Should MPs have a vote on post-Brexit trade deals?

Analysis: Future trade is shaping up to be the next parliamentary battleground, Lizzy Buchan explains

Theresa May’s wafer-thin parliamentary majority has been exploited by Conservative rebels and the DUP (Getty)

The UK’s ability to strike independent trade deals after leaving the European Union has long been touted as one of the major benefits of Brexit.

Eurosceptics wax lyrical about Britain’s chance to win big on the world stage, to become a buccaneering, free-trading power outside of the suffocating confines of the EU.

The idea of “global Britain” was one of Boris Johnson’s favourite themes before he resigned as foreign secretary, while Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has been champing at the bit over the past two years to start signing trade deals that will prove that the UK is better off outside of the bloc.

However, critics say the government could be left counting the cost of this freedom through a relaxation in standards, as enthusiastic attempts to score deals with countries such as the United States could see British markets flooded with hormone-fed beef and chlorinated chicken, or even car parts containing deadly asbestos.

Without the economic clout of the EU behind it, others believe the UK will be at the mercy of unpredictable or protectionist forces.

The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. The government has committed to protecting safety standards but Donald Trump’s bullish attitude towards American interests leaves negotiators with a difficult line to tread to secure a deal that suits both sides.

Whichever way you look at it, post-Brexit trade will be the next maze for Theresa May to navigate, if she manages to get her controversial Brexit deal through parliament in January.

The withdrawal agreement only covers what is necessary for Britain to leave the EU, so the next phase of the Brexit talks will cover the future relationship, ie trade.

The International Trade Committee has made the first move, with a controversial report that demands MPs be given the power of veto on future trade deals.

Led by the SNP’s Angus MacNeil, the powerful cross-party group has made the case for parliament to be allowed “meaningful” votes on the ratification of trade deals.

He argues that this would offer a “presumption of transparency rather than secrecy”, allowing MPs to express their concerns and lowering the risk of parliament rejecting eventual negotiated agreements.

While this plan sounds sensible, it is likely to be met with fierce resistance from the government, which has shown itself to be reluctant to put matters to parliament when such a scenario can be avoided.

In fairness, ministers are not required to give MPs such votes and it could delay deals being signed or allow the government to be held to ransom by rebels.

Delivering Brexit is an enormous task and time is not on the government’s side already, so it is a reasonable argument.

But the real reason – and real problem – is Ms May’s wafer-thin parliamentary majority, which Tory rebels on both sides of the Brexit divide and the DUP have eagerly exploited.

In the end, the prime minister was effectively forced to offer MPs a vote on her deal – and only after she suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of her own backbenchers.

It appears extremely unlikely at this point that Ms May will allow MPs to veto trade deals, whatever the benefits offered by further scrutiny.

However she would do well to remember that parliament has forced her hand on several occasions recently, and it has only just started to flex its muscles.

Got an unanswered question about Brexit? Send it to editor@independent.co.uk and we’ll do our best to supply an answer in our Brexit Explained series