There has been an understandable degree of confusion surrounding the exact nature of the votes last night and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what each vote accomplished, as well as which way I voted in each. Let me be clear; I did not vote for a No Deal Brexit and the commentators who have said that I did are simply wrong. As I have pointed out on my web-site, I do not want a No Deal Brexit and I do not believe that having one is consistent with what we promised in our manifesto. But it is the default position under the law i.e. it is what will happen if we do not agree the Withdrawal Agreement. So, the best way of avoiding a No Deal Brexit is to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement which is what I have done throughout. As I said "leaving without a deal will bring a very uncertain future for companies. This has nothing to do with whether we trade on WTO terms. I do not believe that the Prime Minister wants to leave without a deal either ."
Having said all that I do not believe you can simply abandon an element of your negotiating strategy in mid-course by rejecting the ability to simply walk away. This is not simple brinksmanship; it is a normal part of negotiations that will be familiar to those who have done negotiations around the world. I made it clear before the vote that this was my view and no one should be surprised that I voted to see it happen.
Let me now turn to the amendments and the motion of yesterday (13 March 2019).
Amendment A
The first vote was an amendment tabled by Dame Caroline Spelman MP and moved by Yvette Cooper MP. The intention of the Government motion that this sought to amend was that we would decline to leave the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for a Future Relationship on 29 March 2019. The Government motion also acknowledged the default legislative position. The amendment sought to change this motion to a starker decision, simply saying that The House rejects leaving the EU at any point.
Amendment F
The second vote last night was on an amendment referred to as 'Malthouse B'. The purpose of this amendment was to ensure the government starts to implement plans towards preparing for a 'managed no-deal exit' from the EU. Such measures included suggesting the Government should publish the UK's Day One Tariff Schedules immediately, allowing business more time to prepare for a no-deal scenario. I also could not support this amendment as I do not want a No Deal – managed or otherwise.
Main Government Motion
As a result of Amendment A being passed, the main Government motion now was the same as Amendment A on which I had already voted (see above). The altered motion now stated that the UK could not leave the EU without a deal at any point. I could not support the amended motion.
The votes on these amendments and the motion were highly nuanced and not as straightforward as some imagine. Refusing to take No Deal off the table is not the same as supporting a No Deal exit. To repeat;
- throughout this whole process, I have been clear that I do not support leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for a Future Relationship,
- keeping 'no deal' on the table is an important negotiation strategy which ensures that the UK can negotiate from its strongest possible position.
- the default position under legislation is that unless the UK and the EU agree a deal, or come to a decision to extend Article 50, we will be leaving the EU on March 29th 2019.
I hope this clarifies yesterday's events. There will be more votes in the next few days which take this further.