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/2018/jun/11/eu-withdrawal-bill-full-list-of-proposed-amendments
The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| How MPs are voting on the EU withdrawal bill amendments – at a glance | How MPs are voting on the EU withdrawal bill amendments – at a glance |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The EU withdrawal bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday for the first of two six-hour sessions – the second comes on Wednesday – in which MPs will consider amendments imposed by the Lords, and another set of fresh amendments. | The EU withdrawal bill returns to the Commons on Tuesday for the first of two six-hour sessions – the second comes on Wednesday – in which MPs will consider amendments imposed by the Lords, and another set of fresh amendments. |
| There will be two sets of votes on Tuesday afternoon, at 4.15pm and at 7.15pm. The vote on the “meaningful vote” amendment (number 19) will come in the first tranche. | |
| How MPs voted | How MPs voted |
| Amendment 110 - sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINS | Amendment 110 - sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINS |
| Ayes (backing the government rejection of the Lords amendment): 324 | Ayes (backing the government rejection of the Lords amendment): 324 |
| Noes: 302 | Noes: 302 |
| Rejected amendment would have obliged a committee to scrutinise all ministerial directives used to amend retained EU law. | |
| Proposer: Robert Rogers, former parliamentary official and crossbench peer. | Proposer: Robert Rogers, former parliamentary official and crossbench peer. |
| Amendment 128 – more sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINS | |
| Ayes (backing the government rejection of the Lords amendment): 325 | |
| Noes: 304 | |
| Rejected amendment would have obliged sifting of secondary legislation to ensure more robust procedure for consent. | |
| Linked amendments 37, 39 and 125 - no fixed exit date | |
| The government had amended the bill to set 29 March 2019 as a definitive exit date. The Lords changed this to make any date subject to parliamentary approval. | |
| Proposer: Charles Wellesley, hereditary Conservative peer. | |
| Government view: opposes it. | |
| Amendment 37: GOVERNMENT WINS | |
| Ayes (backing the government rejection of the Lords amendment): 326 | |
| Noes: 301 | |
| Amendment 39: GOVERNMENT WINS | |
| Ayes (backing the government rejection of the Lords amendment): 324 | |
| Noes: 302 | |
| Votes still to come | Votes still to come |
| Amendment 1 - customs union | Amendment 1 - customs union |
| Prevents the repeal of the 1972 act bringing the UK into the EU unless the government lays out plans to negotiate a continued customs union after Brexit. | Prevents the repeal of the 1972 act bringing the UK into the EU unless the government lays out plans to negotiate a continued customs union after Brexit. |
| Proposer: John Kerr, former diplomat and crossbench peer. | Proposer: John Kerr, former diplomat and crossbench peer. |
| Government view: has accepted last-minute alternative amendment tabled by Nicky Morgan and Jacob Rees-Mogg which calls for “a” customs union. | Government view: has accepted last-minute alternative amendment tabled by Nicky Morgan and Jacob Rees-Mogg which calls for “a” customs union. |
| Chance of success: new amendment will pass - even if it just shifts the debate down the road. | Chance of success: new amendment will pass - even if it just shifts the debate down the road. |
| Amendment 3 - environmental protections | Amendment 3 - environmental protections |
| Maintains EU environmental protections in domestic law, with a body to enforce compliance. | Maintains EU environmental protections in domestic law, with a body to enforce compliance. |
| Proposer: John Krebs, zoologist and crossbench peer. | Proposer: John Krebs, zoologist and crossbench peer. |
| Government view: says same principles should be included in a new environment bill. | Government view: says same principles should be included in a new environment bill. |
| Chances of success: government option should pass. | Chances of success: government option should pass. |
| Amendment 4 - enhanced scrutiny | Amendment 4 - enhanced scrutiny |
| Prevents EU law on areas such as work, health and safety, and environmental standards being modified by secondary legislation without the approval of parliament. | Prevents EU law on areas such as work, health and safety, and environmental standards being modified by secondary legislation without the approval of parliament. |
| Proposer: Dianne Hayter, Labour’s deputy leader of the Lords. | Proposer: Dianne Hayter, Labour’s deputy leader of the Lords. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: unlikely. | Chance of success: unlikely. |
| Amendment 5 - charter of fundamental rights | Amendment 5 - charter of fundamental rights |
| Transfers the EU’s charter of fundamental rights into domestic law. | Transfers the EU’s charter of fundamental rights into domestic law. |
| Proposer: David Pannick, barrister and crossbench peer. | Proposer: David Pannick, barrister and crossbench peer. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: minimal. | Chance of success: minimal. |
| Amendments 10, 43 and 45 - Henry VIII powers | Amendments 10, 43 and 45 - Henry VIII powers |
| Limits the scope of ministers to amend retained EU law under secondary legislation, also known as Henry VIII powers, by changing the wording so it can only happen if “necessary” rather than just if a minister deems it “appropriate”. | Limits the scope of ministers to amend retained EU law under secondary legislation, also known as Henry VIII powers, by changing the wording so it can only happen if “necessary” rather than just if a minister deems it “appropriate”. |
| Proposer: Robert Rogers, former parliamentary official and crossbench peer. | Proposer: Robert Rogers, former parliamentary official and crossbench peer. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: unlikely. | Chance of success: unlikely. |
| Amendment 19 - meaningful vote | Amendment 19 - meaningful vote |
| Enhances the amendment Tory rebel Dominic Grieve got through the Commons in December guaranteeing a meaningful final vote on the Brexit deal by allowing the Commons to decide the next course of action if parliament rejects the deal. | Enhances the amendment Tory rebel Dominic Grieve got through the Commons in December guaranteeing a meaningful final vote on the Brexit deal by allowing the Commons to decide the next course of action if parliament rejects the deal. |
| Proposer: Douglas Hogg, former Tory cabinet minister, now life peer. | Proposer: Douglas Hogg, former Tory cabinet minister, now life peer. |
| Government view: suggests that if parliament votes against the deal, a minister will set out how the government plans to proceed within 28 days. Grieve has sought to set out a compromise, but the government has not accepted this. | Government view: suggests that if parliament votes against the deal, a minister will set out how the government plans to proceed within 28 days. Grieve has sought to set out a compromise, but the government has not accepted this. |
| Chance of success: most worrying for government as MPs could reject its view. | Chance of success: most worrying for government as MPs could reject its view. |
| Amendment 20 - parliamentary approval for negotiations | Amendment 20 - parliamentary approval for negotiations |
| Requires parliamentary approval for negotiations on phase two before they begin. | Requires parliamentary approval for negotiations on phase two before they begin. |
| Proposer: John Monks, former Trades Union Congress head and Labour peer. | Proposer: John Monks, former Trades Union Congress head and Labour peer. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: minimal. | Chance of success: minimal. |
| Amendment 24 - child refugees | Amendment 24 - child refugees |
| Requires ministers to seek agreement to maintain the right of unaccompanied child refugees in one EU state to join relatives in the UK after Brexit. | Requires ministers to seek agreement to maintain the right of unaccompanied child refugees in one EU state to join relatives in the UK after Brexit. |
| Proposer: Alf Dubs, kindertransport survivor, champion of child refugees and Labour peer. | Proposer: Alf Dubs, kindertransport survivor, champion of child refugees and Labour peer. |
| Government view: proposes an intention to seek a deal with the EU so such children can join relatives who are lawful residents in the UK. | Government view: proposes an intention to seek a deal with the EU so such children can join relatives who are lawful residents in the UK. |
| Chance of success: government version should prevail. | Chance of success: government version should prevail. |
| Amendment 25 - Northern Ireland | Amendment 25 - Northern Ireland |
| Requires no changes to Irish border arrangements without the agreement of both the UK and Irish governments. | Requires no changes to Irish border arrangements without the agreement of both the UK and Irish governments. |
| Proposer: Chris Patten, Conservative peer and former minister who chaired a commission on policing in Northern Ireland. | Proposer: Chris Patten, Conservative peer and former minister who chaired a commission on policing in Northern Ireland. |
| Government view: proposes amendments so the bar on border changes refers only to physical infrastructure. | Government view: proposes amendments so the bar on border changes refers only to physical infrastructure. |
| Chance of success: government version should prevail. | Chance of success: government version should prevail. |
| Amendment 32 - continued cooperation | Amendment 32 - continued cooperation |
| Formalises the idea that EU law can continue in UK law, and the UK can stay in EU agencies. | Formalises the idea that EU law can continue in UK law, and the UK can stay in EU agencies. |
| Proposer: Nick Baines, bishop of Leeds. | Proposer: Nick Baines, bishop of Leeds. |
| Government view: accepts it. | Government view: accepts it. |
| Amendment 51 - the EEA | Amendment 51 - the EEA |
| Obliges the government to prioritise staying in the European Economic Area, known as the Norway option. | Obliges the government to prioritise staying in the European Economic Area, known as the Norway option. |
| Proposer: Waheed Alli, media executive and Labour peer. | Proposer: Waheed Alli, media executive and Labour peer. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: won’t pass; Labour has introduced its own idea. | Chance of success: won’t pass; Labour has introduced its own idea. |
| Amendment 52 - ability to challenge retained EU law | Amendment 52 - ability to challenge retained EU law |
| Removes a section of the bill letting ministers use directives to decide who is able to challenge the validity of retained EU law post-Brexit. | Removes a section of the bill letting ministers use directives to decide who is able to challenge the validity of retained EU law post-Brexit. |
| Proposer: Alan Beith, former Liberal Democrat deputy leader. | Proposer: Alan Beith, former Liberal Democrat deputy leader. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: minimal. | Chance of success: minimal. |
| Amendment 53 - compliance with EU principles | Amendment 53 - compliance with EU principles |
| Guarantees the right of challenge to a domestic law if it fails to comply with the general principles of EU law as set out by the European court of justice. | Guarantees the right of challenge to a domestic law if it fails to comply with the general principles of EU law as set out by the European court of justice. |
| Proposer: Pannick. | Proposer: Pannick. |
| Government view: will accept this as long as such challenges are limited to three years after exit. | Government view: will accept this as long as such challenges are limited to three years after exit. |
| Chance of success: government version should prevail. | Chance of success: government version should prevail. |
| Labour amendment - access to internal market | Labour amendment - access to internal market |
| An intended replacement to amendment 51 on the EEA, it states that a negotiating objective should be “to ensure the United Kingdom has full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum.” | An intended replacement to amendment 51 on the EEA, it states that a negotiating objective should be “to ensure the United Kingdom has full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum.” |
| Proposer: Labour frontbench. | Proposer: Labour frontbench. |
| Government view: opposes it. | Government view: opposes it. |
| Chance of success: extremely slim. Tory rebels unlikely to back an official Labour amendment, not least because what it proposes is more or less impossible under EU rules. | Chance of success: extremely slim. Tory rebels unlikely to back an official Labour amendment, not least because what it proposes is more or less impossible under EU rules. |
| Brexit | Brexit |
| European Union | European Union |
| Foreign policy | Foreign policy |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |