DIVISIONS in the Tory Party were blown wide open last night when the Government avoided defeat on changes to the Brexit Customs Bill with a majority of just three.
The vote was on one of four amendments tabled by hardline Tory Brexiteers which Prime Minister Theresa May had accepted earlier yesterday.
The so-called “new clause 36” put forward by the European Research Group (ERG) of pro-Brexit MPs was passed by just 305 votes to 302. The amendment would prevent HMRC from collecting other countries’ tariffs without a reciprocal agreement. The Government’s Brexit White Paper had suggested the UK collect tariffs on behalf of the EU for goods on their way to Europe.
Meanwhile, it emerged last night that the Government has put forward a motion calling for the Commons’ summer recess to start early – on Thursday instead of next Tuesday. Labour’s shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said this was a sign the Government was “weak and frightened”.
In a sign of what was to come in the later vote, the amendments put forward by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his allies were bitterly attacked by Tory Remainers during the debate that preceded a series of votes. Former attorney general Dominic Grieve told the Commons that he would vote against two of the ERG amendments, including new clause 36, which he described as “entirely malevolent” and “directly designed to undermine the White Paper”.
Grieve said: “The Government has accepted amendments which it knows cannot do what the intention is, and not only that, they’ve told my honourable and right honourable friends that and they’ve decided not to say, ‘Oh, then in those circumstances we withdraw the amendment’, to persist with it because it’s just an exercise in bullying.
“It is not my job as a member of Parliament to put on the statute book clauses in bills which are inadequate, incomprehensible and on top of that seek to undermine the government and that’s why I describe them as entirely malevolent and for that reason I shall be voting against both of them this evening.”
Former home secretary Amber Rudd also expressed concern at the Government’s support for new clause 36, while prominent Remainer Anna Soubry said the Government’s decision to accept the ERG amendments had been “complete madness”. She said: “Members on the frontbench and across this place should be shaking their heads with shame – this is the stuff of complete madness. And the only reason that the Government has accepted these amendments is because it is frightened of somewhere in the region of 40 members of Parliament – the hard, no-deal Brexiteers, who should have been seen off a long time ago and should be seen off now.
“These are people who do not want a responsible Brexit, they want their version of Brexit – they don’t even represent the people who actually voted Leave. The consequences of this are grave, not just for our country but also for this party.
SNP economy spokeswoman Kirsty Blackman said during the debate that there is a majority for a customs union among MPs but that would be ignored as a result of “factionalism”.
Instead, Blackman said, it will be “about sovereignty for a very small group of elite Tories who want to have their say, who the Government are letting have their say”.
Blackman added that the Labour frontbench, if they are serious about a “jobs-first Brexit”, needs to be clear that they will support the softest possible Brexit and remain in a customs union. Blackman concluded: “This bill is a mess ... We need everybody in the House to get behind the proposals that actually protect jobs and actually protect the sovereignty of not just an elite few.”
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon took to Twitter during the debate, retweeting a post from ITV News political editor Robert Peston. It said: “If ERG amendment goes to a division. & it looks likely, we could see spectacular embarrassment for government: having surrendered to rebel Brexiters of ERG & adopted ERG amendments as its own, it would be amazing if those amendments were lost because of Tory Remainer rebellion!”
Sturgeon commented: “If this wasn’t so gravely serious, it would be hysterically funny. What on earth does Theresa May think she is doing?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here