Amendment aims to allow for article 50 to be delayed if no-deal Brexit looks imminent

Labour looks set to whip its MPs to back Yvette Cooper’s amendment, paving the way for legislation that would mandate ministers to extend article 50 if a no-deal Brexit looked imminent.

The amendment, tabled by Cooper to a motion laid by the government after the defeat of its Brexit deal, would give parliamentary time for the private member’s bill to be debated, which it otherwise would not get.

Cooper and her fellow Labour MP Rachel Reeves, who has put down a separate amendment on extending article 50, met Jeremy Corbyn for talks about the party’s strategy on Wednesday.

It is understood the party leadership would prefer the legislation to contain a shorter extension than the nine months specified in Cooper’s bill, which would mean going beyond the European elections.

Cooper, who has devised the plan with former Tory ministers Nick Boles and Sir Oliver Letwin, has previously said the nine-month extension is a starting point and they would expect MPs to amend their bill to find a sensible consensus about how long the extension should be.

Labour has also been cautious about the potential constitutional implications of allowing MPs to dictate time for a bill but party sources have indicated they are likely to back the amendment as a way of closing down the prospect of no deal. The motion, and any amendments selected by the Speaker, will be voted on next Tuesday.

PMQs: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn - Politics live Read more

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, signalled Labour could back the plan in an interview with BBC Two’s Newsnight.

“Yvette Cooper has put an amendment down, which I think is sensible ... so I think it’s increasingly likely already that we’ll have to take that option because the government has run the clock down,” he said.

McDonnell said the party would need to go through its own process to make a final decision. “It’s highly likely but we’ll go through our normal process of consultation with our members,” he said.

The eventual bill, if passed, would give parliament control over the final stages of the Brexit process if there is no parliamentary consensus on a Brexit deal by 26 February. It would give MPs a vote on preventing a no-deal Brexit and extending article 50.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Support is growing for Yvette Cooper’s amendment. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

Should the amendment pass, it would still be a difficult route for the bill through the Commons in the face of government opposition. If it is made law, it would still need the agreement of the 27 other EU states for an extension to be allowed.

The Labour peer Andrew Adonis, a prominent supporter of a second referendum, said he would introduce the bill to the House of Lords on Wednesday, a necessary step to getting the legislation though the upper house. It is possible the Lords could still derail the bill if it passes through the House of Commons, such as by filibustering the legislation.

The amendment itself is highly likely to pass on Tuesday with Labour frontbench support. Privately however, some moderate Tory MPs have suggested they favour a different amendment laid by former minister Caroline Spelman and Labour MP Jack Dromey.

Their version would not be legally binding, whereas Cooper’s would pave the way for legislation, but says more simply that the House of Commons “rejects the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship”.

One Conservative MP said the government would need to pay heed to the amendment even if it was not legally binding and that there was concern Cooper’s plan would be derailed as it proceeded through the Commons.

“This amendment is very likely to get significant support across the house,” the MP said. “It’s the clear-cut ‘no to no deal’ message this government needs.”

The Labour MP Caroline Flint, who has been outspoken about the need to deliver Brexit, said Cooper’s amendment would not resolve the impasse. “Yvette Cooper’s amendment is suggesting we delay Brexit until 31 December 2019. I think that is a disaster,” she told the BBC.

“I have to say some of these people involved in process, I hear little about what deal they want, I just hear about them kicking the issue down the road.”

Tory Brexiters in the Commons may attempt to derail Cooper and Boles’s plans by restricting the number of days in parliament where private members’ bills can be debated.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chair of the European Research Group of MPs in favour of a hard Brexit, told a lunchtime conference the Queen should suspend parliament in order to stop Cooper’s bill. “If no deal were taken off the table, Her Majesty’s government would have had to have connived in doing it. It cannot be done if the government is determined to stop it,” he said.

Rees-Mogg hinted that Brexiter MPs could cause chaos for the government if it appeared to be tacitly allowing the bill a passage through parliament. He said the government could instruct the monarch to prorogue parliament if it were serious about stopping Cooper’s bill.

“Prorogation normally lasts for three days, and any law that is in the process before prorogation falls. I think that would be the government’s answer. That is the government’s backstop, to use a choice phrase,” he said.

“And if the government allows no deal to be taken off the table, that would be a failure of the government, and then it would be the job of backbench MPs to hold the government to account.”

The Tory MP Christopher Chope also attempted to table an amendment to a government motion on Wednesday to prevent any new days being allocated for private members’ bills, a bid to scupper Cooper’s bill. In the end, the government motion was dropped, meaning there was no vote on Chope’s amendment.