Image copyright Getty Images
MPs will vote once more on how a lot of a say Parliament ought to have on Brexit after one other House of Lords defeat for the government.
Peers determined MPs ought to should approve regardless of the government determined to do subsequent if there was no last settlement with the EU.
Their modification to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill was backed by 354 votes to 235.
It means the difficulty is shipped again to the House of Commons for a debate on Wednesday.
The UK is because of go away the European Union in March 2019. And negotiations have been going down over the phrases of its departure.
But there's an ongoing row about what occurs if Parliament votes to reject the ultimate deal reached between the 2 sidesor if no deal is reached.
One facet says Parliament ought to intervene to forestall the UK from "crashing out" of the EU with out a dealhowever critics say the prospect of this occurring would undermine the UK's negotiating hand.
Last week, Theresa May averted defeat on the difficultyhowever rebels mentioned they weren't pleased with the concessions they'd been supplied in return for not voting towards the government.
Now, friends have backed an modification from former Conservative cupboard minister Lord Hailsham, which works additional than the government's proposals on how a lot energy MPs might get.
The 119 majority was 28 greater than the final time friends voted on the so-called "meaningful vote" situation.
Lord Hailsham, who described Brexit as a "national calamity" in his speech, mentioned his modification represented what had been agreed "in good faith" by the would-be Tory rebels, led by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and Downing Street final week.
"It's a matter of honour," he mentioned.
He additionally mentioned his proposals had been in the "national interest", including: "In order to safeguard our nation's vital interests, in the event that there be no deal on the table, Parliament should have the authority to intervene."
Lord Hailsham described his modification as "Grieve Two", which means it was a new model of proposals tabled final week by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who needs Parliament to get extra of a say over Brexit.
It would apply in three eventualities:
- if MPs vote down the UK-EU Brexit deal
- if Theresa May pronounces earlier than 21 January 2019 that no deal has been reached
- if 21 January passes with no deal being struck
Under these circumstances, the government has mentioned, a minister will make a assertion in Parliament, setting out the government's subsequent steps.
The government had supplied MPs the prospect to vote "on neutral terms" on this assertion. But the modification backed by the Lords on Monday goes additional, saying the assertion must be authorized by MPs.
Lord Hailsham additionally criticised what he referred to as "disgraceful" newspaper assaults on Mr Grieve and mentioned it was "perfectly true" that he had held talks with different events in drawing up his modification.
"I make absolutely no apology for that," he mentioned.
"This is the high court of Parliament, and we are not party hacks."
Lord Hailsham's fellow Tory peer Lord True mentioned ministers had already "made a serious attempt to compromise" with the rebels' calls for.
"People outside Parliament are getting a little bit tired of the parliamentary games," he mentioned.
"They actually want to know when they're going to get Brexit, when it will be delivered and when it will be done."