CABINET minsters are split over a Plan B on what to do in the likelihood the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal is defeated in the Commons next month.
It came as the UK Government amended its Brexit documents to remove the word “unlikely” in regards to a no-deal outcome.
Andrea Leadsom has insisted a managed no deal is possible, while Amber Rudd has given tentative support for a second EU referendum.
Leadsom suggested she had been looking at the option as an “alternative solution” to May’s deal, if that cannot get through Parliament.
“No deal implies that we leave in March and there are absolutely no agreements whatsoever,” she said yesterday, pointing out the EU27 were proposing agreements in areas such as aviation, haulage and tourists.
She added: “A managed no deal does not necessarily mean there is no withdrawal agreement at all. This is all speculation, but what I am looking at is trying to find an alternative to that, in the event we cannot agree to this deal, that there could be a further deal that looks at a more minimalist approach that allows us to leave with some kind of deal and some kind of implementation period that avoids a cliff edge, that avoids uncertainty for businesses and travellers and so on.”
READ MORE: First Minister urges May to 'end this sorry mess' and stop Brexit
Her comments are at odds with those of some of her Cabinet colleagues, including Rudd and Justice Secretary David Gauke who is understood to have told ministers a managed no deal was “not a viable option”.
Gauke reportedly said on Tuesday: “The responsibility of Cabinet ministers is not to propagate unicorns but to slay them.”
In signs of further division, Leadsom said a second referendum would be “unacceptable” – hours after Rudd suggested there was a “plausible argument” for the public to be asked to vote again on Brexit if MPs remain deadlocked.
Leadsom continued: “It’s not Government policy. I myself think it would undermine the biggest democratic exercise ever, where we had a clear majority to leave the European Union. To have a second referendum would unfortunately be going back to people and telling them they have got it wrong and they needed to try again.”
Rudd, pictured above, has insisted she does not want a referendum, and called for MPs across the Commons to reach a consensus as a way of preventing a no-deal Brexit if May’s withdrawal agreement is thrown out in January’s parliamentary showdown.
However, she said she could “see the argument” for taking it back to the people if Parliament remains deadlocked.
Her intervention was welcomed as a “massive moment” by campaigners calling for a so-called People’s Vote, with Tory former minister Anna Soubry praising Rudd as “brave and principled”.
The disagreements came as it was revealed that technical papers were quietly amended following the Cabinet’s decision to ramp up preparation for a no-deal Brexit.
One paper related to medicines previously read: “In the unlikely event of no deal, the UK would no longer be part of the European Medicines Agency.”
Twenty-four hours later it said: “In the event of no deal, the UK would no longer be part of the European Medicines Agency.”
READ MORE: New UK Government immigration laws may miss Brexit deadline
Elsewhere, a document in relation to passport use between the UK and EU has seen the reference to negotiations going well and the Government “working hard to seek a positive deal” removed.
There was no official statement on the changes, but a UK Government spokesman confirmed the “updates” and said a deal was still the most likely outcome.
At a press conference in Lancaster House alongside her Polish counterpart Mateusz Morawiecki, May said her government was committed to securing the backing of MPs.
She said: “Cabinet ministers and I have all been very clear that we are focusing on working on ensuring we can get the deal that we’ve agreed with the European Union agreed and through Parliament in the meaningful vote.”
Her deal will return to the Commons in January with reports suggesting the vote was pencilled in for January 15.
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