, and that if no trade deal was completed before then, it could be a “trap door” to no deal.
However, Johnson’s spokesman insisted the 2020 deadline was sufficient, and that the PM had no intention of allowing a longer extension period.
“It’s set out very clearly in the political declaration that the UK and the EU sides both agree that the implementation period concludes at the end of 2020,” he said. “The prime minister has been clear on any number of occasions that he is not intending to extend the implementation period.”
Separately, in a message aimed at wavering rebels, No 10 sources hinted that if MPs voted down the programme motion that would be seen as a sign no Brexit bill could be passed by the current parliament, and that the WAB would be doomed, potentially requiring. an election.
The sources noted that the only previous time a programme motion was voted down, in 2012 over House of Lords reform, the relevant bill was dropped.
It sets up a potentially crucial clash in the vote over the programme motion, which could be lost if Hammond and enough other ex-Tories oppose it.
Speaking earlier to the BBC, Stewart said a priority should be “making sure that any parliament that is sitting has proper control over the mandate for the future trading negotiations”.
He suggested he was still against “ramming through” the bill without due scrutiny, with talks ongoing.He suggested he was still against “ramming through” the bill without due scrutiny, with talks ongoing.
Nick Boles, a former Tory, said he had tabled an amendment that would go even further, making a two-year extension to the transition period automatic if there were no trade deal in place by the end of next year.Nick Boles, a former Tory, said he had tabled an amendment that would go even further, making a two-year extension to the transition period automatic if there were no trade deal in place by the end of next year.
He said it would “would require the government to seek an extension to the transition to December 2022 unless MPs vote to the contrary… essential to stop hardline ERG members forcing through No Deal Brexit in Dec 2020.” He said it would “would require the government to seek an extension to the transition to December 2022 unless MPs vote to the contrary … essential to stop hardline ERG members forcing through a no-deal Brexit in Dec 2020.”
It is understood No 10 is preparing to concede on some amendments but not on the idea of an automatic extension and it is putting pressure on the former Tories not to block the programme motion, arguing this would delay Brexit. There are believed to be only a handful of the group still threatening to vote with the opposition parties to give parliament more time to scrutinise the bill.
Margot James, another of the whipless Tories, told the Guardian she was planning to support the government on all votes. Ed Vaizey, another former Conservative, also indicated he was planning to vote for Johnson’s timetable, although he said he may change his mind if Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, continued to send “ludicrous tweets” saying “a vote against the programme motion is a vote against Brexit”.Margot James, another of the whipless Tories, told the Guardian she was planning to support the government on all votes. Ed Vaizey, another former Conservative, also indicated he was planning to vote for Johnson’s timetable, although he said he may change his mind if Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the House of Commons, continued to send “ludicrous tweets” saying “a vote against the programme motion is a vote against Brexit”.
A third former Tory, Richard Benyon, told Sky News he would be backing the programme motion, too. “Whether you had three days, three weeks or three months debating this, you would not hear one original argument that we hadn’t otherwise heard in this process,” he said.A third former Tory, Richard Benyon, told Sky News he would be backing the programme motion, too. “Whether you had three days, three weeks or three months debating this, you would not hear one original argument that we hadn’t otherwise heard in this process,” he said.
The support of the former Tory independents will be crucial for Johnson’s chances of getting his timetable through, but the prime minister would probably also need some Labour MPs and former Labour independents to back him.The support of the former Tory independents will be crucial for Johnson’s chances of getting his timetable through, but the prime minister would probably also need some Labour MPs and former Labour independents to back him.
The key issue at stake for many of the Tories who want a soft Brexit is whether parliament will be able to stop the government taking the UK out of the EU on World Trade Organization terms at the end of the transition period next year. Clause 30, among a series of contentious clauses identified in the 115-page WAB, which MPs first saw on Monday evening, dictates that only ministers can seek a longer transition period, even though this must then be approved by parliament.
The withdrawal agreement bill (WAB), which gives legal effect to the Brexit plan, sets out that parliament must approve any ministerial requests to extend the so-called transition period beyond the end of December next year. Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the Brexit select committee, tweeted: “What happens if the government doesn’t propose an extension? Parliament would have no say and we would exit the transition period on the 31 Dec 2020 even if a trade agreement hadn’t been reached by then with the EU; ie no deal.”
However, the bill does not give MPs themselves any means to request an extension to the transition period, indicating that if the government decided it did not want this, the UK could exit the transition without a deal, even against the will of parliament.
Clause 30 is among a series of contentious clauses identified in the 115-page WAB, which MPs first saw on Monday evening, less than 24 hours before they will be asked to vote on the bill for the first time, for its second reading.
Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the Brexit select committee, noted this element in a tweet, saying: “What happens if the government doesn’t propose an extension? Parliament would have no say and we would exit the transition period on the 31 Dec 2020 even if a trade agreement hadn’t been reached by then with the EU; ie no deal.”
Yvette Cooper, another senior Labour backbencher, said it appeared to be “a really important problem with the bill”.
She said: “It looks as though ministers can just decide unilaterally to move to no deal in December 2020, ruling out any further extension to the transition period even if future trade agreements or security arrangements aren’t yet agreed.”
Similar points were made by the Lib Dems and Greens. Sam Gyimah, the former Tory minister who defected to the Lib Dems last month, said the risk of no deal “is real”.
He tweeted: “The decision would have to be made in the next eight months (end of June), and Johnson has ruled out asking for an extension to the transition. This deal does not stop no deal.”
The Green MP Caroline Lucas called the clause “the trapdoor to no deal”, adding: “If the government doesn’t propose an extension to the transition, MPs have no say, and therefore if negotiations on future relationship unfinished by end of December next year, we’re out.”The Green MP Caroline Lucas called the clause “the trapdoor to no deal”, adding: “If the government doesn’t propose an extension to the transition, MPs have no say, and therefore if negotiations on future relationship unfinished by end of December next year, we’re out.”
BrexitBrexit
Rory StewartRory Stewart
European UnionEuropean Union
EuropeEurope
Foreign policyForeign policy
Boris JohnsonBoris Johnson
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content