Following a decision from the UK’s Supreme Court, the government was required to get the approval of both Houses of Parliament for a bill authorising the PM to start the process of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU by issuing notice of its intent to leave under Article 50 of the treaty of Lisbon. The process involves debates in both houses and affords MPs and peers to propose amendments to the bill which are subsequently voted on (if taken up). The bill emerged from the Commons without any of the amendments that were proposed being adopted, following instructions from the opposition Labour party to vote along party lines.
The next phase in the passage of the Bill was for it to undergo a similar process in the House of Lords, however, the government cannot command a majority in the Lords and some peers, free of the need to appeal to the electorate, were forthright in their criticism of the bill. The upshot of this was that the Lords placed two amendments on the bill: i) to safeguard the rights of EU citizens currently resident in the UK to remain in the UK should they wish to, post Brexit; ii) to grant both Houses of Parliament a meaningful vote on the final deal struck between the government and the EU or, critically, in the event that no deal is struck to vote to approve or disapprove of that outcome too. The Westminster vote would have to be held before any deal was voted on by the European parliament and EU member states (similar amendments were proposed and defeated in the Commons).
The bill will move back to the Commons for further debate and voting. The government have pledged to remove both amendments during that process. However, there is significant support for protecting the rights of EU nationals in the UK, but the government is insisting that this should be in parallel with similar undertakings from EU states (individually) to protect the rights of British nationals living in the EU. The government has already promised that parliament will vote on the final deal, but has insisted that the choice would be to endorse the UK-EU deal or to accept no deal and fall back onto WTO rules. Many parliamentarians are uncomfortable with this and it is certainly not in the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment. The government’s position is that a more open vote would give the EU and incentive to drive an unacceptable deal in the knowledge that parliament would reject it. This, they argue, could force the UK to remain in the EU and so thwart the “will of the people”. The absurdity of this position is almost beyond words. On the face of it, Mrs May is abandoning the best trading relationship that the UK could have with the EU (full membership) and hoping that the EU will grant a “bespoke” arrangement which will replicate many of the aspects of Single Market membership (without aspects she finds onerous) which, by definition will be worse than our current situation; if she can’t achieve this second class deal, her intent is to have no deal and so fall back onto WTO trade rules which all observers agree is the least favourable outcome. She is expecting Parliament to endorse the worst possible deal, if she is unable to get a deal approximating to the relationship the country has at the moment. Unsurprisingly, there are already rumours circulating that some of her party may revolt and back the amendments when the matter returns to the commons.