THERESA May’s long-awaited proposals for the UK’s future relationship with the EU were finally unveiled yesterday amid scenes of chaos and protests in the House of Commons.
MPs were in uproar over a breach of parliamentary protocol that they had not seen the plan ahead of the new Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab’s statement on it – despite Westminster journalists being given it at 9am.
READ MORE: Key points of UK Government White Paper
Their complaints prompted the Speaker John Bercow to suspend proceedings in the middle of Raab’s statement for five minutes so MPs could get copies of the White Paper. The episode forced Raab to apologise and assure MPs “it wouldn’t happen again”.
Labour’s Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer described the disruption as “an utter shambles” which was “clear evidence” of why the Government was in such a “mess”.
He added: “Normally I would thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the White Paper, but on this occasion, my first question to him is: why did the Government think it appropriate to share the White Paper in full with journalists at 9 am today—I think they were given 15 minutes to read it before questions could be asked, unlike the five minutes that we adjourned for—and give them hard copies, and only to provide the opposition with a copy three hours later?”
The SNP Deidre Brock also seized on the turmoil in her response to Raab’s eventual statement.
“What on earth is happening in this place? Not only did the opposition parties receive copies of the White Paper appalling late, but it is customary for party spokespeople to have sight of statements before ministers rise to their feet, not during the statement, as happened today,” she said. “This Government’s contemptuous treatment of this Parliament has once again been laid bare for all to see.”
Responding to Starmer and the protests from MPs, Raab said: “May I just apologise for the late arrival of the White Paper? We will look into what happened with the clerks. I apologise to the right honourable and learned gentleman, and we will avoid its happening again.”
The 98-page document was published yesterday, but has been at the centre of political turmoil all week after it suggested a closer alignment to the EU – prompting the resignations of former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and ex Brexit Secretary David Davis, both ardent Brexiteers.
It proposes a new UK-EU “free trade area”, with interlinked customs regimes, and identical regulations for industrial goods and food. However, it wants new arrangements for services, and concedes the UK and EU “will not have current levels of access to each other’s markets”. It also proposes a new system for financial services, which will not replicate the EU’s passporting regime.
Raab told MPs the paper set out a vision for “a bold, ambitious and innovative new partnership with the EU, principled and practical, faithful to the referendum”.
But he was greeted by laughter and jeers from some MPs as he told them: “I am confident that a deal is in reach, given the success of the Prime Minister and her negotiating team so far.”
The paper states: “While what the Government is proposing is ambitious in its breadth and depth, it is also workable and delivers on the referendum result, fully representing the sovereignty of the UK just as it respects the autonomy of the EU.”
The document says the Future Framework agreement must be concluded together with the separate agreement on the UK’s withdrawal, and called for both sides to focus on putting it into effect “as soon as possible”. UK negotiators will be told to engage with EU counterparts “at pace” with the aim of reaching substantive deal later this year.
However, following the plan’s publication, the EU were swift to issue a veiled warning that it will not budge on its red lines. EU negotiator Michel Barnier said he would analyse the proposals with EU member states “in light of guidelines” drawn up by EU leaders. The guidelines lay down the EU’s red lines, including the insistence the UK cannot benefit from “cherry-picking” its favourite parts of the EU rulebook. He said the UK had been offered an “ambitious” free-trade agreement and cooperation on a wide range of issues, including a “strong security partnership”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel