Commons report: MPs give divisive Brexit debate one last whirl

MPs have formally approved the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, laying out the terms of Britain’s future relationship with the EU. The government won by 521 votes to 73 following a protracted debate, although there was criticism from MPs who wanted more time.

Four hours of speeches by members of the House alternated between notes of triumph and sorrow. Yet while many, including on the opposition benches, had reservations about the technicalities of the deal negotiated by the government, most accepted that it provided a workable platform for Britain’s future domestic and international policy.

Most, but not all. The SNP tabled an amendment to extend the debate to seven hours in the first few minutes, causing a division of the House which used up the first twenty minutes of proceedings. Thereafter, the SNP remained the loudest and proudest column of opposition, ensuring the Prime Minister got little satisfaction from his opening speech. Before he was able to say “sovereignty”, Points of Order were emerging too from the Labour backbenches too.  The exit from the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, and Britain’s withdrawal from the Erasmus scheme for foreign exchange students, would remain high on the rhetorical register throughout the rest of the debate.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was quick to distance himself from fellow critics of the deal. In a measured speech, focused on pragmatism over principle, Starmer repeated his earlier position that “a thin deal is better than no deal” and lambasted those intending to reject it. “It is not in the national interest… to hide in the knowledge that others will save you from the consequences of your own vote”, he said, aiming his remarks at those Labour, Liberal Democrat and SNP MPs who, by rejecting the deal, were, he argued, seeking to ensure a “No Deal” outcome.

The shadow leader sought to skewer the government on detail, instead, casting doubt on the central aspects of the free trade agreement. While he accepted that, in theory, the Bill offered tariff-free and quota-free access for goods trade, the increase in regulations on Rules of Origin and customs presented effective tariffs on trade, he said. “The Prime Minister is pretending that he has sovereignty and zero tariffs and quotas. He hasn’t. The moment he exercises his sovereignty to depart from the level playing field, the tariffs kick in. This isn’t a negotiating triumph. It sets out the fundamental dilemma that has always been at the heart of these negotiations.”

That idea that the deal could serve as an imperfect foundation for future reform united critics on both sides. “We now have an opportunity to forge a new future… today’s vote provides the basis for that”, Starmer concluded, before passing onto Theresa May, whose deal Parliament rejected last year when she was Prime Minister. That deal sought greater cross-border stability on financial services and regulation but at the cost, critics said, of long-term opportunities to diverge from EU rulings. And during today’s debate, May expressed her “disappointment” at the lack of provisions for financial services and data-sharing. Many other MPs would echo May in criticising the apparent increase in red tape created by new customs regulations, especially the appointment of an independent panel to adjudicate equivalence disputes.

Speakers chose one of two strategies. Some used their five minutes on key technicalities, on Gibraltar, for example, or on rights for touring artists under new travel restrictions. Others opted for attempts at sweeping oratory, crafting their speeches around grand visions of nationhood and history.

In the latter category, Ian Blackford’s lamentation on national subjugation took the prize in terms of melodrama. In a ten-minute-long tribute to Scotland’s European history, the SNP’s Westminster leader presented European Union membership as a matter of national survival for Scotland both materially and symbolically. “Forcing our way out of the EU means losing a precious part of who we are”, he proclaimed, citing the Hanseatic League and the “Auld Alliance” between the Scottish and French crowns as clear evidence that “Scotland was European before it was British.” The Act of Union, Blackford claimed, was the first act in a saga of economic vandalism which Brexit only concludes.

That will have raised a few eyebrows among historians. The Union of 1707 opened up new markets for Scotland and it boomed. But Blackford’s words were aimed at voters ahead of next year’s Holyrood elections. The choice, he claimed, was between “a future defined by the disaster of this deal or the vision offered by the Scottish National Party… the choice is clearer than ever, and it won’t go away.” Blackford’s colleague, Kirsty Blackman, later described the Bill as “a steaming mug of excrement”.

Sir Peter Bottomley, Father of the House, offered a cool rebuttal, but the identity issue lingered on. “I think he [Blackford] should be cautious about predicting the future, as I think he should be cautious about interpreting the past”, he said. Following a Hellenic tribute to the government by Bill Cash, comparing the Prime Minister to a modern-day Pericles, it was Iain Duncan Smith’s turn to defend the record of Britain and its place in Europe. “Brexit was never about being anti-European,” he said. It offered a platform for Britain to resume a leading role in global politics: “It is a huge advance on where we might have been… we are a sovereign nation again, and with that power, we can set our own direction on international as well as domestic relations.”

The question of what, exactly, that international future would look like was picked up in the contribution by Hilary Benn, chair of the cross-party committee tasked with helping to manage future relations with the EU. On Gibraltar, Benn noted, a full arrangement had yet to be made, while the government’s efforts to square sovereignty with the national economic interest was, he argued, “never possible” under the terms of a clean break with Europe. But “a new question will confront us from tomorrow”, he warned, urging the House to look forward to “what I hope is a strong economic relationship with our European friends.”

Tom Tugendhat, Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that “British leadership had been missed for too long” in global affairs and that Brexit offered an opportunity for Britain to “do more than roll over trade deals”. Building on the coming G6 conference and the Prime Minister’s coming visit to India, he urged the government to “renew international cooperation and commit ourselves to the environmental revolution” mandated by Britain’s continued membership of the Paris Agreement – a condition of some elements of the Treaty. Tugendhat sought to contest the claim by the SNP and, later, the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas that Brexit reflected “isolationism” and “xenophobia” on the part of its supporters.

David Davis, former Brexit secretary, then stood to praise the government for “standing up to the EU” but he warned that tough diplomatic manoeuvres would be required to ensure that British sovereignty was secured. “Freedom is only as good as what you do with it… and the EU will use the Treaty to their own advantage”, he warned, citing the example of how the EU had “bullied” Switzerland into conformity on migration policy following the passing of national legislation in recent years. Parts of the deal, such as the need to negotiate fishing quotas with the EU after the five-year transition period, and a lack of clarity on equivalence for financial services, left Britain exposed to European tariffs arising from competition disputes.

On domestic goals, too, questions were raised about how the government would use its newly-found sovereignty. “We have to be frank and honest and say that sovereignty itself never put food on anybody’s table, never paid any family’s wages, or mortgage or rent. It’s how we use that sovereignty and control that matters, and sometimes that is best done with restraint and with collaboration with others”, said Sir Bob Neill, Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Labour’s Yvette Cooper, too, highlighted the importance of using the freedoms granted in the Treaty to uphold the government’s promise to “level up” manufacturing communities. The DUP’s Sammy Wilson, who described himself as a “disappointed Brexiteer” and would not vote for the deal, nonetheless hoped that despite the “economic damage” to Northern Ireland brought about by the Protocol, there were “opportunities” to “live up to [the government’s] promises” on state aid.

Lingering beneath claims about regulation, however, remained the question of the Union, simmering after the early interjections of the SNP and Northern Ireland’s DUP. Both Unionist and Republican Northern Irish members rejected the Bill, with the pro-Republican Social Democratic and Unionist Party’s Colum Eastwood branding the whole process a creature of “English nationalism” and a sign that “the UK is coming to an end.” Even Mark Francois, however, Conservative MP and member of the European Research Group, admitted that though the Bill marked “a new chapter” for Britain, “the battle for the Union is about to begin”, with questions remaining on how Scotland would respond to controversies over fishing rights.

The weight of history was invoked throughout what became a largely symbolic debate between triumphant Eurosceptics and sorrowful Remainers, with a chorus of pragmatic voices in between. Great moments of constitutional upheaval and innovation were evoked: the Restoration of 1660 and the Glorious Revolution of 1668. Churchill was mentioned more than once. And for opponents, symbolism and narrative were just as palpable. “I won’t turn my back on a project… based on one of history’s greatest and most noble experiments: to bring nations together in peace out of the ruins of war”, said Caroline Lucas, speaking of the EU.

As Michael Gove humorously pointed out in the debate’s closing minutes, conscientious objectors to the Bill could only have intended their lamentations to be symbolic, with all 73 “Nays” coming from those who had previously rallied for a deal, his jovial remarks putting a smile even on Blackford’s face.

The House of Lords votes on the Bill on Wednesday evening, with Royal Assent expected early on New Year’s Eve. The Brexit saga, or this phase of it, will finally be over – but as the speeches in the Commons made clear today, with new power will come new responsibilities.