Article 50

Tonight the government suffered its second Article 50 bill defeat in the House of Lords. Peers backed an amendment calling for a ‘meaningful’ parliamentary vote on the final terms of withdrawal from the EU by 366 votes to 268. Heralding the result, Lord Heseltine said Parliament must be the ‘custodian of national sovereignty’. The bill will now return to the Commons where Theresa May will hope to overturn the amendment, along with the issue of guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens. The government had been braced for defeat on both of these issues but regardless this now presents them with a headache — convincing pro-Remain MPs not to rebel. It’s thought May will face the

Lord Heseltine has been denounced because he says he will vote against the government over Brexit in the House of Lords. It seems terrifically unfair. Has there ever been an occasion, in his long political career, when he has not been in favour of British membership of the EU (or EEC)? Why should he change now, aged 83, from that honourably held, spiritedly asserted, if wrong, position? Can’t a few Europhiles, in the mirror-image of John Major’s Eurosceptic ‘bastards’, be bastards too? The only inconsistency in Hezza’s last stand is that this is the one time in his half-century stance on Europe when he has asserted the right of Parliament

Peers haven’t made themselves popular by voting for an amendment to the Government’s Article 50 bill. They’ve been called ‘contemptible’, accused of an ‘insidious plot to thwart democracy‘ and threatened with abolition. But is there a chance they were right to try and make MPs think again? That’s the argument made in the Times this morning, which says in its editorial that if you felt uncomfortable watching unelected peers meddling with the business of elected MPs there’s a simple reason: the peers had a point. The role of the Lords is to ‘request that the Commons should further reflect’, says the Times. And in calling for MPs to think again on the Article 50

When the House of Lords voted against the Government’s Brexit bill last night, peers won’t have been expecting much in the way of thanks in today’s newspapers. But the ferocity of the attacks on the Lords could still come as something of a surprise: it’s time for the Lords to go, says the Sun in its editorial this morning in which it accuses peers of trying to ‘hobble the PM’ in Brexit talks. The paper describes the Government’s defeat last night as ‘contemptible’ and ‘short-sighted grandstanding’, and says the session showed that Lords wanted to make it clear ‘how much they care about EU citizens’  -with no regard for British citizens

Eight months ago a majority of voters opted to leave the European Union. I believed then – as I do now – that was an historic mistake, but it was one – once asked – that the British nation had every right to make. The Government cannot ignore the nation’s decision and must now shape a new future for our country. Some changes may be beneficial: others may not. A hard Brexit– which is where we seem to be headed – is high risk. Some will gain. Others – will lose. Many outcomes will be very different from present expectations. We will find, for example, that – for all the

‘Take back control’ was the mantra of the Brexit bunch during the referendum – but eight months on, Britain is still waiting to be handed the keys. Next month, says the Daily Telegraph, part of the wait could be over. The paper reports that Theresa May is planning to announce an end to free movement for EU migrants when she triggers Article 50 in March. If this is true, we should celebrate the Prime Minister’s decisiveness, the paper says, hailing the plan as both legal – given that it ‘will only take effect after Brexit’ – and ‘sensible’ – to avoid a rush of migrants coming to Britain before the door slams shut.

It is many a Brexiteer’s fantasy: In 2019, shortly after the UK formally leaves the EU, Theresa May welcomes Donald Trump to Downing Street to ink a trade pact. Out with the old, in with the new, and the ‘special relationship’ standing tall. But how likely is that scenario? A trade deal would certainly be politically meaningful for both sides. For Trump, who is facing pressure over his protectionist rhetoric, it would be an opportunity to boost his pro-trade credentials. While Theresa May could use it to show that Britain has trade options beyond the EU. The prospect of a deal with the US could also boost her hand when it

The request for poetic previews of the day Article 50 is triggered produced passionate voices from both sides of the Brexit divide with many of you recruiting distinguished poets to your cause. D.A. Prince cleverly appropriated ‘Vitaï Lampada’, Sir Henry Newbolt’s tribute to English patriotism: ‘There’s a dread-filled rush in the House tonight/ With Article 50 poised to go,/ After lies black as pitch and the blind claiming sight/ And nothing to halt, now, the whole sorry show’; Jennifer Moore’s entry channelled the spirit of Dr Seuss: ‘The sun did not shine./ We were too sad to work,/So we cut out Farage/ And threw darts at his smirk.’ And Paul

The government has no majority in the House of Lords and a majority of peers were pro-Remain. But despite this, the Article 50 Bill will get through the Lords I argue in The Sun this morning. Why, because the reason that we still have an unelected chamber in the 21st century is that the House of Lords has a strong self-preservation instinct: it knows its limits. If the Lords were to try and block something that had been backed in a referendum and had passed the Commons with a majority of 372, then it would be endangering its very existence. Indeed, I understand that the Labour front bench have already

Theresa May’s Brexit timetable is on track after MPs overwhelming backed the Government’s Article 50 bill in the Commons last night. Not everyone is happy with the role that Parliament has played so far in holding ministers’ feet to the fire over Brexit though. In its editorial this morning, the Guardian says MPs failed their first test: ‘Too many MPs genuflected’ to the referendum outcome – a result which the paper describes as one of the worst political decisions in the UK since the second world war. It seems as though the referendum took away Parliament’s power – and not even the ‘heroic efforts’ of Gina Miller in winning her

After two days of testing Commons debates, Theresa May’s Brexit timetable remains on track. Yesterday’s ‘concession’ – or non-concession, depending on how you look at it – by ministers did enough to limit the extent of the Tory rebellion (only seven Conservative MPs went against the Government, despite earlier reports that as many as 20 backbenchers were considering doing so). This meant the Government’s Article 50 bill emerged unscathed. Of course all that could change this afternoon. Today’s debate will be the last opportunity for MPs hoping to tinker with the bill which will kick start Brexit. In the spirit of this week’s mammoth sessions, it’ll be another long debate,

Given Theresa May’s largely meaningless ‘Brexit means Brexit’ refrain, any new pronouncement on Britain’s departure from the EU is treated like gold dust. But Keir Starmer fell into the trap of thinking Brexit minister David Jones’ opening remarks today had offered up a bigger morsel than they actually had. Jones confirmed, as Theresa May has already made clear, that Parliament will vote on the Brexit deal. He said, too, that the vote would cover the future trading relationship between Britain and the EU, which had not previously been known. And the Commons was also told some more details on the timing of the vote, which will come, Jones confirmed, before