By TOM MCTAGUE
Theresa May’s Brexit headaches are only just beginning.
LONDON — If you thought Brexit
was chaotic now, just wait until divorce proceedings actually start.
Within the next two years,
U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May must get parliament’s approval to kickstart
Britain’s withdrawal, convert all EU law into U.K. law, introduce an
immigration bill restricting freedom of movement from the Continent and
negotiate a divorce deal with Brussels that doesn’t wreck the economy or spark
a fresh bid for Scottish independence.
Even assuming she is able to strike a deal with 27 EU leaders, May must
ensure her 328 MPs keep discipline throughout the process and do not break
ranks to back pro-EU wrecking amendments or hardline Brexit rebellions designed
to force her hand.
Ameet Gill, former director of strategy for the previous Prime Minister
David Cameron, said: “From my experience, working for the leader of the
Conservative Party, you never want to put anything with Europe in its title —
or anything Europe-related — on the floor of the House of Commons because you
know what the Tory party is like on this.”
And that’s before the House of Lords is added into the mix.
In a series of conversations with POLITICO, senior figures who have worked
at the highest levels of government said May’s strategy for engaging parliament
was a recipe for chaos and warned of dramatic late-night votes, knife-edge
results, sudden rebellions and unexpected government climb-downs in a drama
that will shape British politics for years to come.
Trouble ahead
While things may get progressively harder, May is unlikely to face trouble
firing the starting gun.
Even if the Supreme Court backs the High Court’s ruling that parliamentary
approval is necessary to trigger Article 50, which formally begins the
withdrawal process, she is almost certain to win a parliamentary vote.
In a mark of just how far British politics has shifted since June’s
referendum, many MPs who initially backed remaining in the EU now consider it
politically toxic to be seen to be blocking Brexit.
Gill insisted that there aren’t enough MPs or peers willing to vote down
May’s plan to start Brexit negotiations by the end of March.
Instead, Gill believes, the PM’s problems will come when the “Great Repeal
Bill” — which will scrap the 1972 European Communities Act which took Britain
into the EU, while simultaneously transferring all EU law onto the domestic
statute book — is put on the floor of the Commons later next year.
Any MP, or member of the House of Lords, can make
amendments to bills as they travel through parliament. Each must be backed by
both houses — so one simple amendment can cause chaos if a government can’t get
majority backing among MPs or Lords. If those proposing an amendment can build
momentum around their cause, the government could be in trouble.
As soon as the bill is laid before MPs, Gill said,
Euroskeptics will seize the opportunity to attach amendments to annul Brussels
regulations they dislike, rather than accept the entire gamut of EU law in one
fell swoop.
On the other side of the aisle, Labour, Scottish
National Party and Liberal Democrat MPs will try to protect anything they
believe is under threat in the divorce, attaching clauses ensuring, for
instance, continued access to the single market.
“The most difficult issue they face on this is this potential single market
amendment. Full membership of the single market,” he said.
Such a potent amendment could be put down by senior figures such as former
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg or former Labour leader Ed Miliband and quickly gain
traction among pro-EU MPs from across the Commons, including some Tories.
Although he was on the other side of the referendum debate, Gill’s business
partner Paul Stephenson, also a Cameron aide who worked on contentious
legislation for the former prime minister and then advised the official Leave
campaign, agreed the passage of Brexit through parliament could be extremely
complex for May. He foresaw trouble coming from Brexiteers as much as from
Remainers.
“We could get into the situation where you have article 50 triggered next
year, and a year later it becomes very clear that we’re not going to get a very
good deal, and the Europeans aren’t playing ball, the economy is getting a bit
uncertain and actually there’s an argument to be made — which the Leavers could
make — which is let’s end this facade of the negotiation now, put down some
amendments saying let’s just scrap the [European Court of Auditors] now and go
straight to WTO.”
This is all before MPs vote on the final terms of any deal.
Game of chess
Downing Street feels it has no choice but to open this particular can of
worms. The case for the bill is “watertight” because Britain cannot be taken
out of the EU without repealing the 1972 act. “It’s essential to restore the
parliamentary sovereignty that people voted for,” said one No. 10 aide.
The unenviable task of shepherding the Great Repeal Bill through parliament
has been left to Brexit Secretary David Davis.
The battle has begun, even before the Great Repeal Act
has been drawn up. Former Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps has already
proposed an amendment introducing a “sunset clause” on all EU law transferred
into domestic legislation, which would force the government to decide which
rules it wants to keep and which can be allowed to lapse.
“He’s very unpopular with his Conservative colleagues
for that suggestion,” said veteran Tory Euroskeptic MP John Redwood, adding
that the proposal has “no support whatsoever” and insisting his hardline allies
have no intention of amending the Great Repeal bill. “There’s no way anyone
else wants to do that. As far as I am aware — I know all the Euroskeptics very
well — we all want a simple, short, principles bill to take back control.”
However, Labour’s Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer
told POLITICO he was also gearing up for a major battle. “The idea that there
won’t be a real fight amongst Tory MPs on what goes in the bill in the first
place is, I think, a bit far-fetched.”
“Once you put a bill like that on the floor of the
House then anybody can put down an amendment and there will be many people who
will want to put down amendments — either adding or certainly taking away,” he
said.
He warned that he would be “watching like a hawk” for
any attempt to sneak through changes giving the government the power to alter
current EU law without a full vote in the Commons.
May’s battles at home are only just beginning.
No comments:
Post a Comment