Policy Exchange - The Speaker should allow a third meaningful vote on the Brexit deal
By Sir Stephen Laws QC, Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, and former First Parliamentary Counsel from 2006-12
The Speaker is right that the “same question” rule is well precedented and would need consideration in this case. But it would be quite wrong to apply the “same question” rule to disallow a third meaningful vote on the Government’s Brexit deal. He has not yet finally decided that it will.
Since the deal was last put before the House of Commons, there have been two significant votes: on preventing a No Deal Brexit and on extending Article 50. The deal may look broadly the same but those two votes have produced fundamentally different circumstances. In addition there has been time for a more considered look at the legal effects and implications of the documents produced overnight on 11 March. The ability of the Government to put the matter back to the House should not depend on the order in which the questions were put last week or the haste in which decisions were made. Indeed, the vote for a delay of the Art 50 deadline resulted in a resolution that specifically provided for a third vote, and so implicitly gave the House’s permission to have one. The Speaker should respect that.
If there is a majority for the deal, preventing the vote would be to frustrate the will of the House. It would be deeply concerning to see a Speaker act in such a way. Those who are opposed to the deal should want to win with a majority on the substance, not by procedural manoeuvring or on a technicality, and the Speaker should allow that.
The Speaker’s reputation for impartiality has already become questionable. It is difficult to see how it could survive the application of the same question rule to a third vote on the deal when the same rule was not applied to prevent Dominic Grieve’s amendments to the business of the House motions to reopen questions that had been finally and conclusively resolved during the passage of the Bill for the Withdrawal Act – a more effective procedure than a motion of the House. It was that Act which enacted as law the rule that the rejection of the deal would produce a No Deal exit, and a procedural technicality should not now be used to frustrate the intended effect of primary legislation, even if it is legislation the House now wishes it had not passed.
Fortunately for the Government, Ministers should be able to overcome any obstacles the Speaker’s ruling places in their way. They could put down a new motion insisting on a vote on the deal “notwithstanding the practice of the House”. If they won a vote on that, there would have to be one. Alternatively, they could also skip ahead and introduce the Implementation Bill. There is nothing in the Withdrawal Act that requires the meaningful vote to come before the passage of the Bill and the Implementation Bill if passed could make the separate approval of the deal by resolution unnecessary. The least attractive option would be to prorogue Parliament and begin a new Parliamentary session.
All these options would involve taking up more Parliamentary time than just allowing another vote, which would be the sensible thing to do if the Government wish to do it and there is a real prospect of it producing a different result. Procedure exists to facilitate not to thwart the wishes of the majority on the substance, and the best test of what the majority wants is a vote, not a ruling from the Chair.
Latest News from
New Local - Evidence proves the value of community power – now it’s time for political action02/03/2021 12:35:00
Giving people power over their places and services produces huge benefits, new research shows, and should be reflected in new legislation.
Raise some taxes now alongside bold stimulus package for ‘balanced recovery’, says IPPR02/03/2021 11:35:00
Think tank says reforms to four key taxes would lay foundation for a fairer and stronger post-pandemic economy
Axe 20 taxes and go for growth, says new IEA research02/03/2021 10:35:00
A new briefing paper from Institute of Economic Affairs, authored by Sam Collins and Alexander Hammond, suggests a radical simplification of our tax code.
IFG - Devolved nations given £19bn extra funding to tackle coronavirus since March 202002/03/2021 09:35:00
A new Institute for Government report shows that since March 2020 an extra £19 billion has been sent from the UK Treasury to the three devolved nations to tackle Covid.
It is time to scrap stamp duty altogether, says IEA expert25/02/2021 11:35:00
Julian Jessop Economics Fellow at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on reports that the Chancellor will extend the stamp duty holiday until June
IFS - Nurses more likely to leave NHS hospitals where costs of living have increased quickly25/02/2021 10:35:00
Improving the retention of NHS staff has been a long-term policy challenge, and will be of even greater importance in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In a free society there should be “no right not to be offended”, says IEA expert25/02/2021 09:35:00
Marc Glendening, Head of Cultural Affairs at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, commented on Merseyside Police’s decision to apologise for claiming “being offensive is an offence” as part of a campaign to encourage people to report hate crime
“Boris Johnson’s sluggish timetable will do unnecessary damage to businesses and livelihoods”, says IEA expert23/02/2021 11:35:00
Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, responded to Boris Johnson’s roadmap to lift lockdown measures in England
King's Fund - New report calls on London’s health and care leaders to ignite efforts to tackle health inequalities23/02/2021 10:35:00
Yesterday’s report from The King’s Fund, Integrated care systems in London: Challenges and opportunities ahead, finds that health and care organisations across London have worked together more closely than ever before to improve and join up services in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.