Yesterday marked the return of the draft Withdrawal Agreement to the UK parliament as the government sought approval for a Brexit plan in time to meet the intended of deadline of 29 March. Earlier in January, the government’s proposed Agreement was heavily defeated by MPs, whose turn it now was to find a workable solution.
On this occasion, backbench MPs could table amendments to help identify positions on Brexit that would have the backing of most MPs. No less than 15 amendments were proposed, seven of which were called by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House, for MPs to vote on. The big question was which, if any, would be successful? Of these, two were believed to have a strong chance of being accepted.
The first, an amendment brought by Yvette Cooper, a Labour MP, required the government to extend Article 50 if a deal cannot be reached by the end of February, delaying the date that the UK would leave the EU until later in 2019 with the purpose of avoiding a no deal outcome. The official Opposition backed this amendment but it failed to pass by 23 votes.
The second, tabled by Conservative MP Graham Brady, called for the highly contentious backstop arrangement to be revisited by the EU and alternative methods to avoid a hard border in Ireland brought forward. The change requested, though not specified in the amendment, is likely to involve either a time limit to the backstop being established or the ability of the UK to unilaterally remove itself from the backstop. The government opted to give its support to this amendment and it passed with a majority of 18. It is this that the Prime Minister will use as a mandate to return to Brussels and demand changes to the backstop. The immediate response of the EU has echoed its previous statements that the negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement is now closed and its terms cannot be changed at this late stage. The only room for fresh dialogue, it insists, is on the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and EU.
Only one other non-binding amendment was passed, stating that parliament rejects the notion of the UK leaving the EU without a deal. In the debate that preceded the votes, the Prime Minister had given MPs assurances that they would be given a further ‘meaningful’ vote by 14th February, at which point they would have an opportunity to block a no deal outcome by extending Article 50. This pledge is widely seen as the moment that sunk the Cooper amendment. However, the government is reluctant to rule out no deal in order to use the possibility of this scenario as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU.
So, for the first time in what seems like ages, the spotlight switches from Westminster back to Brussels. The UK’s backstop demands and the concessions, if any, the EU is prepared to make are both, as yet, unknown. The Withdrawal Agreement, in its potentially revised form, will be put back to the vote in Westminster two weeks from now. If it is rejected again on that occasion, just six weeks away from 29 March, then no deal becomes the most likely outcome once again.
