Theresa May appeared to be heading for an explosive constitutional clash over Brexit after the Scottish and Welsh governments said they could not support the great repeal bill – the key proposals drawn up to extricate Britain from the EU.

The historic legislation, formally known as the European Union (withdrawal) bill, came under sustained attack after it was published on Thursday, with MPs and human rights campaigners, as well as leaders in Edinburgh and Cardiff, dismissing it as a Westminster power grab.



Just hours after the government published the 66-page bill that will repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, and bring decades of EU law on to the UK statute book, the Scottish and Welsh leaders, Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones, rejected it.

Campaigners and parliamentarians raised a series of other concerns about the legislation, including the risk that human rights could be undermined and the threat that ministers could seize sweeping powers to tweak laws without full parliamentary scrutiny.

In a joint statement, Sturgeon and Jones said: “We have repeatedly tried to engage with the UK government on these matters and have put forward constructive proposals about how we can deliver an outcome which will protect the interests of all the nations in the UK, safeguard our economies and respect devolution.

“Regrettably, the bill does not do this. Instead, it is a naked power grab, an attack on the founding principles of devolution and could destabilise our economies.”

The government confirmed that it would seek the backing of Holyrood and the Welsh assembly for the aspects of the legislation that affect devolved powers, through a “legislative consent motion”. But Sturgeon and Jones made clear they would not offer their approval unless the legislation was substantially redrafted.

The government could still insist on pressing ahead – but doing so would underline the divisions within the United Kingdom, just as May battles to shore up her position and present a united front in Brussels.

Catherine Barnard, professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, said: “The legal position is one thing, and the political position is quite another, particularly with a weakened prime minister.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the government faces a series of tough parliamentary hurdles at home, as well as the prospect of difficult negotiations in Brussels, before Brexit can be achieved.

Europhile Conservative backbenchers are calling for a clear signal that May has softened her approach to Brexit – and regard the election of two centrists, Nicky Morgan and Tom Tugendhat, to chair the Treasury and foreign affairs select committees respectively as a signal that the makeup of the House of Commons has shifted decisively.

The Broxtowe MP, Anna Soubry, said: “How many times do people like me have to tell them this? It’s all changed since 8 June. If [May is] going to stay and see this through, she’s got to step up. She’s got to get herself fully briefed; and she’s got to put David Davis back in his box and listen to Greg Clark, Amber Rudd, Philip Hammond. They should be giving the directions.”

One signal that the government may be moving towards a more conciliatory position came in a written statement from the Brexit minister Lady Anelay acknowledging that Britain would continue to have financial obligations to the EU after Brexit. The statement said: “The UK has obligations to the EU ... that will survive the UK’s withdrawal – and that these need to be resolved.”

That appeared to contradict a remark by the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, earlier in the week that the EU could “go whistle” if it expected Britain to pay a hefty divorce bill. May has always said she would honour any obligations as Brexit takes place, but the new statement appeared to go further – and to be aimed at averting a row over the issue when negotiations resume in Brussels next week.

Davis himself struck an emollient tone on Thursday, seeking to reassure MPs about the scope of the so-called Henry VIII powers, which will allow ministers to make changes to any laws necessary to achieve Brexit – and for two years afterwards.

He told the BBC that the powers would be used for “technical changes to make the law work,” adding: “It’s up to the House of Commons. If a statutory instrument is placed in front of the House of Commons, then the Commons decides if it debates or votes on it.”

Human rights groups Amnesty International and Liberty joined Labour and the Liberal Democrats in urging the government to give further reassurances that human rights will not be undermined and, in particular, to incorporate the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law.

Kerry Moscogiuri, Amnesty’s campaigns director‎, said: “It is now vital that Parliament ensures our hard-won human rights don’t diminish after Brexit. The broad powers that the repeal bill grants ministers to change our laws are dangerously vague; they must not be used to roll back human rights that are in place to protect us all.”

The legislation makes clear that “the charter of fundamental rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day”. Government lawyers believe that will make little difference in practice, as the charter sets out rights that are already enshrined elsewhere in EU law and will brought into domestic law.

But Emmy Gibbs, of the anti-trafficking charity ATLEU, who used the charter to bring a case about mistreated workers in foreign embassies to the supreme court, said: “It is not right that the removal of the charter under the great repeal bill will make no difference to workers.

“Without the charter, our clients – who complained of unlawful discrimination and breach of working time regulations – would have been left without any remedy, because the UK’s state immunity law prevents them enforcing those rights in the employment tribunal.”

Asked about the risk of a constitutional clash over the devolution aspects of Brexit, May’s spokeswoman said there was no plan for what might happen if Scotland or Wales refused legislative consent.

“That’s very pessimistic. We’re optimistic,” she said of such a scenario. Pressed on whether there was a contingency plan for this, she said: “Not that I’m aware of, no.”