David Davis has this morning promised that the government won’t implement any divorce deal until Parliament approves it. Hmmm. That’s a bit like his other promises. Take it with a pinch of salt.
The Brexit secretary made his pledge in the hope of heading off a rebellion by Tory MPs who want to amend the government’s EU Withdrawal Bill this evening to ensure that parliament gets a “meaningful vote” at the end of the Brexit process – instead of being steamrollered into accepting whatever pitiful deal Theresa May manages to negotiate.
The snag is that Davis has form in trying to wriggle out of his promises. Only last Friday, with much fanfare, he and the prime minister agreed the outline of a divorce deal with the EU. Two days later Davis was describing it as a “statement of intent” – an attempt to go back on a gentlemen’s agreement that has angered the EU and set back the launch of trade talks until March.
And remember his shilly-shallying last week over whether the government had or hadn’t produced “impact assessments” to see what Brexit would mean for different sectors of the economy? The man’s word cannot be trusted.
That’s the context in which brave Tory “mutineers” should view his latest promise that parliament will vote on the divorce deal (technically the Withdrawal Agreement) and that “the Government will not implement any parts of the Withdrawal Agreement… until after this vote has taken place”.
They should not fall for this soft-soap. They should, instead, stick to their guns and back the amendment proposed by Dominic Grieve, the former Tory attorney-general, which would provide a copper-bottomed legal guarantee that the government couldn’t implement the divorce deal until parliament had passed legislation approving it. (See amendment 7).
Misleading statement
Davis hasn’t just made a promise that can’t be trusted. He has also misled parliament in another part of this morning’s statement. He writes:
“Article 50 (2) of the TEU sets out that the Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU. At the same time as we negotiate the Withdrawal Agreement, we will therefore also negotiate the terms for our future relationship.”
What Article 50 actually says is that a divorce deal with a departing member will take account of the “framework” for its future relationship with the EU. Davis has somehow missed out the word “framework” from his statement. Was this an oversight or a deliberate attempt to mislead parliament – something which is supposed to be a sackable offence under the ministerial code?
Michel Barnier, Davis’ EU negotiating partner, isn’t under any illusions. He said yesterday that the divorce deal “will be accompanied by a political declaration… which will describe the framework for our future relationship… In technical, legal terms it simply is not possible to do anything else. And David Davis knows that full well.”
No way will we be able to sign a deal spelling out our future relationship “one minute after we leave, or one second after we leave” as Davis told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on Sunday.
Davis says something true
But the Brexit secretary did at least say something true in today’s statement. He admitted that any agreement on our future relationship will need to be ratified by all other 27 member states if it covers matters that are in their competence as well the EU’s. That means quite a laborious process – and is another reason why the government isn’t being honest when it says a two-year implementation phase after Brexit will be long enough to wrap everything up.
Want more InFacts?
Click here to get the newsletter
Edited by Luke Lythgoe
He should not be taken seriously, he has been shown to be a liar on a number of occasions which does not seem to bother him particularly. I would say he was not fit to hold public office and certainly not to represent our country abroad.
DD could retrofit “statement of intent” to anything that he has said. I am with the EU on this, get it written into law and then it probably will hold up…if EU lawyers do the drafting.
I quite agree. LETS MAKE SURE PARLIAMENT IS SOVEREIGN.
And if the ECJ is in charge of interpreting what is written.