Parliamentary votes on Brexit, sometimes referred to as "meaningful votes", were the parliamentary votes under the terms of Section 13 of the United Kingdom's European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which requires the government of the United Kingdom to bring forward an amendable parliamentary motion at the end of the Article 50 negotiations between the government and the European Union in order to ratify the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Summary.
The wording of the clause was strongly contested by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, with the Lords proposing an amendment to the bill giving further powers to parliament. When the bill returned to the Commons the Conservative government offered concessions and the Lords' proposed amendment was defeated. The bill was then passed into law on 26 June 2018.
By the end of March 2019, the government had not won any of the meaningful votes. This led to a series of non-binding "indicative votes" on potential options for Brexit, and the delay of the departure date until after the 2019 general election.
History
Background Following the UK's decision to leave the European Union, the result of an advisory referendum on 23 June 2016, the UK government invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union. The UK was thus due to leave the EU at 11pm on 29 March 2019 UTC.
Gina Miller, a British businesswoman, took the government to court to challenge its authority to invoke Article 50 without reference to Parliament. On 3 November 2016, the High Court of Justice ruled in favour of Miller in the case R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
In January 2017 the Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May announced, "I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force."Video and full transcript of speech: As a result, on 13 July 2017, David Davis, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, introduced the bill in the Commons, including the following clause 9 statement: 9Implementing the withdrawal agreement (1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day.
As a government bill, this first reading was pro forma, with the first debate taking place on the second reading.
On 18 April 2017 Theresa May announced a snap general election for 8 June 2017, with the aim of strengthening her hand in Brexit negotiations. This resulted in a hung parliament, in which the number of Conservative seats fell from 330 to 317, despite the party winning its highest vote share since 1983, prompting her to broker a confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to support a minority government.
In July 2017 David Jones, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, told the Commons he expected the parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal with the EU to happen "before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement." Asked to clarify what would happen if MPs and members of the House of Lords decide they don't like the deal, Jones said "the vote will be either to accept the deal. Or there will be no deal." At an Exiting the European Union Select Committee meeting in October, Labour MP Seema Malhotra asked Davis, "The vote of our parliament, the UK parliament, could be after March 2019?", to which Davis replied, "Yes, it could be." This drew criticism from Labour opposition MPs and some Conservative MPs.
Alteration of Clause 9 In December 2017 pressure grew on the government to amend clause 9 so that parliament would have approval of the final terms of the withdrawal deal between the UK and the EU prior to 29 March 2019, the date set for the UK's departure from the EU. Conservative MP Dominic Grieve advised the government to amend the clause themselves or he would table his own amendment to the bill. Grieve duly tabled his amendment to the bill (Amendment 7) requiring any Brexit deal to be enacted by statute, rather than implemented by government order.
Clause 9 was then introduced to the house as follows (Grieve's additions, amendment 7, in italics): 9Implementing the withdrawal agreement (1)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. (2)Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act). (3)But regulations under this section may not— (a)impose or increase taxation, (b)make retrospective provision, (c)create a relevant criminal offence, or (d)amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it. (4)No regulations may be made under this section after exit day.
At the weekend prior to the Commons vote on the amendment, the leaders of the all-party parliamentary group on EU relations signed a statement saying, "Members of all parties have already provided valuable scrutiny to the EU (Withdrawal) bill, and we have forced the government into some concessions. But little of that will matter unless we can have a truly meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement the government negotiates with the European Union."
On the morning of 13 December 2017 Davis issued a written statement saying, "In the UK, the Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship."
Later that day, at Prime Minister's Questions, the Conservative MP Anna Soubry requested that May accept Grieve's amendment, "The Prime Minister says that she wants a meaningful vote on Brexit before we leave the European Union. Even at this last moment, will she be so good as to accept my right hon. and learned Friend’s [Grieve's] amendment 7, in the spirit of unity for everybody here and in the country?" May rejected the idea, saying "We were very clear that we will not commence any statutory instruments until that meaningful vote has taken place, but as currently drafted [Grieve's draft] what the amendment says is that we should not put any of those arrangements and statutory instruments into place until the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill has reached the statute book. That could be at a very late stage in the proceedings, which could mean we are not able to have the orderly and smooth exit from the European Union that we wish to have."
That evening, Grieve's amendment was passed by 309 votes to 305 votes – a majority of 4, representing a defeat for the government. Twelve Conservative MPs voted against the government: Grieve, Soubry, Heidi Allen, Kenneth Clarke, Jonathan Djanogly, Stephen Hammond, Oliver Heald, Nicky Morgan, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach, John Stevenson and Sarah Wollaston. A month earlier, all but Stevenson were pictured along with fellow Conservative MPs Vicky Ford, Jeremy Lefroy, Paul Masterton and Tom Tugendhat on the front page of the Daily Telegraph describing them as "The Brexit Mutineers".See also:
House of Lords Report Stage
At the House of Lords Report Stage in April 2018, Viscount Hailsham introduced a new clause as follows:
Before Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
nParliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1)Without prejudice to any other statutory provision relating to the withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government may conclude such an agreement only if a draft has been— (a)approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and (b)subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords. (2)So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the resolution provided for in subsection (1)(a) to be debated and voted on before the European Parliament has debated and voted on the draft withdrawal agreement. (3)Her Majesty’s Government may implement a withdrawal agreement only if Parliament has approved the withdrawal agreement and any transitional measures agreed within or alongside it by an Act of Parliament. (4)Subsection (5) applies in each case that any of the conditions in subsections (6) to (8) is met. (5)Her Majesty’s Government must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which has been— (a)approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and (b)subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords. (6)The condition in this subsection is that the House of Commons has not approved the resolution required under subsection (1)(a) by 30 November 2018. (7)The condition in this subsection is that the Act of Parliament required under subsection (3) has not received Royal Assent by 31 January 2019. (8)The condition in this subsection is that no withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union by 28 February 2019. (9)In this section, "withdrawal agreement" means an agreement (whether or not ratified) between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU and the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union."
The amendment with the new clause was passed by Lords by 335 to 244 – a majority of 91, which represented a further defeat for the government. The new wording would have given MPs the power to stop the UK from leaving the EU without a deal, or to make Theresa May return to negotiations.
Commons consideration of the Lords amendment The government rejected the proposal by the Lords that would give the Commons the power to decide the next steps for the government if the withdrawal agreement were to be rejected by parliament.
Labour MP Keir Starmer urged Conservative MPs who want Britain to remain in the EU to vote with Labour in favour of the Lords amendment when the bill returned to the Commons, and former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that May could be replaced by a new Tory Prime Minister if she lost the vote. The prominent Tory remainer Amber Rudd urged her party's MPs to back the government in the vote.
The process of parliamentary ping-pong then took place between 12 and 20 June 2018.
Alternative amendment by Dominic Grieve The night before the bill was due back before the Commons, 11 June 2018, Dominic Grieve tabled a last-minute alternative amendment. The Lords amendment would prevent a 'no deal' scenario, and MPs and Lords could tell May to go back to the negotiating table and get something better, for example. Grieve's amendment also tackled the 'no deal' scenario but it set dates for May to come back to parliament and set out the government's intentions in the event of a 'no deal', and gain parliamentary approval for those plans.
Grieve's amendment:
(5A)Within seven days of a statement under subsection (4) being laid, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons to seek approval of the Government’s approach. (5B)In the event of no political agreement having been reached on a withdrawal agreement by the end of 30 November 2018, a Minister of the Crown must move a motion in the House of Commons setting out how the Government intends to proceed and seeking the approval of the House for that course of action.