It’s been a dramatic few weeks in Parliament as the government seeks to finalise the repeal bill through parliamentary ‘ping-pong’ (or ‘whiff-whaff’ as Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson would have it) between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. As I reported in my previous blog, the Lords inflicted no fewer than 15 defeats on the government in May, making crucial amendments regarding the customs union and the Northern Ireland border. The government announced its intention to overturn the amendments when the bill returned to the Commons but that would require a majority vote in the House and there was no guarantee they would be able to persuade rebels in their own party to back them. Disquiet had grown over the possible deals that might be made with the EU or the even worse possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal.
Round 1: 1-0 to the government
The bill returned to the Commons in June, and in the run-up to the debate there was talk of the government only allowing 12 hours of Parliamentary time to debate all 15 amendments, warning MPs that they would be expected to stay at their benches until the job was done and to expect a long night of debate. This prompted fury from all sides and a climbdown from the government and in the end the stage was set for several days of intense debate.
While the Government safely overturned 10 amendments on the first day there was a much more serious challenge to the amendment regarding a ‘meaningful vote’ on the final Brexit deal. The government had previously faced legal challenge over its refusal to put the final Brexit deal to a vote in Parliament and had capitulated, however the bill only made allowance for a yes/no vote, with a no vote effectively guaranteeing the nightmare scenario of the UK leaving the EU without a deal – making it effectively impossible for parliament to reject any deal, however flawed. The ‘meaningful vote’ amendment gave a much greater role to parliament, allowing it to ‘set the direction’ for the government if it rejects the deal or the government fails to reach a deal with the EU before March 2019. This could involve delaying Brexit until a deal can be reached, for example.
At the beginning of the day, there were 14 Conservative rebels expected to vote against the government, led by former attorney general Dominic Grieve, enough to defeat the motion and ensure the amendment became part of the law. A further blow was dealt when the justice minister resigned from the cabinet (the ‘front bench’) to return to the back benches (as just an MP) to allow him to vote against the government. As the debate progressed, there were frantic negotiations by government whips and ministers to win over the rebels, reflected in conciliatory language in the debate. It didn’t appear to be working, however, as the rebels, including former cabinet ministers, spoke up against the government until at the 11th hour all the rebels mysteriously vanished from the chamber along with key ministers. By all accounts, they were huddled with the Prime Minister thrashing out a last-minute compromise. When they reappeared, the language of the debate changed and the eventual vote to reject the Lords amendment was won 324 votes to 298.
The substance of the PMs concession to the rebels was to agree to the broad thrust of their argument and they claimed she had offered personal assurances that there would be a meaningful vote, encapsulated in a government amendment to the bill. This infuriated Brexiteers in the government who felt that it was tantamount to allowing 650 MPs to run the negotiations with the EU. And indeed, when the government amendment was tabled the rebels were equally infuriated as, contrary to what they claim they were promised, it allowed parliament the opportunity to vote on a ‘neutral motion’ which would not give MPs the power to halt a no-deal exit from the EU. Grieve described it polemically as a ‘slavery clause’, forcing MPs to follow the government off the edge of the cliff and stated he had been double-crossed. The PM denied she had reneged on the deal, claiming she only agreed to listen to the rebels concerns.
Scotland also wants to play
The drama returned when the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) was ejected from the main Commons debating chamber during Prime Minister’s Questions for repeatedly calling for an immediate debate on the devolution Brexit issues. The remainder of the SNP MPs promptly walked out in support. For the government, the grievances of the devolved administrations are a relatively minor issue but they cannot be dismissed lightly and will need to be resolved in the near future.
Round 2: the Lords strike back
When the bill returned to the Lords, they promptly rejected the Commons compromise and installed another clause (dubbed ‘Grieve 2’) which covered basically the same ground, with the intention of forcing yet another debate in the Commons – with the rebels insisting they wouldn’t be hoodwinked a second time.
The showdown came on 20 June, with Dominic Grieve once more at the centre of debate. One Labour MP was brought into the chamber in a wheelchair after being released from hospital to vote against the government, accompanied by a sick bucket in case of unfortunate accidents. Another day of furious public and backroom negotiations ensued, as Conservative rebels in particular sought sufficient compromise to allow them to vote with the government – the spectre of bringing the government down if they maintained their stance clearly weighing heavily on them.
In the end, the government made an offer – whether the motion put before the House would be neutral or not would be left up to the Speaker of the House at the time and not decided in advance. This proved sufficient for enough rebels (including Dominic Grieve who then found himself voting against his own amendment) and the government won the vote 319 to 303.
When the bill went back to the Lords, as is their constitutional duty, they also admitted defeat and passed it without further challenge. The bill received Royal Assent on 26 June and became an Act of Parliament – a law. Passing the bill was a significant victory for PM Teresa May, though tempered by the extent she was forced to compromise. Only time will tell whether those compromises will prove any impediment to the eventual Brexit deal.
The view from the EU
The parliamentary success also paved a way for a triumphant EU summit at the end of June. This turned out to be rather a damp squib in the end, however, as Brexit was relegated to a distant second priority by the EU countries as they concentrated on the growing row over how to handle migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea. EU leaders took only 1 minute to agree their Brexit conclusions. They welcomed the (largely minor and technical) progress on the legal withdrawal text but expressed concern that no progress appears to have been made on the key issues of Gibraltar and the Northern Ireland border and warned EU countries to prepare for all eventualities – including a no-deal exit. For example, the European Banking Authority has warned banks that they need to step up their Brexit preparations. It all highlights that the parliamentary tussles are only a sideshow compared to the real negotiations with the EU.
The view from business
In the meantime, business leaders stepped up their pressure on the government, with industry body after industry body warning of the catastrophic effect of a no-deal Brexit. This prompted an exasperated Boris Johnson (remember: he’s Foreign Secretary and chief diplomat, charged with selling the UK abroad) to remark in a not-so-private conversation “F@%& business!”.
The next important deadline is October – the withdrawal text needs to be finished by then so that member countries (including the UK parliament) can begin to ratify it. While my previous somber prediction of the England football team’s chances of winning the World Cup has improved somewhat following two good results in the group stages, the chances of a triumphant Brexit are looking increasingly bleak.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.