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 10 Version 11
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 Wednesday for the second of two six-hour sessions in which MPs will consider amendments imposed by the Lords, and another set of fresh amendments. The first session, on Tuesday, saw the government fend off a potential defeat on a “meaningful vote” on any Brexit plan following unspecified concessions to Tory rebels.The EU withdrawal bill returns to the Commons on Wednesday for the second of two six-hour sessions in which MPs will consider amendments imposed by the Lords, and another set of fresh amendments. The first session, on Tuesday, saw the government fend off a potential defeat on a “meaningful vote” on any Brexit plan following unspecified concessions to Tory rebels.
Here we list each of the key Lords amendments and the Commons verdicts as they are voted on.Here we list each of the key Lords amendments and the Commons verdicts as they are voted on.
In each case, the ayes support the government rejection of the Lords amendment.In each case, the ayes support the government rejection of the Lords amendment.
How MPs votedHow MPs voted
Amendment 19 - meaningful vote: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 19 - meaningful vote: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 324Ayes: 324
Noes: 298Noes: 298
Rejected amendment would have enhanced the version 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. Last-minute concessions from Theresa May appear to have won over party rebels.Rejected amendment would have enhanced the version 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. Last-minute concessions from Theresa May appear to have won over party rebels.
Proposer: Douglas Hogg, former Tory cabinet minister, now life peer.Proposer: Douglas Hogg, former Tory cabinet minister, now life peer.
Amendment 110 - sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 110 - sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 324Ayes: 324
Noes: 302Noes: 302
Rejected amendment would have obliged a committee to scrutinise all ministerial directives used to amend retained EU law.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 WINSAmendment 128 – more sifting committee: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 325Ayes: 325
Noes: 304Noes: 304
Rejected amendment would have obliged sifting of secondary legislation to ensure more robust procedure for consent.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 dateLinked 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.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.Proposer: Charles Wellesley, hereditary Conservative peer.
Amendment 37: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 37: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 326Ayes: 326
Noes: 301Noes: 301
Amendment 39: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 39: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 324Ayes: 324
Noes: 302Noes: 302
Amendment 125: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 125: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 328Ayes: 328
Noes: 297Noes: 297
Amendment 52 - ability to challenge retained EU law: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 52 - ability to challenge retained EU law: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 326Ayes: 326
Noes: 301Noes: 301
Rejected amendment would have removed a section of the bill letting ministers use directives to decide who is able to challenge the validity of retained EU law post-Brexit.Rejected amendment would have removed 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.
Linked amendments 10, 43 and 45 - Henry VIII powersLinked amendments 10, 43 and 45 - Henry VIII powers
Lords amendments would limit 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”.Lords amendments would limit 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.
Amendment 10: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 10: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 320Ayes: 320
Noes: 305Noes: 305
Amendment 43: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 43: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 322Ayes: 322
Noes: 306Noes: 306
Amendment 45: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 45: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 317Ayes: 317
Noes: 306Noes: 306
Amendment 20 - parliamentary approval for negotiations: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 20 - parliamentary approval for negotiations: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 321Ayes: 321
Noes: 305Noes: 305
Would have required parliamentary approval for negotiations on phase two before they begin.Would have required 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.
Amendment 25 - Northern Ireland: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 25 - Northern Ireland: GOVERNMENT WINS
MPs nod through government amendments to the Lords amendment, which required no changes to Irish border arrangements without the agreement of both the UK and Irish governments. The government amendments propose that the bar on border changes refers only to physical infrastructure.MPs nod through government amendments to the Lords amendment, which required no changes to Irish border arrangements without the agreement of both the UK and Irish governments. The government amendments propose that the bar on border changes refers only to physical infrastructure.
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.
Labour amendment - access to internal market: GOVERNMENT WINSLabour amendment - access to internal market: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 322Ayes: 322
Noes: 240Noes: 240
Would have been a replacement to amendment 51 on the EEA. It stated 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.”Would have been a replacement to amendment 51 on the EEA. It stated 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.
Amendment 51 - the EEA: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 51 - the EEA: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 327Ayes: 327
Noes: 126Noes: 126
Would have obliged the government to prioritise staying in the European Economic Area, known as the Norway option.Would have obliged 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.
Amendment 1 - customs union: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 1 - customs union: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 326Ayes: 326
Noes: 296Noes: 296
Would have prevented 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.Would have prevented 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.
Amendment 5 - charter of fundamental rights: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 5 - charter of fundamental rights: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 321Ayes: 321
Noes: 301Noes: 301
EU’s charter of fundamental rights would have been transferred into domestic law.EU’s charter of fundamental rights would have been transferred into domestic law.
Proposer: David Pannick, barrister and crossbench peer.Proposer: David Pannick, barrister and crossbench peer.
Amendment 53 - compliance with EU principles: GOVERNMENT WINSAmendment 53 - compliance with EU principles: GOVERNMENT WINS
Ayes: 320Ayes: 320
Noes: 297Noes: 297
Would have guaranteed 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.Would have guaranteed 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.
Votes still to come Amendment 4 - enhanced scrutiny: GOVERNMENT WINS
Amendment 3 - environmental protections Ayes: 318
Maintains EU environmental protections in domestic law, with a body to enforce compliance. Noes: 301
Proposer: John Krebs, zoologist and crossbench peer. Would have prevented EU law on areas such as work, health and safety, and environmental standards being modified by secondary legislation without the approval of parliament.
Government view: says same principles should be included in a new environment bill.
Chances of success: government option should pass.
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.
Proposer: Dianne Hayter, Labour’s deputy leader of the Lords.Proposer: Dianne Hayter, Labour’s deputy leader of the Lords.
Government view: opposes it. Amendment 3 - environmental protections: GOVERNMENT WINS
Chance of success: unlikely. Ayes: 320
Amendment 24 - child refugees Noes: 296
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. EU environmental protections would have been maintained in domestic law, with a body to enforce compliance.
Proposer: Alf Dubs, kindertransport survivor, champion of child refugees and Labour peer. Proposer: John Krebs, zoologist and crossbench 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.
Chance of success: government version should prevail.
Amendment 32 - continued cooperation
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.
Government view: accepts it.
BrexitBrexit
European UnionEuropean Union
Foreign policyForeign policy
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content