What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Theresa May has U-turned by agreeing MPs could vote on the final Brexit deal.

The Government said it was “highly likely” Parliament would approve any agreement.

The move leaves the open the possibility that the Commons could defy the referendum result and block a “hard Brexit ” - one that left the UK outside the single market and paying higher export tariffs.

The shift in position was revealed by the Government’s lawyer in the high cou rt hearing on whether MPs should have a say on the triggering of Article 50 .

This is the legal mechanism that starts the two-year process of Britain leaving the EU.

Mrs May has said she will invoke Article 50 before the end of March next year and argues that MPs should not have a say on the timing.

Government lawyer James Eadie QC told the court that Parliament would still have the chance to scrutinise the Brexit deal after Article 50 had been triggered.

"This could include Parliament ratifying any new treaty reached with the EU during the Article 50 process,” he said.

“The Government view at the moment it that it is very likely that any such agreement would be subject to ratification,” he told the court.

The Prime Minister’s spokeswoman said she had nothing to add to the lawyer’s comment that it was “highly likely” MPs would get a vote on the final Brexit deal.

She said: “I think he set out the position which the government has been making in court”.

Labour's Pat McFadden said the announcement suggested the government was nervous about losing the high court hearing.

He said: “The case raises the issue of a parliamentary vote before Article 50 is triggered. The Government statement that there will be a vote on the final deal is about a different matter entirely.

“It looks like the government lawyer is trying to throw the judge a bone instead of addressing the issue of parliamentary scrutiny before Article 50 goes ahead.”

Lord Chief Justice, who is hearing the case with two other senior judges, said he would announce his decision “as quickly as possible.”

The hearing followed a historic legal challenge by a group of campaigners, led by Gina Miller, who claim that Mrs May is in danger of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament if she bars MPs from having a say on the timing of Article 50 .

Lord Pannick QC, representing Ms Miller and others, told the court that the question was not whether the UK should leave the EU but whether “pulling the trigger” would see people lose their rights.

He said: “Many of the rights that Ms Miller and others currently enjoy will be removed if the notification is given - for example, Ms Miller’s right to free movement, her right to free movement of goods, her right to freedom of services across Europe.

“These are important rights and they are rights currently enjoyed as statutory rights ... and Parliament of itself simply cannot restore those rights once we leave the EU as we will if notification is given, not least because the agreement of other states will be required to restore any of those rights.”

He added: “We say that the consequence of notification is that rights, statutory rights, are removed, and it is no answer that Parliament may, I emphasise may, take action in the future to seek to restore them.”

If the judges rule in favour of the campaigners it could spark a constitutional crisis over whether the June referendum result is legally binding.

Voters backed leaving the EU by 52% to 48%.