Lords’ Brexit change may be overturned
BRITAIN: British Prime Minister Theresa May has suffered a second defeat over Brexit, with the House of Lords voting to give parliament the final say on any future European Union agreement.
A coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers joined Tory rebels yesterday to amend the government’s Article 50 bill with a clause giving the Commons and the Lords the power to send May back to the negotiating table.
The bill will now return to the House of Commons next week, where the government has signalled its intention to overturn the amendment, and another guaranteeing the rights of citizens of EU countries to remain in the United Kingdom after Brexit.
The turnout of 634 peers for the vote was the largest since 1831. The previous record, 621, was when the Maastricht Treaty was ratified in 1993.
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, described the passing of the amendment as ‘‘disappointing’’.
‘‘It is clear that some in the Lords would seek to frustrate that process, and it is the government’s intention to ensure that does not happen,’’ he said. ‘‘We will now aim to overturn these amendments in the House of Commons.’’
Before the vote, Conservative grandee Lord Heseltine led the charge against the government, warning that the proeuropean ‘‘fightback starts here’’. He described leaving the EU as the most ‘‘momentous peacetime decision of our time’’.
Heseltine said the amendment would secure into law the commitment ‘‘that parliament is the ultimate custodian of our national sovereignty’’.
‘‘We are not here to refight the referendum campaign, and there is a clear mandate to trigger Article 50. But I do not accept that the mandate runs for all time and in all circumstances.’’
May has promised parliament a vote, but only on a ‘‘take it or leave it’’ basis, so that Britain would quit the EU without a deal if MPS rejected the agreement.
She believes she must maintain this position to convince EU negotiators and other member states that she is ready to walk away from the table if she does not like what is on offer. But many peers are insisting that they should be given the option of telling ministers to renegotiate a better deal.
Proposing the amendment, Lord Pannick - who led the court action that brought the Article 50 bill before parliament - said it would ensure that at the end of the negotiating process ‘‘the approval of parliament is required for the terms of our withdrawal from the EU’’.
‘‘It must be for parliament to decide whether to prefer no deal or the deal offered by the EU. It doesn’t impede the government in the negotiations any more than the undertaking already given by the prime minister.’’
However, former Tory cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean accused Pannick of a ‘‘clever lawyer’s confection’’ to reverse the Brexit referendum result.
‘‘These amendments are trying to tie down the prime minister. Tie her down by her hair, by her arms, by her legs, in every conceivable way in order to prevent her getting an agreement, and in order to prevent us leaving the European Union,’’ he said.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the cross-bench peer who wrote Article 50, said he struggled to think of a deal that would be worse than leaving the EU with no new arrangement in place.
‘‘The point is about parliamentary sovereignty. The issue of whether no deal is better than the deal on the table on that day is for parliament to decide,’’ he said.
Earlier, the government comfortably saw off an attempt to give voters a final say on the Brexit deal in a second referendum. With most Labour peers abstaining, the Liberal Democrat amendment was heavily defeated by 336 votes to 131. - The Times