Just last week, there was speculation that the most important of 15 amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill aimed at ensuring that parliament had a meaningful vote on Brexit would narrowly be passed by the Commons. The amendment, initially tabled by former attorney general, Dominic Grieve, had been championed in the Lords by Lord Hailsham and was returned to parliament for consideration. In the event, an agreed amendment with the government was to be negotiated between Grieve, the “Tory rebels” and the government, answering the rebels concerns and allowing the government to avoid an embarrassing defeat. The government comfortably (for a hung parliament) managed to defeat or modify all 15 amendments, so the WU Withdrawal Bill was returned to the Lords on Monday, substantially as the government intended it.
However, the reworked Grieve amendment was altered at the last minute to change its clause c) to require only that the government brief the House in the event of a “no deal” outcome to its Brexit negotiation and give MPs a neutral motion on their action (basically, a vote which would confirm that parliament had been consulted). Unsurprisingly, this quickly led to accusations that the government and even the PM had reneged on promises and undertaking given to the rebels.
The upshot of these political machinations was that the Lord passed the so-called Grieve II amendment which incorporated the changes that the rebels believed that the government had agreed to, being passed by an even larger margin in the Lords. It will be debated in the commons today and both sides claim to be confident of victory.
In the event that any Brexit deal (or a no deal) outcome was not endorsed by parliament, the Grieve II amendment C) ultimately gives authority to parliament to instruct the government on what it should do. Whilst the executive is claiming that this is an unacceptable interference in their executive prerogative relating to treaty negotiations, there is precedent for parliament to instruct the government (the last such example was a refusal by the Commons to grant the Cameron government the right to engage in military action in Syria). Were this not to be the case, there would be little point in debating the customs and trade bills since it is likely that amendments to these bills would require the UK to remain within the customs union with the EU (against the executive’s wishes).
Some Conservative MPs claim that the clause is redundant since the government will fall if it can’t get its deal (or no deal) through parliament. This is not true since a specific vote of no confidence would be required to dissolve parliament after the fixed terms parliament bill became law. Besides, to be without a serving government as the sands of time run out on the Brexit process would be an immense dereliction of duty by HMG and the very worst outcome for the UK which would have no mandate to negotiate with the EU after the deal collapses and whilst the country would be in the throes of a fresh general election.
The decision on the Grieve II amendment will be taken tonight and will be a key moment in the Brexit process whatever decision is taken.