THE SNP’s Ian Blackford accused Theresa May of having “silenced, sidelined and shafted” Scotland, after the Tories voted to inch the UK closer to a no-deal Brexit.
In a dramatic, if confusing and chaotic night in Westminster, MPs backed a change to the Prime Minister’s Brexit plan that symbolically ruled out a no-deal Brexit before, minutes later, backing another that makes the prospect of the UK crashing out of Europe with no agreement much more likely.
That last change, proposed by Tory grandee Graham Brady, gives May a mandate to go back to Brussels and restart negotiations on the controversial Irish backstop, the safety net to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, by effectively keeping the whole of the UK in the customs union.
Brussels stood firm last night, with European Council president Donald Tusk saying the Withdrawal Agreement, struck last November, was not up for renegotiation.
Addressing MPs, May admitted there was “limited appetite for such a change in the EU”, but said she was confident she could get a new deal that would win over the Commons on February 13.
There were seven votes on possible changes to the Prime Minister’s Brexit plan last night.
READ MORE: Theresa May walks out of the Commons before SNP respond to her plan B
Despite an overwhelming rejection of her Withdrawal Agreement two weeks ago, there was seemingly no overwhelming support for any of the possible alternatives.
Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment was defeated by 327 to 296, while the SNP’s calling for “the people of Scotland ... not be taken out of the EU against their will” was defeated 327 to 39 after Labour abstained.
An amendment in the name of Labour’s Yvette Cooper calling for an extension to the Brexit negotiating process was rejected 321 to 298, with a number of Labour MPs voting against, wounding, possibly fatally, the chances of a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU.
Remain-backing Tory MP Caroline Spelman’s amendment was successful. It saw MPs vote to reject “the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship”.
However, it’s not legally binding and will make no difference to the process, though it shows there’s currently no majority for a no-deal Brexit in Parliament.
The big winner of the night was Brady, whose amendment was backed by Tory MPs, the DUP and the Cabinet.
It required the Prime Minister to replace the backstop with “alternative arrangements” to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
There was, however, little detail about what those alternatives might be.
Sylvia Hermon, the only sitting Northern Irish MP who isn’t a member of the DUP, kept asking.
“I have waited very, very patiently, but I have run out of patience. I would like the Secretary of State to explain to this House exactly what the alternative arrangements are.
“It is a straightforward question and we are entitled to a straightforward answer,” she told Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay.
He told her it would “be part of the negotiation that we will discuss in terms of the technical issues”.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon reacts to Westminster Brexit amendment vote
Speaking at the end of the night, a furious Blackford said May’s willingness to “pick away” at the backstop was the government reneging on the peace process.
“This house should be ashamed of itself. The contempt shown by the UK government right across these islands is stark,” he said.
“This government, Westminster, and the Tory party has no respect for the devolved administrations or for the other regions of the UK. Scotland has been silenced, shafted and sidelined by the Tories.”
In a statement, sent out almost immediately after the vote, Tusk’s spokesman said: “The Withdrawal Agreement is and remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
“The backstop is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for re-negotiation.”
Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told Sky that Brussels didn’t really mean that. “It is no skin off their nose to do it,” he insisted.
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