MPs tell PM to rule option out, as Brexit secretary and attorney general hold talks with EU

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Four cabinet ministers have demanded the prime minister stop using the threat of a no-deal Brexit as a negotiating tactic, telling Theresa May that businesses and manufacturers now needed to be given certainty.

The demand was made in a meeting with the prime minister on Monday by the justice secretary, David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, Amber Rudd, the business secretary, Greg Clark, and the Scottish secretary, David Mundell.

Cabinet sources suggested it would be a key intervention before May’s expected visit to Brussels on Wednesday and described all four as loyalists who were keen to deliver a Brexit deal.

Honda's exit is based on many factors, but Brexit is certainly one | Larry Elliott Read more

The ministers who requested the meeting with May believe that while no deal had once been a sensible negotiating tactic, a number of alarming announcements by businesses and manufacturers over recent weeks meant it was time for the option to be categorically ruled out.

Downing Street described it as a “private meeting” and gave no further details, but the discussions are likely to inform the weekly cabinet meeting on Tuesday.

The intervention is likely to set the ministers firmly at odds with rebel Eurosceptics, determined to keep no deal as a viable option.

May was defeated in parliament last week at the hands of the European Research Group of Tory MPs, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, who abstained on a government motion because it appeared to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

The prime minister is expected to meet the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, on Wednesday, departing for Brussels after prime minister’s questions.

Speaking earlier on Monday, May’s de facto deputy, David Lidington, said a no-deal Brexit would cause “serious damage to our economy and, I think, put strain on the union of the United Kingdom”.

The attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, is expected to set out in a speech this week what changes would be required to eliminate the legal risk of being indefinitely trapped in the Irish backstop, the key sticking point for many of the pro-Brexit rebels.

Downing Street hopes that any changes that Brussels can offer will be enough to materially change Cox’s previous legal advice – which they believe would be enough to win over significant numbers of Tory MPs.

Cox and the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, held talks with the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, on Monday over Theresa May’s request for the withdrawal agreement to be reopened.

Barnier says Britain must give ground to break Brexit impasse Read more

Cox laid out to Barnier what assurances would be needed for him to be able tell MPs the backstop would be temporary. It is understood that text offering MPs assurances will be on the table this week, although sources stressed discussions were at an early stage.

Lawyers from the UK and the European commission, who sat in on the meeting on Monday, are expected to work together in the coming days on precise legal text but neither side has suggested the withdrawal agreement itself would be reopened.

Barclay and Cox are expected to return to Brussels on Wednesday to discuss a “legal way forward”.

Barclay said: “The attorney general shared his thinking in terms of the legal way forward and how we address the central issue of concern signalled in the Brady amendment in terms of having an outcome that addresses this issue between the article 50 legal underpinning that’s temporary and his advice to parliament in terms of the indefinite nature of the backstop.

“We agreed a next step forward so we’ll be engaging again midweek, the attorney general and I, and we’ll firm up the precise logistics of that in the morning.”

The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the outcome of the Brexit talks was “in God’s hands”.

Quick guide Why extend the Brexit transition period? Show Hide Will the proposal solve anything? The mooted extension to the transition period is a new idea being put forward by the EU to help Theresa May square the circle created by the written agreement last December and the draft withdrawal agreement in March.

That committed the UK and the EU to ensuring there was no divergence between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

But it also, after an intervention by the Democratic Unionist party, committed the UK (not the EU) not to have any trading differences between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

The problem is that these are two irreconcilable agreements. They also impinge on the legally binding Good Friday agreement, which brought peace to Northern Ireland and in some senses pooled sovereignty of Northern Ireland giving people a birthright to be Irish or British or both.

If the UK leaves the EU along with the customs union and the single market then the border in Ireland becomes the only land border between the UK and the EU forcing customs, tax and regulatory controls. The backstop is one of three options agreed by the EU and the UK in December and would only come into play if option A (overall agreement) or option B (a tailor-made solution) cannot be agreed by the end of transition. The Irish have likened it to an insurance policy. The new EU idea is to extend the transition period to allow time to get to option A or B.

But an extension is problematic for Brexiters and leave voters, who want the UK to get out of the EU as soon as possible.

The Irish and the EU will also still need the backstop in the withdrawal agreement, which must be signed before the business of the trade deal can get under way. Otherwise it is a no-deal Brexit.

Extending the transition into 2021 would mean another year of paying into the EU budget. Britain would have to negotiate this but it has been estimated at anywhere between £10bn and £17bn. Staying in the EU for another year would also mean continued freedom of movement and being under the European court of justice, which Brexiters would oppose.

In an interview with a German newspaper, he said: “When it comes to Brexit, it is like being before the courts or on the high seas; we are in God’s hands. And we can never quite be sure when God will take the matter in hand.”

Juncker said the EU was not “opposed” to an extension of article 50, but suggested it could not be longer than a few months.

“If you are asking for how long the withdrawal can be postponed, I have no timeframe in mind,” he said. “With Brexit so many timetables have already gone by the wayside.

“But I find it hard to imagine that British voters would again vote in the European elections. That to my mind would be an irony of history. Yet I cannot rule it out.”