MPs seek transparency on whether article 50 can be overturned as Commons prepares to votes on EU withdrawal bill

Pro-EU MPs will attempt to force the government to reveal its legal advice on whether article 50 could be reversed, allowing the UK to potentially withdraw from the Brexit process.

A cross-party group of about 20 backbenchers will try to pass an amendment to force the government to reveal its advice when the EU withdrawal bill returns for debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

The MPs, supporters of the Open Britain campaign, led by Labour’s Chris Leslie and Chuka Umunna, said there had been a number of legal opinions so far showing that article 50 could be overturned.

The government refuses to say what its lawyers believe, but maintains that article 50 will not be revoked as a matter of policy.

Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, said: “This amendment is designed to provide transparency, so that MPs and our constituents know all the facts about article 50. If the government have been told that the article 50 notification can legally be revoked, they should be upfront with the public about it.”

The EU withdrawal bill is widely expected to be voted through the Commons this week before it passes to the House of Lords.

Conservative MPs who rebelled on some amendments to the bill before Christmas, including defeating the government to pass an amendment on giving parliament a meaningful vote at the end of the Brexit process, have made clear they will vote the legislation through to its next stage in the Lords.

Lord Kerr, the architect of article 50, which sparks the two-year formal process for leaving the EU, has previously said the UK has the right to withdraw notification should it choose to do so.

The Lords’ European Union committee has also produced a report on the legal advice around article 50 and concluded that “a member state could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU”.

However, the government has so far refused to confirm it holds any legal advice on the matter.

Umunna, the former shadow business secretary, who was one of a delegation of pro-Europe MPs who met the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, in Brussels on Tuesday, said it was not acceptable for the government to keep its advice secret.

Most of those supporting the amendment are Labour MPs, alongside the Lib Dems Tom Brake and the Green party co-leader Caroline Lucas.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said his party will vote against the legislation when it returns to the Commons this week, citing the government’s refusal to accept the EU charter of fundamental rights as one of the reasons.

Overnight it was revealed that one of Theresa May’s recently promoted Brexit ministers has claimed the UK’s plan to drop the EU charter of fundamental rights after Brexit would help avoid an “extra layer” of human rights, contradicting the government’s assurance that no protections would be lost.

Suella Fernandes , who was promoted to the Brexit department last week, wrote in the Telegraph in November that the government was right not to copy the charter into the EU withdrawal bill because otherwise “lawyers will love the extra layers of rights and the fees that they bring, and it’s also a core part of the Brussels project too”.

Her comments directly undermine the government’s claims that it was only refusing to accept the EU charter of fundamental rights because the document was already covered by British law.



Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, said it also proved Labour’s argument that UK citizens would have lower human rights standards when the government abandons the charter.