Commons votes 326 to 293 to approve government plan that will give MPs vote on final Brexit deal on ‘take it or leave it’ basis

Theresa May has faced down a Conservative rebellion over Brexit in the House of Commons, rejecting calls for MPs to be given the power to send her back to the negotiating table if they do not like her proposed divorce deal from the EU.

Brexit debate: MPs vote down Labour move to give parliament veto over Brexit deal by majority of 33 - Politics live Read more

The government said it would only let MPs have a vote on May’s final Brexit deal on a “take it or leave it basis”, despite Labour, the Scottish National party and some Tories demanding greater power to order a rethink after two years of talks.

A string of MPs branded the offer of a final vote a “con” and a “Hobson’s choice”, aware that a refusal to back the final deal struck by May would leave Britain reliant on damaging tariffs set by the World Trade Organisation.

But the Commons still voted 326 to 293 to approve the government’s plan without amendment, with just seven Conservative rebels voting against their party and a few more abstaining.

Among those who defied the whip were former ministers Bob Neill, Claire Perry and Anna Soubry, joining veteran pro-EU former chancellor Ken Clarke. Neill, a former communities minister, said it was the first time he had ever voted against his government.

But their rebellion was virtually cancelled out by six pro-Brexit Labour MPs, Frank Field, Ronnie Campbell, Kate Hoey, Kelvin Hopkins, Graham Stringer and Gisela Stuart, who voted with the government.

Justifying the government’s position, David Jones, the Brexit minister speaking for the government, said: “I can’t think of a greater signal of weakness than for this house to send the government back to the European Union and to say we want to negotiate further.”

Government concedes that Brexit 'concession' is anything but Read more

In a dramatic last part of the debate, Perry even accused some of her more committed pro-Brexit colleagues of acting like Islamic extremists during the debates in the Commons in recent weeks.

Nicky Morgan, the former education secretary, was among those to abstain, sitting resolutely on the government benches, next to a whip trying to persuade her to vote. George Osborne, the former chancellor, was absent.

The vote means May has cleared two days of debate in the Commons without the Brexit bill being amended, with just one day to go. There is still the potential for a revolt over the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, with a number of Tory MPs from both the remain and leave camps still thinking about whether to back a Labour amendment.

However, the government remains relatively confident the Brexit bill will pass its third and final Commons reading on Wednesday without changes, before heading to the Lords.

Ministers attempted to dampen the Tory rebellion early in the debate by promising MPs a vote on whether to accept her Brexit deal before the European parliament is asked to approve the terms, probably in October 2018.

This was initially accepted by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, who said it was a “huge and significant concession” leaving him struggling to make many more points in his speech.

“This is a significant victory for parliament, and follows months of concerted pressure from Labour,” he said. “Labour has repeatedly said that parliament must have a meaningful vote on any final Brexit deal, that means MPs are able to vote on the final deal before it is concluded, that the Commons has a debate and vote before the European parliament does, and that the vote will cover withdrawal from the EU as well as our future relationship with the EU.”

However, many backbenchers remained unconvinced that parliament was being given enough of a say on the final deal, which will have to be struck over the next two years before the UK leaves the EU by the end of March 2019.

Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher whose amendment was picked for a vote, said the government was still not offering a meaningful choice for MPs on its Brexit deal.

“The government’s so-called ‘concession’ falls short of giving parliament a meaningful vote,” he said. “Ministers have failed to produce a new amendment, so their commitment will not be binding. The minister refused to give parliament the option to reject the deal and tell the government to go back to negotiate a better one.

“And on the nightmare scenario – that we could leave the EU with no deal at all, and face damaging barriers to trade with Europe – it seems parliament could have no say whatsoever.”

Angela Eagle, the former Labour shadow cabinet minister and leadership contender, described the offer as a “Hobson’s choice”, meaning MPs could face a choice in two years’ time between hard Brexit and no deal at all.

Starmer subsquently came under criticism from opposition parties over Labour’s decision to applaud the government’s concession and withdraw its own frontbench amendment.

Caroline Lucas, co-leader of the Green party, said MPs “must not be duped by the government’s attempt to quell unrest on their backbenches”.

“The vote they’re offering, which will give MPs a choice between an extreme Brexit and falling off a cliff edge into World Trade Organisation trade rules, isn’t a concession, it’s an ultimatum,” she said.

Some Labour MPs were also unhappy with Starmer’s positive approach towards the government and unimpressed by the concession.

“He needs the cover to be able to say ‘we’ve won this major concession’ as a way to get people to vote it through. But the truth is we have won nothing since this whole process began,” one Labour MP said.

“The government were just trying to give cover to some of their rebels by promising something they already said a month ago – either we vote on a deal they make, or crash out on WTO terms which would be catastrophic. We knew that already.”

However, Starmer’s decision to hail the early vote as a victory could mean shadow cabinet ministers who are conflicted over Brexit, such as Clive Lewis and Diane Abbott, may feel more comfortable with voting in favour of the bill on Wednesday, as they will be able to argue that the party helped shape the process.

Abbott, the shadow home secretary, and Barry Gardiner, shadow trade secretary, are understood to have been pushing the Labour frontbench to abstain on Wednesday’s vote if the bill emerges unamended after three days of debate.

This view was challenged by Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, at a meeting on Tuesday where she rejected the idea that the Labour party’s answer to the greatest decision facing Britain is to say it could not decide either way.

At the end, the shadow cabinet decided collectively that Labour’s position would be to vote in favour of triggering article 50 regardless of whether amendments pass.