This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/13/refusing-mps-a-vote-on-brexit-deranged-says-former-attorney-general

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Refusing MPs a vote on Brexit 'deranged', says former attorney general Refusing MPs a vote on Brexit 'deranged', says former attorney general
(35 minutes later)
A Conservative former attorney general has accused the government of a “frankly deranged” plan not to guarantee MPs a vote on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.A Conservative former attorney general has accused the government of a “frankly deranged” plan not to guarantee MPs a vote on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.
Dominic Grieve was one of a group of Tory backbenchers who spoke out against the bill, but their mini-rebellion was not enough to prevent the Commons from throwing out amendments to the Brexit bill that had been previously passed by the Lords.Dominic Grieve was one of a group of Tory backbenchers who spoke out against the bill, but their mini-rebellion was not enough to prevent the Commons from throwing out amendments to the Brexit bill that had been previously passed by the Lords.
Grieve spoke the most forcefully against the government’s decision to hold out against promising a vote on the outcome of the Brexit talks, whether there is a deal or no deal. Grieve spoke the most forcefully against the government’s decision to hold out against promising a vote on the outcome of the Brexit talks, whether there is a deal or no deal. “There is a clear way of doing things, and if we follow them we will come up with the right decisions at each point,” Grieve said. “If we don’t, we’re going to mire ourselves in chaos. So very reluctantly, because I want to support the government, I have to say if we persist with this I’m going most reluctantly to have to say on that second amendment I can’t support the government this evening.”
“There is a clear way of doing things and if we follow them we will come up with the right decisions at each point,” Grieve said. “If we don’t, we’re going to mire ourselves in chaos. So very reluctantly, because I want to support the government, I have to say if we persist with this I’m going most reluctantly to have to say on that second amendment I can’t support the government this evening.”
A number of Conservative MPs around him nodded in approval, as Grieve announced he was refusing to support the government’s motion to overturn the House of Lords amendment.A number of Conservative MPs around him nodded in approval, as Grieve announced he was refusing to support the government’s motion to overturn the House of Lords amendment.
But despite his speech, Grieve only ended up abstaining on the motion along with a few other would-be Tory rebels fighting against a hard Brexit: Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan, Ben Howlett, Neil Carmichael, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach and Andrew Tyrie. But despite his speech, Grieve ended up only abstaining on the motion, along with a few other would-be Tory rebels fighting a hard Brexit: Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan, Ben Howlett, Neil Carmichael, Bob Neill, Antoinette Sandbach and Andrew Tyrie.
MPs voted by 331 to 286 to overturn the House of Lords amendment that would have guaranteed parliament another say after two years of Theresa May’s negotiations and by 335 votes to 287 against protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK.MPs voted by 331 to 286 to overturn the House of Lords amendment that would have guaranteed parliament another say after two years of Theresa May’s negotiations and by 335 votes to 287 against protecting the rights of EU citizens in the UK.
No Conservatives went so far as to vote against the government on that issue, although Tania Mathias and Alex Chalk, two Conservatives who won their seats off Lib Dems, rebelled on the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK. No Conservatives went so far as to vote against the government on that issue, although Tania Mathias and Alex Chalk, two Conservatives who won their seats from Lib Dems, rebelled on the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK.
During the debate, a number of opposition MPs had urged Tory MPs to be brave in opposing their government. Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, called on them to consider they would be giving May an “unfettered power to negotiate in whatever way she likes”.During the debate, a number of opposition MPs had urged Tory MPs to be brave in opposing their government. Chris Leslie, the former shadow chancellor, called on them to consider they would be giving May an “unfettered power to negotiate in whatever way she likes”.
“What we shouldn’t be doing is putting power entirely in the hands of one person, in the prime minister, without any insurance policy whatsoever,” he said. “It is something we shouldn’t be frightened of, we shouldn’t be shy of it, we should welcome it, it is a strength and part of the process.“What we shouldn’t be doing is putting power entirely in the hands of one person, in the prime minister, without any insurance policy whatsoever,” he said. “It is something we shouldn’t be frightened of, we shouldn’t be shy of it, we should welcome it, it is a strength and part of the process.
“They say take back control, and yet at the same time they are asking us to muzzle parliament for the next two-year period.”“They say take back control, and yet at the same time they are asking us to muzzle parliament for the next two-year period.”
Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader, whose wife is Spanish and mother is Dutch, also urged Tories to defy the whip, saying: “For me the political is personal. My mother has lived here for more than 50 years, raised four children, paid her taxes; my wife raised children, paid taxes, works as a lawyer. It beggars belief that people like them and millions like them have had a question mark placed over their status, their peace of mind, their wellbeing in our great country, because of the action or the shameless inaction of this government. We picked the fight – not the EU.” Nick Clegg, the former Lib Dem leader, whose wife is Spanish and mother is Dutch, also urged Tories to defy the whip, saying: “For me, the political is personal. My mother has lived here for more than 50 years, raised four children, paid her taxes; my wife raised children, paid taxes, works as a lawyer.
“It beggars belief that people like them and millions like them have had a question mark placed over their status, their peace of mind, their wellbeing in our great country, because of the action or the shameless inaction of this government. We picked the fight, not the EU.”
However, Tory MPs appeared to have been reassured by private promises that the government would aim for a Brexit deal and aim to avoid falling back on World Trade Organisation tariffs at all costs. Several told the Guardian that ministers were open to the idea of letting MPs have a proper vote at the end of two years, but No 10 was insistent that there should not be a specific reference to it on the face of the bill.However, Tory MPs appeared to have been reassured by private promises that the government would aim for a Brexit deal and aim to avoid falling back on World Trade Organisation tariffs at all costs. Several told the Guardian that ministers were open to the idea of letting MPs have a proper vote at the end of two years, but No 10 was insistent that there should not be a specific reference to it on the face of the bill.
At the dispatch box, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, told colleagues that MPs and peers had made their arguments with “passion, sincerity and conviction” but he was disappointed by the amendments. At the dispatch box, the Brexit secretary, David Davis, told colleagues that MPs and peers had made their arguments with “passion, sincerity and conviction”, but he was disappointed by the amendments. He insisted he was interested in the rights of millions of citizens, bringing together Europeans in the UK and Britons living on the continent, adding that he would take personal “moral responsibility” for their future guarantees.
Davis insisted he was interested in the rights of millions of citizens, bringing together Europeans in the UK and Britons living on the continent, adding that he would take personal “moral responsibility” for their future guarantees. He argued that European citizens made a vital contribution to society and that he wanted them to retain all their rights. “The government has been very clear of what it intends – it intends to guarantee the rights of both British and European citizens,” he said. But he added that he needed the same commitment from other countries and that they would not embark on talks before article 50 is triggered.
He argued that European citizens made a vital contribution to society and that he wanted them to retain all their rights. “The government has been very clear of what it intends – it intends to guarantee the rights of both British and European citizens,” he said. But he added that he needed the same commitment from other countries but that they would not embark on talks before article 50 is triggered. He said that was why it was so important to pass this bill quickly. “Every member state has reinforced the point: they want this at the top of the agenda, they want this to be dealt with first,” he said, and promised a quick deal.
He said that was why it was so important to quickly pass this bill. “Every member state has reinforced the point – they want this at the top of the agenda, they want this to be dealt with first,” he said, promising a quick deal. On the second vote, Davis said guaranteeing such a vote could hamper the government during its negotiations. He questioned the motives of those arguing for it, claiming that they wanted to reverse the referendum result. He said: “As we embark on the forthcoming negotiations, our guiding approach is simple: we will not do anything that will undermine the national interest, including interests of British citizens living in the EU.”
On the second vote, Davis said guaranteeing such a vote could hamper the government during its negotiations. He questioned the motives of those arguing for it, claiming that they wanted to reverse the referendum result.
He said: “As we embark on the forthcoming negotiations, our guiding approach is simple: we will not do anything that will undermine the national interest, including interests of British citizens living in the EU.”
“And we will not enter the negotiations with our hands tied,” he said, suggesting the EU would be incentivised to offer a bad deal to the UK if it knew that it could be rejected by parliament.“And we will not enter the negotiations with our hands tied,” he said, suggesting the EU would be incentivised to offer a bad deal to the UK if it knew that it could be rejected by parliament.
The Labour frontbench tried to get the government to accept the House of Lords amendment, with the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, asking what the problem was with regards to EU citizens, pointing out that the amendment gave the government three months after article 50 is triggered to find a solution. The Labour frontbench tried to get the government to accept the House of Lords amendment. The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, asked what the problem was with regards to EU citizens, pointing out that the amendment gave the government three months after article 50 was triggered to find a solution. “Are we prepared to use one set of people, those who are here, as a bargaining chip to get the right settlement for people?” he said. “The whole argument about reciprocal rights is about bargaining.”
“Are we prepared to use one set of people, those that are here, as a bargaining chip to get the right settlement for people?” he said. “The whole argument about reciprocal rights is about bargaining.” He also rejected Davis’s suggestion that what he said at the dispatch box in parliament was binding: “That is not a legal commitment, and secretaries of state can change and governments can change. That is why we need a commitment.”
He also rejected Davis’s suggestion that what he said at the dispatch box in parliament was binding, saying: “That is not a legal commitment and secretaries of state can change and governments can change – that is why we need a commitment.” However, Labour said it would not press the point further in the House of Lords, given that there was no hope of getting the government to change its position. Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, said the party would let the Brexit bill pass unamended as a result of May’s refusal to make any concessions on the face of the legislation.
However, Labour said it would not press the point further in the House of Lords, given there was no hope of getting the government to change its position. “If the House of Lords was to vote to send the amendments back, I wouldn’t expect a different result, so it is highly unlikely we can get the House of Commons to change its mind,” she said. “On that basis, we could play politics, but we’ve set a really high bar on the principle, with a majority of 102 and 98 … If I thought there was a foot in the door or a glimmer of hope that we could change this bill, I would fight it tooth and nail, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.”
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the House of Lords, said the party would let the Brexit bill pass unamended as a result of May’s refusal to make any concessions on the face of the legislation.
“If the House of Lords was to vote to send the amendments back, I wouldn’t expect a different result so it is highly unlikely we can get the House of Commons to change its mind,” she said. “On that basis, we could play politics but we’ve set a really high bar on the principle with a majority of 102 and 98 ... If I thought there was a foot in the door or a glimmer of hope that we could change this bill, I would fight it tooth and nail, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.”