LABOUR are threatening to keep the House of Lords sitting all night if necessary to pass a bill extending the Brexit process in a bid to avoid a no-deal scenario.
The backbench European Union (Withdrawal) (No 5) Bill squeaked through the Commons by just one vote late last night.
READ MORE: Proposal to seek Brexit delay passes in Commons by one vote
But an opposition bid to ensure it can be taken through all its parliamentary stages in just one day in the Lords today has run into fierce opposition from pro-Brexit Tory peers.
For Labour, Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town accused them of trying to "thwart" the will of the elected Commons and vowed to be in the chamber all night if necessary to see the legislation through.
Lady Hayter said "unconventional times" called for "unconventional measures" as she called for the House to suspend its standing orders to deal with Labour MP Yvette Cooper's measure in one sitting.
She said the country faced the possibility of an exit from the EU without a deal – "a disorderly exit which nobody wants" and would have dire consequences for industry.
The Bill would ensure there was a legal requirement on the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Article 50 to prevent a no-deal.
"But the Bill can only have effect if we deal with it today so that it can receive Royal Assent in time for the EU Council to consider the application for an extension."
Lady Hayter said the Commons had passed the Bill and expressed a clear view that no-deal was unacceptable but the Government had failed to honour this by tabling a motion to proceed with the legislation in the Lords.
She said seven amendments had been tabled from Tories open about their acceptance of a no-deal scenario in a bid to delay the Bill and "thwart the decision" of the elected Commons.
Lady Hayter accused "a small group of unelected peers" of trying to stop the Lords from considering the measure and then "trying to talk it out" through the night.
But she warned: "We will be here all night ... if that's what it takes to do what the elected Commons has asked us to do."
Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, opposing Labour's move, said, to jeers: "This has got nothing to do with Brexit. This has to do with the procedures of the House."
Lord Forsyth said he was surprised and disappointed to see Labour joining with "insurgents" in the Commons, who had sought to "undermine the process and procedures" of the Commons.
Referring to the Commons, Lord Forsyth said: "At the other end of this building we have a revolutionary action taking place."
Labour former Cabinet minister Lord Blunkett said: "Wasn't part of the campaign during the referendum about the sovereignty of Parliament, not the sovereignty of government?
"Isn't the delay in passing a Bill already through the Commons actually bringing this House into disrepute?"
But Tory former leader Lord Howard of Lympne said: "On the issue underlining these proceedings Parliament delegated its decision to the people of this country and the problem is there is far too many people in Parliament who don't like the answer they got."
Conservative former chancellor Lord Lamont said: "While it is true that there have been expedited proceedings in times of emergency or for security measures or for measures relating to Northern Ireland, those expedited proceedings have normally taken place when both sides of the House agreed it was necessary.
"This measure is being introduced when it was opposed by the Government."
Later Lord Forsyth accused the opposition of "conspiring with those people in the House of Commons to undermine our constitutional system".
Former SDP leader Lord Owen said the Bill had "very serious constitutional implications".
Pointing out Parliament voted for a referendum, he added: "And yet what do the country see? They see an elite in both houses. An elite in London blocking the decision, democratically made by the electorate in the referendum.
"Shame on you if you would do anything to let that reality happen."
Later a move to cut short the debate and proceed with voting on the motions was backed by 239 votes to 118, majority 121.
A short time later, a bid by Lord Forsyth for the Lords to go into committee was defeated by 254 votes to 94, majority 160.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel