Brexit: European Parliament chief accuses David Davis of 'undermining trust' after claiming breakthough deal not legally binding

The European Parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator has accused David Davis of “undermining trust” after he claimed last week’s breakthrough deal was not legally binding.

Guy Verhofstadt lashed out as he revealed that MEPs would toughen up their red lines before agreeing that the negotiations can move onto a future trade deal - as Britain badly wants.

“Remarks by David Davis that phase one deal last week not binding were unhelpful & undermines trust. EP text will now reflect this & insist agreement translated into legal text ASAP,” Mr Verhofstadt tweeted.

He added: “It’s time the UK government restores trust. These amendments will further toughen up our resolution.”

Mr Verhofstadt’s comments follow the Brexit Secretary’s weekend claim that the deal struck in Brussels last week was just a “statement of intent”.

Mr Davis was quickly forced to correct himself – agreeing it would be “legally enforceable” if MPs approve the withdrawal agreement next year.

However, as The Independent revealed today, a European Parliament resolution will now be redrafted to state the agreement must be turned into a legally binding treaty before trade talks can begin.

The move will mirror a tougher text to be agreed by EU27 heads of state and government at a summit on Friday, according to a leaked draft.

The moves also follow Theresa May’s threat, in the Commons yesterday, that the agreement will be “off the table” unless accompanied by a “future partnership” covering trade.

She told MPs: “This offer is on the table in the context of us agreeing the partnership for the future, agreeing the next stage and agreeing the partnership for the future. If we don’t agree that partnership, then this offer is off the table.

In fact, paragraph 96 of last Friday’s text makes clear the UK’s commitment to the agreement even if there is only a “framework” for a trade deal.

But, when this was pointed out, Ms May replied: “No, that is not my understanding.”

More follows…