The majority of MPs voted to support the establishment of a European Union External Action Service.

The main elements of this service are the appointments of:

• A President of the European Council appointed for a renewable term of two and a half years.
• A High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The motion approved read:

• That this House takes note of European Document Nos. 8029/10 and 11507/10, draft Council Decisions establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service; European Document No. 8134/10, draft Regulation on the Financial Regulations for the European External Action Service; and an unnumbered draft Regulation amending Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the conditions of employment of other servants of those Communities; and supports the Government's policy to agree to the Decision establishing the External Action Service at the Foreign Affairs Council in July 2010.

The majority of MPs approved the Government's position that any sanctions proposed by the EU in relation to economic governance do not apply to the UK.

The approved motion stated:

• That this House:
• takes note of European Union Documents
• (a) 9433/10, Commission Communication on reinforcing economic policy co-ordination,
• (b) 11807/10, Commission Communication on enhancing economic policy co-ordination for stability, growth and jobs - tools for stronger EU economic governance,
• (c) 14496/10, Proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) amending Regulation (EC) No. 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure,
• (d) 14497/10, Proposal for a Council Directive on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States,
• (e) 14498/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area,
• (f) 14512/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area,
• (g) 14515/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances, and
• (h) 14520/10, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No. 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and co-ordination of economic policies;
• notes the Report from the Task Force on Economic Governance in the European Union;
• notes with approval that budgetary and fiscal information will continue to be presented to Parliament before being given to EU20 institutions; and
• approves the Government's position, as endorsed by the Task Force that any sanctions proposed should not apply to the United Kingdom in consideration of Protocol 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

The Minister introducing the motion, Conservative MP Mark Hoban the Financial Secretary to The Treasury said^[1]:

• People should listen and read the documents to which we have subscribed, and understand how firm and robust the Government have been in defending our economic sovereignty.

During debate some of his fellow Conservatives expressed doubts, John Redwood MP said^[2]:

• Surely the Minister must confirm that that is a massive extension of European economic government, and the UK has to comply with a lot of it.

To which Minister Hoban responded: "we are exempt from the sanctions regime that the Commission and others have proposed, which applies only to eurozone countries."

Conservative MP Douglas Carswell claimed the UK was subjected to the new EU economic governance regime saying^[3]:

• Paragraph 34 of the Van Rompuy report states that there will be a new legal framework
• "applying to all EU Member States".
• Can the Minister explain what part of "all" excludes Britain?

Mr Carswell explained his vote saying:

• I cannot support the motion, as it will mean a further transfer of powers from this country to Brussels.

Presumably other MPs, who believe the minister, and oppose the transfer of powers from the UK to Brussels might have voted for the motion, which as written merely: "approves the Government's position that any sanctions proposed by the EU in relation to economic governance do not apply to the UK".

It is only the approves element of the motion which actually expresses a position; the other parts of the motion are merely noting items; they are not the operative phrases.

Some MPs such as Mr Carswell appear to have taken a different view on what they were voting on; they appear to have interpreted the vote as being on the content of all the documents cited in the motion.

As the motion stated the Government is taking a "position"; it indicates that it the Government stance is at odds with another viewpoint and implies the matter of if the UK is subject to EU economic governance sanctions is a matter for debate. MPs supporting this motion appear to be supporting the Government in opposing the EU having the power to apply sanctions to the UK in relation to economic governance issues. Despite motion being on support for Government taking a conservative stance towards the EU in this division Euroskeptic Conservative MPs like Mr Redwood and Mr Carswell have voted against their Government.

Three strongly euroskeptic amendments to the motion were proposed, but were not selected for debate by the speaker.^[4]

• [1] Mark Hoban MP, House of Commons, 10th November 2010
• [2] John Redwood MP, House of Commons, 10th November 2010
• [3] Douglas Carswell MP, House of Commons, 10th November 2010
• [4] House of Commons order of business 10th November 2010 - contains text of amendments which were not selected for debate.

The majority of MPs voted to work closely with the European Commission to deliver a strong, principles-based framework for financial sector corporate governance.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10823/10 and Addendum 1 relating to a Green Paper on corporate governance in financial institutions and remuneration policies; and
• supports the Government's approach to work closely with the European Commission to deliver a strong, principles-based framework for financial sector corporate governance.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring a referendum prior to UK giving emergency financial assistance via the EU to member states other than the Republic of Ireland.

The rejected amendment, proposed by William Cash MP (Stone, Conservative) stated^[1]:

page 5, line 35, at end insert-

'(l) a decision to extend the use of the European Financial Stability Mechanism to member states other than the Republic of Ireland.'.

This would have affected clause 6(4) of the bill^[2][3] which lists the decisions which must not be adopted by the UK without both an Act of Parliament and approval by a majority of those voting in a referendum

• [1] Official Record, House of Commons, 25 January 2011
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the European Union Bill (now the European Union Act 2011)
• [3] European Union Bill as at 11 November 2011 (the version under consideration at the time of the vote).

The majority of MPs voted for the UK not to be required to contribute to the European Stability Mechanism, which exists to give financial assistance to Eurozone countries in need. The majority of MP's supported the Government's policy that financial assistance for euro area Member States should primarily be provided by other euro area Member States.

The motion passed in this vote was:

• That this House
• ''takes note of European Union Documents No. 9606/10, relating to a Council Regulation establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism, No. 12119/10, relating to a draft amending budget No. 7 to the General Budget 2010-Statement of expenditure by Section-Section III-Commission, and No. 17361/10, Commission Communication on the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism;
• supports the Government's view that whilst it is in the interests of all Member States to support a stable and fully functioning euro area, financial assistance for euro area Member States should primarily be provided by other euro area Member States; and
• supports the Government's position that the United Kingdom should not be required to contribute to the European Stability Mechanism that will permanently replace both the European Financial Stability Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the creation of the European Stability Mechanism – a permanent measure to give financial assistance to Eurozone countries in need.

The majority of MPs agreed with the draft European Council decision to amend Article 136^[1] of the Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union^[2].

Article 136 is about EU member states with the euro as their currency. This change is made in accordance with section 6 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008.^[3]

The agreed amendment would add the following text to Article 136:

‘The Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a whole. The granting of any required financial assistance under the mechanism will be made subject to strict conditionality.’

• [1] Lords EU Select Committee report to inform debate on Amending Article 136
• [2] Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union
• [3] European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 - Section 6

The majority of MPs voted to dilute the strength of the UK's opposition to bailouts by the EU of member countries in financial trouble.

The motion under debate, moved by Mark Reckless MP^[1] read:

• "That this House
• notes with concern that UK taxpayers are potentially being made liable for bail-outs of Eurozone countries when the UK opted to remain outside the Euro and, despite agreement in May 2010 that the EU-wide European Financial Stability Mechanism (EFSM) of €60 billion would represent only 12 per cent of the non-IMF contribution with the remaining €440 billion being borne by the Eurozone through the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), that the EFSM for which the UK may be held liable is in fact being drawn upon to the same or a greater extent than the EFSF;
• further notes that the European Scrutiny Committee has stated its view that the EFSM is legally unsound;and
• requires the Government to place the EFSM on the agenda of the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council and to vote against continued use of the EFSM unless a Eurozone-only arrangement which relieves the UK of liability under the EFSM has by then been agreed.

Via this division the majority of MPs agreed to make the following amendment to the original motion tabled by Chris Heaton-Harris MP:

• to leave out from ‘unsound’ to the end of the Question and add:
• "urges the Government to raise the issue of the EFSM at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers or the European Council; and supports any measures which would lead to an agreement for a Eurozone-only arrangement."

Once the amendment was accepted the amended motion was passed without a vote.

Speaking in the debate preceding the vote Mark Reckless MP said:

• If they believe that it is sufficient to urge the Government to raise the issue, then vote yes to the amendment regrettably tabled by my hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris. If they believe that we need to put a stop to these bail-outs and say, “Enough is enough, it is our money, we did not join your currency, and we want our money back”, then vote no to the amendment.

The text of the motion was more strongly against bailouts before the amendment.

• [1] Mark Reckless MP, moving motion, House of Commons 24th May 2011

The majority of MPs voted against an EU Directive^[1] on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest

The text of the approved motion was:

• That this House :
• takes note of European Union Document No. 11497/11 and Addenda 1 and 2 relating to the Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest; and
• supports the Government’s recommendation not to opt into the Directive in accordance with Protocol (No.21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

==

• [1] EU webpage on Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty

The majority of MPs voted to support stronger governance of the Schengen area and adding Bulgaria and Romania to it.

The text of the motion approved by the majority of MPs was:

• That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 14357/11, a Commission Communication: Schengen governance —strengthening the area without internal border control, No. 14359/11, a Draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances, No. 16664/10, a Draft Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, No. 14358/11, an amended proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis, and No. 14142/10, a Draft Council Decision on the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in the Republics of Bulgaria and Romania; and
• supports the Government’s approach for stronger governance of the Schengen area whilst safeguarding the Member States’ primary responsibility in matters of internal security; securing an effective evaluation and monitoring mechanism which includes the UK in respect of Schengen provisions in which the UK takes part; and supporting the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area as they have met the criteria and standards required of them under the terms of their Acts of Accession.

The majority of MPs commended the Prime Minister for refusing to sign up to an EU Treaty without safeguards for the UK.

The text of the approved motion was:

• That this House
• commends the Prime Minister on his refusal at the European Council to sign up to a Treaty without safeguards for the UK;
• regards the use of the veto in appropriate circumstances to be a vital means of defending the national interests of the UK; and
• recognises the desire of the British people for a rebalancing of the relationship with our European neighbours based on co-operation and mutually beneficial economic arrangements.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of EU data sharing for criminal justice purposes.

The full text of the approved motion was:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Document No. 5833/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Draft Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and the free movement of such data; and
• supports the Government’s recommendation not to exercise its right to opt out of this draft Directive under Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (The Schengen Protocol).

The majority of MPs voted to call on the UK Government to seek a real terms cut in the European Union budget.

MPs were debating a motion on the UK contribution to the European Union budget. Under discussion was the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) which is the budget framework for the European Union agreed every seven years.

MP Mark Reckless proposed ammending the motion^[1] which originally called on the Government to seek:

"significant savings to the Commission’s seven year framework" and stated "payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives"

by replacing this, and other text, with calling on the Government to

"strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms"

The full motion, as amended as a result of this vote, reads:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Documents No. 16844/11, No. 16845/11, No. 16846/11, No. 16847/11, No. 16848/11, No. 6708/12 and Addenda 1–3, No. 9007/12, No. 12356/12, and No. 13620/12, relating to the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014–2020;
• agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control;
• so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms.

Explaining his amendment Mr Reckless said^[2]:

• We simply cannot afford to agree an inflationary increase to the EU. This country has 13% less income than it had just five years ago, and we are seeing 20% reductions to domestic spending. According to the House of Commons Library, if an inflationary increase is agreed, next year it will amount to £290 million, every penny of which we will have to borrow. Hon. Members will have spoken to constituents on different issues, and police officers have been to my surgery. They understand that their pay is frozen, although they are less happy about changes to their pay and conditions and about not getting their increments, but they do not understand why other elements of the budget, particularly the EU, should be guaranteed inflationary increases, let alone inflationary increases all the way through to 2020.

The original motion text and the text of the amendment are also present in Hansard.

• [1] House of Commons Order of Business Wednesday 31 October 2012 - Includes text of motion and amendments. (No line numbers are given where the original motion is printed making interpretation tricky)
• [2] Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative) House of Commons 31 October 2012

The majority of MPs voted against the UK's involvement in a European Supervisory Authority, the European Banking Authority.

The motion approved in this vote was:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Documents No. 13682/12, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No…/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central 5 Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13683/12, a draft Regulation conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions, No. 13854/12, Commission Communication: A roadmap towards a Banking Union, and an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum: Towards a Genuine Economic and 10 Monetary Union: Interim report; and
• welcomes the Government’s decision to remain outside the new supervisory arrangements while protecting the single market in financial services.

The majority of MPs voted to approve the Government's assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position for submission to the European Commission.

The approved motion read:

• That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires Parliament's approval for its report to the European Council and Commission giving its assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to the goals set out in Article 2 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community as required by Articles 103 and 104c of the Treaty of Rome

The Maastricht Treaty amended Article 2 of The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to state:

• The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.’

Article 104c (from the Treaty of Rome) states "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits" and sets out procedures for monitoring compliance and taking action if the requirement is breached. Article 103 states "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council" and sets out procedures for such co-ordination.

The majority of MPs voted to reject a proposal to add a condition to the UK's proposed opt out from EU police and criminal justice measures requiring continuing participation in the European Arrest Warrant and other joint processes.

MPs were debating a government motion on their proposed opt out from EU police and criminal justice measures; an alternative motion, which was rejected, was moved by Chris Bryant MP (Rhondda, Labour) read:

• believes the UK’s notification to the Council, Commission and Presidency to opt out of all EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before December 2009 can only be made once the Council and Commission have committed to the UK’s ongoing participation in the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System II, Joint Investigations Teams, EU Council decision 2000/375/JHA on combating internet child pornography, EU Council decision 2002/348/JHA on international football security co-operation, exchange of Criminal Records, Europol and Eurojust, which will form part of the Government’s formal application to rejoin the measures in Command Paper 8671 in accordance with Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the TFEU

This vote was followed by a vote on the government motion.

• [1] Official Record, House of Commons, 15 July 2013

The majority of MPs voted to opt out of all EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before December 2009 then seek to rejoin those where it is in the national interest to do so.

The text of the motion agreed to was:

• That this House believes that the UK should opt out of all EU police and criminal justice measures adopted before December 2009 and seek to rejoin measures where it is in the national interest to do so and invites the European Scrutiny Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Justice Select Committee to submit relevant reports before the end of October, before the Government opens formal discussions with the Commission, Council and other Member States, prior to the Government’s formal application to rejoin measures in accordance with Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the TFEU.

This vote was preceded by a vote on a rejected opposition alternative to the government motion.

During the debate the original government motion^[2] was amended without a vote following an accepted proposal^[3] from MP Alan Beith to omit a reference to the set of measures in Command Paper 8671.

• [1] Official Record, House of Commons, 15 July 2013
• [2] Theresa May MP (Maidenhead, Conservative) , House of Commons, 15 July 2013
• [3] Alan Beith MP, (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Liberal Democrat), House of Commons, 15 July 2013

The majority of MPs voted to opt into Europol's European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training so long as Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security; and against considering the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers when deciding when to opt in.

MPs were considering the motion:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Document No. 8229/13 and Addenda 1 to 6, a draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA; and
• agrees with the Government that the UK should opt into the Regulation post-adoption, provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.

This vote was on a, rejected, proposed amendment to that motion:

• amendment (a), in line 4, leave out from ‘2005/681/JHA;’ to end and add—
• ‘and calls on the Government to consider the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers in deciding when to adopt the measure.’.

==

Decision 2009/371/JHA established Europol

Decision 2005/681/JHA established the European Police College (CEPOL)

==

• [1] Written statement to Parliament - Opt-in decisions to be debated in Parliament in government time in 2013

The majority of MPs voted in favour of an EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru

In the committee considering the order Michael Fallon MP summarised the content of the agreement^[1]:

• This trade agreement is comprehensive. It includes substantially improved market access for our exports to Colombia and Peru through tariff elimination, the removal of technical and procedural obstacles to trade, improved market access in government procurement and services, common rules to level the playing field in areas such as the protection of intellectual property, and greater transparency on subsidies and processes to settle disputes.

The motion voted on was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013^[2], which was laid before this House on 21 October, be approved.

The motion approved order states the trade agreement^[3] is to be regarded as an EU Treaty as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

==

• [1] Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee - Tuesday 26 November 2013
• [2] The European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013
• [3] Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru
• [4] Consideration of European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement) Order 2013 by the House of Lords Grand Committee Monday, 2 December 2013

The majority of MPs voted in favour of a €185 million EU "Europe for Citizens" programme of activities and to require EU institutions to deposit their archives at the European University Institute

MPs voted to give the European Union (Approvals) Bill^[1] its second reading; ie. to approve the basic principles of the Bill and to allow it to continue on its path to becoming law. The Bill gives the UK's approval to two European Union measures:

• 1. The draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation on the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence (document number 6867/13)
• 2. The draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme “Europe for Citizens” (document number 12557/13).

The first measure requires all the European institutions, except the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Central Bank (ECB) to deposit their physical archives at the European University Institute in Florence.^[2]

The second measure renews the "Europe for Citizens" Programme and gives it a budget of €185 million for 2014-20 (down from €229 million originally proposed).^[3] Activities to be funded under the programme come under two themes: "Remembrance and European Citizenship" and "Democratic engagement and civic participation".

The reduction in cost of the "Europe for Citizens" Programme along with an estimation of the UK's contribution at £2 million to £3 million a year, was included in a speech by Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative)^[4] during the debate leading up to the vote.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Approvals) Bill 2013-14
• [2] European Scrutiny Committee assessment of a Draft Regulation amending Regulation No 354/83 as regards the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence
• [3] European Scrutiny Committee assessment of a Draft Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-20 the Programme Europe for Citizens
• [4] Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative), House of Commons, 13 January 2014

The majority of MPs voted against a proposal to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to UK taxpayer-funded benefits.

MPs were voting on the main principles of The Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill^[1]; the Bill would::

• Require a declaration of nationality be made before someone could apply for a taxpayer-funded benefit or apply for a national insurance number.
• Remove eligibility for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit from European Union and European Economic Area nationals unless their entitlement derives from them being a spouse or dependant of a UK citizen.
• Cap UK taxpayer funded benefits paid to European Union and European Economic Area nationals at the level of the equivalent benefit which the person would receive if they were resident in the country of which they are a national.
• Stop UK taxpayer-funded benefits being paid to European Economic Area citizens unless the benefit arises from an insurance based contribute which the claimant has made.

On moving the motion to read the Bill a second time and therefore allow it to progress towards becoming law Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative) MP stated the Bill would make:

• “provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to taxpayer-funded benefits.”

The Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided because fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, and the business under consideration stood over until the next sitting of the House^[3]

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill 2013-14
• [2] Christopher Chope MP (Christchurch, Conservative), House of Commons 17 January 2014
• [3] Official Record, House of Commons, 17 January 2014

The majority of MPs voted to support the that view that promoting jobs and growth in the EU, including by completing the EU Single Market, is the top priority.

The text of the approved motion was:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014;
• agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and
• supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.

The expression of support for "completing the Single Market" makes this a pro-EU motion.

The majority of MPs voted not to limit the EU's "Europe for Citizens" programme to education about, and reflection on, the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history and against explicitly forbidding the programme from promoting European citizenship, integration or institutions.

The amendment rejected was:

• amendment 4, in page 1, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
• ‘(2) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU^[1] to adopt the Council Regulation on the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence (document number 6867/ 13) is approved.
• (2A) The draft decision of the Council of the European Union under Article 352 of TFEU to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme "Europe for Citizens" (document number 12557/13) shall be approved once—
• (a) the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament stating that—
• (i) expenditure under the programme may be used only to fund education about and reflection on the Holocaust, armed conflicts and totalitarian regimes in Europe’s history; and
• (ii) no expenditure under the programme may be used to fund the promotion of European Union citizenship, integration or institutions; and
• (b) following the laying of this report, both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution that the draft decision shall be approved.’.

The effect of the amendments would have been to add the requirements described in subsections (a) and (b) restricting the scope of the "Europe for Citizens" programme.

MPs were debating the European Union (Approvals) Bill^[2]

The Bill approves the "Europe for Citizens" Programme and gives it a budget of €185 million for 2014-20 (down from €229 million originally proposed).^[3] Activities to be funded under the programme come under two themes: "Remembrance and European Citizenship" and "Democratic engagement and civic participation".

During a previous debate on the Bill an estimation of the UK's contribution to the costs of the "Europe for Citizens" Programme as being £2 million to £3 million a year, was provided in a speech by Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative)^[4]

==

• [1] The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Approvals) Bill, now the European Union (Approvals) Act 2014
• [3] European Scrutiny Committee assessment of a Draft Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-20 the Programme Europe for Citizens
• [4] Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative), House of Commons, 13 January 2014

The majority of MPs voted in favour of a €185 million EU "Europe for Citizens" programme of activities and to require EU institutions to deposit their archives at the European University Institute

MPs voted to give the European Union (Approvals) Bill^[1] its third reading; ie. to approve the Bill as it stood and in favour of it becoming law. The Bill gives the UK's approval to two European Union measures:

• 1. The draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation on the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence (document number 6867/13)
• 2. The draft decision to adopt the Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-2020 the programme “Europe for Citizens” (document number 12557/13).

The first measure requires all the European institutions, except the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Central Bank (ECB) to deposit their physical archives at the European University Institute in Florence.^[2]

The second measure renews the "Europe for Citizens" Programme and gives it a budget of €185 million for 2014-20 (down from €229 million originally proposed).^[3] Activities to be funded under the programme come under two themes: "Remembrance and European Citizenship" and "Democratic engagement and civic participation".

The reduction in cost of the "Europe for Citizens" Programme along with an estimation of the UK's contribution at £2 million to £3 million a year, was included in a speech by Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative)^[4] during the debate leading up to the vote.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Approvals) Bill 2013-14
• [2] European Scrutiny Committee assessment of a Draft Regulation amending Regulation No 354/83 as regards the deposit of the historical archives of the institutions at the European University Institute in Florence
• [3] European Scrutiny Committee assessment of a Draft Council Regulation establishing for the period 2014-20 the Programme Europe for Citizens
• [4] Edward Vaizey MP (Wantage, Conservative), House of Commons, 13 January 2014

The majority of MPs voted to approve the Government's assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position for submission to the European Commission.

The approved motion read:

• That this House
• approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in Budget 2014 and Autumn Statement 2013, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook (2014) and Fiscal Sustainability Report (2013), which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires Parliament's approval for its report to the European Council and Commission giving its assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to the goals set out in Article 2 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community as required by Articles 103 and 104c of the Treaty of Rome

The Maastricht Treaty amended Article 2 of The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to state:

• The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.’

Article 104c (from the Treaty of Rome) states "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits" and sets out procedures for monitoring compliance and taking action if the requirement is breached. Article 103 states "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council" and sets out procedures for such co-ordination.

The majority of MPs voted for continued close working between the UK and other European Union states on criminal justice as well as for associated data protection measures.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs in this vote was

• That the draft Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.

The regulations would transpose eleven European Union criminal justice and data protection measures into UK law. These measures were among those the UK had earlier in the year decided to opt out of.

The eleven measures in question relate to the following schemes^[1]:

• Confiscation and Freezing Orders
• "ECRIS"; which requires Member States to inform each other about convictions of EU nationals in another Member State
• European Supervision Order; which enables a suspect or defendant subject to a pre-trial non-custodial supervision measure (such as supervised bail) in a Member State in which they are not resident, to be supervised in their home, or other, Member State un til such time as their trial takes place.
• Joint Investigation Teams (“JITs”); to prevent and combat crime (especially drug trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism) by providing for closer cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and other competent authorities in Member States.
• Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties scheme; which requires Member States to collect financial penalties (of over £55.31 or €70) transferred by other Member States, as they would a domestic financial penalty.
• Prisoner Transfer Framework; which provides for the compulsory transfer of foreign national offenders between Member States without the consent of the prisoner
• Swedish Initiative; which seeks to simplify the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities in Member States for the purposes of conducting criminal investigations or criminal intelligence operations.
• Trials in absentia; several measures relate to this scheme which deals with the issue of judgements in absentia and require mutual recognition of such judgements.
• Data Protection Framework Decision; which establishes a common level of protection and an appropriate level of security when Member States exchange personal data within the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

Earlier in the day Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling stated^[2]:

• I want to be clear that the debate and vote will be taken as a vote on the whole package of 35 measures as a whole

However the Speaker, pre-empting such a statement, had said^[3]:

• I ask hon. and right hon. Members to lighten the burden on the Chair by holding in their minds the actual question before the House.

The Speaker also clarified explicitly that those measures which the UK was to opt back into which were not covered by the regulations (as a result of them not needing to be transposed into UK law) were not the subject of the vote. The specific scheme, not covered by the regulations and related vote that MPs were particularly interested in was the European Arrest Warrant. The Speaker said^[4]:

• I can. Members can interpret all they like, but there will not today be a vote on the specific matter of membership of the European arrest warrant. That is the reality.

==

• [1] Draft explanatory memorandum to the The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014
• [2] Chris Grayling MP (Epsom and Ewell, Conservative), House of Commons, 10 November 2014
• [3] John Bercow (Speaker), House of Commons, 10 November 2014
• [4] John Bercow (Speaker), House of Commons, 10 November 2014

The majority of MPs voted for the UK to rejoin a series of European Union schemes for closer police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote stated:

• That this House endorses the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European Union Justice and Home Affairs measures, including the European Arrest Warrant.

In July 2013 the UK took a decision^[1] to opt out of 130 European Union measures in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.^[2]

The UK Government identified 35 measures it wished to rejoin prior to the opt out decision taking effect on 1 December 2014^[1]. These 35 European Union measures, to which the motion relates, are listed, and explained, in the Explanatory memorandum to The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014^[3].

The measures relate to:

• The European Arrest Warrant which is designed to speed up the extradition process between Member States, reducing the potential for administrative delay under previous extradition arrangements.
• The Asset Recovery Office
• Combating indecent images of children
• Confiscation and Freezing Orders
• The Customs Information System
• The Data Protection Secretariat
• "ECRIS" measures which require Member States to inform each other about convictions of EU nationals in another Member State and permit Member States to request the previous convictions of individuals from the Member State of nationality.
• The European Judicial Network
• Eurojust
• Europol
• European Supervision Order
• FADO, a computerised archive containing images and textual information relating to falsified and authentic identity documents such as passports, identity cards, visas, residence permits and driving licences.
• Financial Intelligence Units
• Football Safety and Security
• International Undertakings in the Fight of Organised Crime (GENVAL)
• Joint Investigation Teams (“JITs”)
• Mutual Recognition of Financial Penalties
• Customs co-operation and mutual assistance
• Prisoner Transfer Framework Decision
• The Swedish Initiative, which seeks to simplify the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities in Member States for the purposes of conducting criminal investigations or criminal intelligence operations.
• Taking Into Account Convictions
• The recognition of decisions handed down in absentia in different ways and the mutual recognition of judgments
• A common level of protection and an appropriate level of security when Member States exchange personal data within the framework of police and judicial cooperation
• The Schengen Convention (as amended by two measures which are also listed) aims to tackle the threat of cross-border crime by facilitating police cooperation and cross-border surveillance.
• SIS II, the new EU database for swapping alerts between Member States in relation to missing and wanted people and objects.

[There are less than 35 items in the list as a some of the listed schemes involve a number of measures (European Union decisions)]

An effect of the opt-out of the 130 measures was preventing the Court of Justice of the European Union gaining jurisdiction over these measures in relation to the UK.^[2]

• [1] Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 3 July 2014
• [2] Command Paper 8671 Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2014
• [3] The Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014

The majority of MPs voted to support the Government's decision not to opt into a European Union response to disproportionate migration into certain states involving measures to relocate individuals in need of international protection (asylum).

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Documents No. 9355/15 and Addendum and No. 11132/15, international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece, No. 11843/15 and Addendum, establishing a crisis relocation mechanism, and No. 11844/15 and Addendum, international protection for the benefit of Italy, Greece and Hungary; and
• agrees with the Government’s decision'' not to opt in to proposals establishing provisional measures for the relocation of individuals in need of international protection or to the proposal establishing a crisis relocation mechanism.

The majority of MPs voted to bring in a requirement for digital tachographs for the enforcement of rules on driving time and rest periods for drivers of road haulage and passenger transport vehicles.

The new digital tachographs are to include wireless technology allowing enforcement officers to read them remotely, and to provide the information they hold to traffic systems designed to tackle congestion and reduce energy consumption.

The new tachographs are to use satellite positioning systems and are intended to be resistant to tampering and fraud.

It is expected the new digital tachographs will be required to be installed in new vehicles from around 2019. The date will depend on when detailed specifications are published.^[1][2][3]

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in the vote was:

• That the draft Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

The regulations implement EU Regulation 165/2014.

In addition to the provisions mentioned above the regulations allow the Secretary of State to authorise field tests of non-type approved tachographs.

The regulations also continue, and extend, exceptions to drivers’ hours rules.

The exemption for drivers of vehicles of up to 7.5 tonnes used for carrying materials, equipment or machinery for the driver’s use in the course of his work which previously applied within 50km of their base is applied to with 100km of the base.

The regulations also continue exemptions for postal vehicles, vehicles used for the carriage of live animals between farms and markets as well as markets and slaughterhouses. and certain gas or electric vehicles used within 100km of a base.

The regulations raise standards that workshops must meet in order to install, check, inspect and repair tachographs.^[1][2][3]

Following the vote the draft legislation was made a UK Statutory Instrument^[4].

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016
• [2] Government consultation letter describing the changes in the regulations
• [3] Government consultation document describing the changes in the regulations
• [4] The Passenger and Goods Vehicles (Tachographs) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

The majority of MPs voted against opting in to a European Union proposal for a directive on combating terrorism, instead supporting work directly with other countries and recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That this House
• takes note of European Union Document No. 14926/15, a Proposal for a Directive on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA;
• endorses the Government’s decision not to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and
• supports the Government’s approach of working with other Member States to support our international partners and strengthen the international response to the threat from terrorism, recognising that national security is a matter for individual nations through their sovereign Parliaments.

The majority of MPs voted to take account of carbon dioxide emissions traded via the European Union to Emissions Trading Scheme when calculating the state of the UK carbon account for periods from 2028.

MPs were considering the Energy Bill.^[1]

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled:Emissions trading: United Kingdom carbon account and stated:

• In section 27 (net UK carbon account) of the Climate Change Act 2008, after subsection (3) insert—
• ‘(3A) In respect of any period commencing after 31 December 2027, the regulations must not make provision for carbon units to be credited to or debited from the net United Kingdom carbon account on the basis of the number of carbon units surrendered by operators of installations in the United Kingdom pursuant to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.’”

Speaking during the debate Alan Whitehead MP (Labour) the Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change explained the intent of the new clause saying:^[2]

• This new clause seeks a slightly different route to the goal of more effective carbon accounting in the fifth carbon budget and beyond. It seeks to make the Government directly accountable for emissions in the sectors covered by the EU emission trading system when determining whether the UK is staying within its national carbon budgets. The EU ETS covers emissions in the electricity sector and heavy industry, and the carbon accounting regulations currently allow the Government to ignore emissions from those sectors when determining whether the carbon budgets have been met.

Section 11 of the Climate Change Act 2008 required a Secretary of State to set a limit on the net amount of carbon units that may be credited to the net UK carbon account for each budgetary period, Section 27 of that Act provides details of how the net amount of carbon units emitted is to be calculated.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Energy Bill
• [2] Alan Whitehead MP (Labour), House of Commons, 14 March 2016

The majority of MPs voted to approve the Government's assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position for submission to the European Commission.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires Parliament's approval for its report to the European Council and Commission giving its assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to the goals set out in Article 2 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community as required by Articles 103 and 104c of the Treaty of Rome

The Maastricht Treaty amended Article 2 of The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to state:

• The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.’

Article 104c (from the Treaty of Rome) states "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits" and sets out procedures for monitoring compliance and taking action if the requirement is breached. Article 103 states "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council" and sets out procedures for such co-ordination.

The majority of MPs voted to say the UK needs to stay in the EU.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• believes that the UK needs to stay in the EU because it offers the best framework for trade, manufacturing, employment rights and cooperation to meet the challenges the UK faces in the world in the twenty-first century; and
• notes that tens of billions of pounds worth of investment and millions of jobs are linked to the UK’s membership of the EU, the biggest market in the world.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• notes that there are approximately three million nationals of other EU member states living in the UK;
• further notes that many more UK nationals are related to nationals of other EU member states;
• rejects the view that these men, women and children should be used as bargaining chips in negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU; and
• calls on the Government to commit with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain.

The majority of MPs voted for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That leave be given to bring in a bill to implement the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from membership of the European Union; and for connected purposes.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union; for a plan for leaving the European Union to be published before the process of leaving starts; and for starting the process of leaving by 31 March 2017.

MPs were considering the following motion:

• That this House
• recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK;
• notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016;
• recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union;
• confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and
• calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked.

In this vote an amendment to add the following at the end was approved:

• “, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October;
• recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and
• further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union; for a plan for leaving the European Union to be published before the process of leaving starts; and for starting the process of leaving by 31 March 2017.

MPs were considering the following substantive motion:

• That this House
• recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK;
• notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016;
• recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union;
• confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and
• calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked.
• consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and
• further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.”

The latter three elements had been added to the motion following the previous vote.

The majority of MPs voted to empower the Prime Minister to give notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1]

The Bill's operative clause was titled: Power to notify withdrawal from the EU and stated:

• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
• (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

MPs were discussing the motion:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The amendment rejected in this vote sought to replace the existing text so the motion would have become:

• That this House
• declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill as the Government has set out no provision for effective consultation with the devolved administrations on implementing Article 50, has yet to publish a White Paper detailing the Government's policy proposals, has refused to give a guarantee on the position of EU nationals in the UK, has left unanswered a range of detailed questions covering many policy areas about the full implications of withdrawal from the single market and has provided no assurance that a future parliamentary vote will be anything other than irrelevant, as withdrawal from the European Union follows two years after the invoking of Article 50 if agreement is not reached in the forthcoming negotiations, unless they are prolonged by unanimity.”

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted to empower the Prime Minister to give notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1]

The Bill's operative clause was titled: Power to notify withdrawal from the EU and stated:

• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
• (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

The majority of MPs supported the following motion

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path to becoming law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted against only allowing the Prime Minister to give notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union a month after the approach to, and objectives for, withdrawal negotiations have been agreed by representatives of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland administrations.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation and stated:

• The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.

Clause/section 1(1) of the Bill stated:

• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

The Joint Ministerial Committee (EU negotiations), chaired by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, is a forum comprising ministers from the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments, and the Northern Ireland Executive to continue the UK Government’s work with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to secure the best Brexit deal for the whole of the United Kingdom.^[2]

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Joint Ministerial Committee (EU negotiations) communiqué: 9 November 2016

The majority of MPs voted not to prevent the Prime Minister giving notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union if the European Council have not undertaken that if the United Kingdom Parliament doesn't agree the terms of the United Kingdom's leaving of the European Union the United Kingdom's will remain an EU member under the existing terms.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled UK — EU membership: reset (No. 2) and stated

• The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until she has sought an undertaking from the European Council that failure by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to approve the terms of exit for the UK will result in the maintenance of UK membership on existing terms.

Section 1(1) stated:

• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted not to make publication of an assessment of the financial liability of the UK towards the EU, and a statement on the economic impact of the UK leaving the single market, a prerequisite for the Prime Minister giving notification of the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Financial Liability of the UK towards the EU and stated:

• “The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has—
• (a) published an assessment of the financial liability of the UK towards the EU following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and
• (b) made a statement to the House of Commons on the economic impact of the United Kingdom leaving the single market.”

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the Prime Minister to give a series of undertakings before giving notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Conduct of negotiations and stated:

• “Before giving any notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the Prime Minister shall give an undertaking to have regard to the public interest during negotiations in—
• (a) maintaining a stable and sustainable economy,
• (b) preserving peace in Northern Ireland,
• (c) having trading arrangements with the European Union for goods and services that are free of tariff and non-tariff barriers and further regulatory burdens,
• (d) co-operation with the European Union in education, research and science, environment protection, and preventing and detecting serious and organised crime and terrorist activity,
• (e) maintaining all existing social, economic, consumer and workers’ rights.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This new clause sets out statutory objectives that the Government must have regard to whilst carrying out negotiations under article 50.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted for notice of the UK's withdrawal from the EU to preserve rights acquired in Northern Ireland as a result of European Union membership, and to preserve the right of the people of Northern Ireland determine for themselves if they prefer a union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland and to retain the Republic of Ireland's status of not being considered a foreign country for the purposes of UK law.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 86, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
• “with the exception of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949, and subject to—
• (a) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland of 10 April 1998, and
• (b) preserving acquired rights in Northern Ireland under European Union law.”

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This amendment requires the power to notify withdrawal to be exercised with regard to the constitutional, institutional and rights provisions of the Belfast Agreement.

Had it not been rejected the above text would have been added to the end of clause 1 of the Bill^[2].

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Text of the Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted to empower the Prime Minister to give notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.

The Bill^[2] was only comprised of those two clauses which stated:

• 1.
• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
• (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.
• 2. Short title
• This Act may be cited as the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Text of the Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted against seeking to protect the residence rights of citizens of the European Union and their family members who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Effect of notification of withdrawal and stated:

• “Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This savings new clause is designed to protect the residence rights of those EU citizens who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the date of the EU referendum. It would ensure that those rights do not fall away automatically two years after notice of withdrawal has been given, if no agreement is reached with the EU. This new clause would implement a recommendation made in paragraph 53 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report ‘The human rights implications of Brexit’.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Text of the Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted against the UK remaining a member of the European Atomic Agency Community (Euratom) when withdrawing from the European Union and against treating leaving Euratom separately from leaving the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Nuclear Collaboration and stated:

• “(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the UK’s membership of the European Atomic Agency Community (Euratom).
• (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other Act, Her Majesty’s Government shall treat the process of leaving Euratom as separate to that of leaving the European Union

Explanatory notes to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[2] state the EU includes Euratom:

• "The power that is provided by clause 1(1) applies to withdrawal from the EU. This includes the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Euratom’), as the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 sets out that the term "EU" includes (as the context permits or requires) Euratom (section 3(2)). "

The Euratom programme focuses on^[3]:

• nuclear fission and radiation protection
• fusion research aiming at developing magnetic confinement fusion as an energy source.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Explanatory notes to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
• [3] Euratom programme webpage

The majority of MPs voted to empower the Prime Minister to give notification of the United Kingdom's intention to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1]

The Bill's operative clause was titled: Power to notify withdrawal from the EU and stated:

• (1) The Prime Minister may notify, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.
• (2) This section has effect despite any provision made by or under the European Communities Act 1972 or any other enactment.

The majority of MPs supported the following motion

• That the Bill be now read a Third time.

The support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path to becoming law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17

The majority of MPs voted against guaranteeing EU derived rights, and the potential to acquire residency rights, for EU and EEA citizens legally resident in the UK.

MPs were considering the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The rejected Lords amendment 1^[2] sought to add the following additional subsection to clause one of the Bill:

“( ) Within three months of exercising the power under subsection (1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future.”

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill 2016-17
• [2] Lords amendments to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, 8 March 2017

The majority of MPs voted to approve the Government's assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position for submission to the European Commission.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs taking part in this vote was:

• That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires Parliament's approval for its report to the European Council and Commission giving its assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to the goals set out in Article 2 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community as required by Articles 103 and 104c of the Treaty of Rome

The Maastricht Treaty amended Article 2 of The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community to state:

• The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.’

Article 104c (from the Treaty of Rome) states "Member States shall avoid excessive government deficits" and sets out procedures for monitoring compliance and taking action if the requirement is breached. Article 103 states "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall coordinate them within the Council" and sets out procedures for such co-ordination.

The majority of MPs voted to end the supremacy of European Union law in United Kingdom law and convert EU law into domestic law on the UK's exit from the European Union.

The majority of MPs were also voting to give ministers the power to introduce regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate: (a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or (b) any other deficiency in retained EU law, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1]

The motion under debate was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• to leave out from ‘That’ to the end of the Question and add
• ‘That this House
• respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU,
• believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this Bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign Parliament,
• recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU but
• declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill because the Bill fails to protect and reassert the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to Government Ministers allowing them to bypass Parliament on key decisions, without any meaningful or guaranteed Parliamentary scrutiny, fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements, fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future as they are at present, risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law, provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections and environmental standards in the future and prevents the UK implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms we currently enjoy, including remaining within a customs union and within the Single Market.’.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted to end the supremacy of European Union law in United Kingdom law and convert EU law into domestic law on the UK's exit from the European Union.

The majority of MPs were also voting to give ministers the power to introduce regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate: (a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or (b) any other deficiency in retained EU law, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1]

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The passing of this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path to becoming law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 79, page 1, line 3, at end insert:
• ‘(2) Regulations under section 19(2) bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly signifying consent to the commencement of subsection (1).”

Had the amendment not been rejected the new subclause would have been added to Clause 1 of the Bill^[2], which at the time of the vote only had one clause, stating:

• The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.

The European Communities Act 1972 legislated for the UK's membership of European Communities and incorporated European Union law into UK law.

Clause 19 of the Bill^[3] sets out the dates when elements of the Bill come into force, it states Clause 1 would take effect "on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint", the rejected amendment sought to add a condition for appointing such a date.

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This amendment would make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day conditional on the Prime Minister gaining consent from the devolved legislatures.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [3] Clause 19 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted to end the supremacy of EU law in domestic law and to remove the mechanism which enables the flow of new EU law into UK law.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

This vote was on if Clause 1^[2][3] should remain part of the Bill, the motion which was the subject of this vote was:

• That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 of the Bill is titled Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 and states:

• The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.

The European Communities Act 1972 legislated for the UK's membership of European Communities and incorporated European Union law into UK law.

The text used in the initial paragraph of this description is taken from the explanatory notes^[3] to Clause 1.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [3] Explanatory notes to Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted not to require courts or tribunals to have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 137, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
• “(2) When interpreting retained EU law after exit day a court or tribunal shall pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European Court.”

had it not been rejected this amendment would have impacted Clause 6 of the Bill^[2], subsection (2) of which stated:

• A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 6 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the UK Government to report on changes to EU legislation which form part of UK law, and against requiring the Government to consider adopting such changes to ensure that the rights of workers and employees in the UK are no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Provisions relating to the EU or the EEA in respect of EU-derived domestic legislation and stated:

• “(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5(1), HM Government shall make arrangements to report to both Houses of Parliament whenever circumstances arising in section 2(2)(d) would otherwise have amended provisions or definitions in UK law had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.
• (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5(1) and having reported to both Houses of Parliament, HM Government is bound to consider whether it should incorporate amended provisions or definitions into UK law, in order to ensure that the rights of workers and employees in the UK are no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.
• (3) Such circumstances arising in section 2(2)(d) include but are not limited to—
• (a) any future EU Directives relating to family-friendly employment rights; including but not limited to rights for pregnant workers and employees, and those returning from maternity leave,
• (b) any future EU Directives relating to gender equality,
• (c) the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work-life balance for parents and carers.
• (4) Reports presented under subsection (1) must include—
• (i) an assessment of how such amendments to UK law would have impacted sex equality in the UK had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day and
• (ii) an assessment of how a failure to implement amended provisions or definitions in UK law will impact the ability of families to combine work and care in the UK and gender equality in the UK.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This new clause would ensure that Parliament is informed of changes in EU and EEA provisions that might have amended UK laws around family-friendly employment rights and gender equality and their potential impact, as well as committing the Government to considering their implementation. This is to ensure that rights of workers and employees with caring responsibilities, and women’s rights, are no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted against the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights remaining part of UK law on the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 46, in clause 5, page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (4).

''Had it not been rejected the amendment would have removed the following subclause from clause 5^[2]

• The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.

The charter begins:

• "The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values."

It contains sections titled: Dignity, Freedoms, Equality, Solidarity, Citizens' Rights and Justice.

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This amendment would remove the exclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 5 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted against retaining general principles of EU law derived from EU treaties, direct EU legislation and EU directives, as part of UK law after the UK leaves the EU, and voted to only retain those general principles deriving from European Court [of justice] case law.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 336, page 15, line 17, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3 and insert—
• “2A (1) Any general principle of EU law will remain part of domestic law on or after exit day if—
• (a) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case);
• (b) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law in the EU Treaties immediately before exit day;
• (c) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by any direct EU legislation (as defined in section 3(2) of this Act) operative immediately before exit day; or
• (d) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by an EU directive that was in force immediately before exit day.
• 2B Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 2A, the principles set out in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be considered to be general principles for the purposes of that paragraph.
• 2C For the purposes of paragraphs 1A and 1B the exit day appointed must be the same day as is appointed for section 5(1) of this Act and must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”

The rejected amendment was accompanied by an explanatory statement saying:

• This amendment would retain the existing principles of EU law within domestic law whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, the EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives. The freeze date would be at the end of any transitional arrangements

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 1^[2] of the Bill, which would have been excised had the amendment not been rejected were titled General principles of EU law and stated:

• 2. No general principle of EU law is part of domestic law on or after exit day if it was not recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case).
• 3 (1) There is no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law.
• (2) No court or tribunal or other public authority may, on or after exit day—
• (a) disapply or quash any enactment or other rule of law, or
• (b) quash any conduct or otherwise decide that it is unlawful, because it is incompatible with any of the general principles of EU law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Schedule 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted to allow laws which were required by the UK's membership of the European single market to be weakened, removed or replaced by Ministers after the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 124, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
• “(ca) weaken, remove or replace any requirement of law in effect in the United Kingdom place immediately before exit day which, in the opinion of the Minister, was a requirement up to exit day of the United Kingdom’s membership of the single market,’.

Had it not been rejected the amendment would have impacted Clause 7 of the Bill^[2] sub-clause (1) of which stated:

• (1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—
• (a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or
• (b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,
• arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.

The rejected amendment sought to add an addition condition to this, adding to a list of things which such regulations would not be permitted to cover.

This rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory note:

• This amendment is intended to prevent the regulation-making powers being used to create barriers to the UK’s continued membership of the single market.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted to allow ministers to withdraw the UK from the European Economic Area, the European single market.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was:

• “(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.
• (2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.
• (3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted not to make the United Kingdom retaining the European Union's common customs tariff and common commercial policy a prerequisite for the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled Customs duties and stated:

• “A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations to appoint exit day until Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament making provision for the substitution of section 5 (customs duties) of the European Communities Act 1972 with provisions that shall allow the United Kingdom to remain a member of the EU common customs tariff and common commercial policy.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This new clause would ensure that provisions allowing the UK to remain a member of the Customs Union, as currently set out in section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 but set to be repealed by section 1 of this Act, will be enacted ahead of exit day.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted against a transition period of at least two years prior to implementation of an agreement on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union during which existing arrangements with the EU covering trade, security, regulations and financial contributions would be maintained.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Implementation and transition and stated:

• ‘(1) Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement of not less than two years in duration, during which—
• (a) access between EU and UK markets should continue on the terms existing prior to exit day,
• (b) the structures of EU rules and regulations existing prior to exit day shall be maintained,
• (c) the UK and EU shall continue to take part in the level of security cooperation existing prior to exit day,
• (d) new processes and systems to underpin the future partnership between the EU and UK can be satisfactorily implemented, including a new immigration system and new regulatory arrangements,
• (e) financial commitments made by the United Kingdom during the course of UK membership of the EU shall be honoured.
• (2) No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.’

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory notice:

• This new clause would ensure that the objectives set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech are given the force of law and, if no implementation and transition period is achieved in negotiations, then exit day may not be triggered by a Minister of the Crown. The appointment of an ‘exit day’ would therefore require a fresh Act of Parliament in such circumstances.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted against retaining the European Union "Charter of Fundamental Rights" as part of United Kingdom law following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. The proposal rejected in this vote was to retain the charter with amendments relating to its enforcement and the exception of the preamble and the element setting out the rights of European Union citizens in connection with voting, standing as a candidate, access to information, free movement, good administration, appeals, petition and consular protection.

Clause 5 of the Bill^[2] excluded the charter from retention as United Kingdom law following withdrawal.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 4, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
• ‘(4) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to retained EU law after exit day save as set out in subsections (5) and (5A) below and all references in the Charter to “the law of the Union” shall be deleted and replaced with “retained EU law”.
• (5) The following provisions of the Charter shall not apply after exit day—
• (a) the Preamble, and
• (b) Title V.
• (5A) Article 47 of the Charter shall apply after exit day as if it was drafted as follows—
• “Right to a fair trial
• “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by retained EU law are violated is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.
• “Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”
• (5B) With effect from exit day EU retained law, so far as it is possible to do so, must be interpreted consistently with the Charter.
• (5C) With effect from exit day decisions, judgments, advisory opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be taken into account when determining cases under the Charter.
• (5D) With effect from exit day in relation to the rights conferred by the Charter with respect to retained EU law—
• (a) section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “a Convention right” shall be replaced by “a Charter right” and all references to “primary legislation” shall be replaced by “retained EU law”,
• (b) section 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply,
• (c) section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of expression” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of expression and information”, and
• (d) section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
• (5E) With effect from exit day, any derogation or reservation made under sections 14 or 15 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.
• (5F) With effect from exit day sections 16 or 17 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.”

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This amendment would retain the Charter Rights in UK law and afford them the same level as protection as the rights in the Human Rights Act.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 5 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted against requiring an agreement for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union single market and customs union before allowing ministers to make regulations to implement an agreement on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The amendment rejected by the majority of MPs was:

• Amendment 59, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
• ‘(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the European Union guaranteeing that the United Kingdom will remain a permanent member of the EU single market and customs union.”

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following explanatory notice:

• This amendment would mean the UK would confirm its continued membership of the single market and customs union before Ministers of the Crown carry out any actions under Clause 9 of the Bill.

The amendment would have added an additional sub-clause to clause 9^[2] of the Bill, the clause provided for ministers to make regulations to implement the withdrawal agreement.

--

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as at the time of the vote

The majority of MPs voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

The majority of MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which took the United Kingdom into the European Union, to end the supremacy of European Union law in United Kingdom law, to convert European Union law to United Kingdom law on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the union, and to empower ministers both to correct those laws which would no longer operate effectively and to implement the terms of a withdrawal agreement.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1] and debating a motion:

• That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The majority of MPs voted against an amendment stating:

• leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
• “this House regrets the non-appearance of any Government amendments to Clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill despite the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Government intended to table them for Report Stage and declines to give a Third Reading to the Bill because it is not fit for purpose as it undermines the fundamental principles of the Scotland Act 1998 by reserving to the UK Parliament powers that would otherwise be devolved to the Scottish Parliament on the UK leaving the European Union.”

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Explanatory notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

The majority of MPs voted to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 which took the United Kingdom into the European Union, to end the supremacy of European Union law in United Kingdom law, to convert European Union law to United Kingdom law on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the union, and to empower ministers both to correct those laws which would no longer operate effectively and to implement the terms of a withdrawal agreement.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path to becoming law.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Explanatory notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

The majority of MPs voted against a transition period of at least two years for the transition to a domestic nuclear regulatory regime from the framework provided via the European Atomic Energy Community ("Euratom").

MPs were considering the Nuclear Safeguards Bill^[1][2].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: "Transition period" and stated:

• “(1) The Secretary of State shall, upon laying any statement under subsection (3A) of section 76A of the Energy Act 2013, seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of withdrawal from EURATOM of not less than two years.
• (2) During a transition period under subsection (1), any—
• (a) conditions under which the UK is a member of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply;
• (b) obligations upon the UK which derive from membership of EURATOM before exit day shall continue to apply;
• (c) structures for UK participation in EURATOM that are in place before exit day shall be maintained; and
• (d) financial commitment to EURATOM made by the UK during the course of UK membership of EURATOM before exit day shall be honoured.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This new clause would aim to put in place a transition period, during which the UK could seek to secure an association to EURATOM

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill 2017-19
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill 2017-19. Overview section

The majority of MPs voted against making the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union conditional on seeking, as an objective for the United Kingdom's negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum; rather than merely European Economic Area membership.

The European Economic Area is the area, set up by the EEA agreement^[1], in which there is free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the European Single Market. Membership of the EEA is open to members of either the European Union (EU) or European Free Trade Association, the latter being comprised, at the time of writing, of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[2].

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 51 be made.

Lords amendment 51^[3] stated:

• Page 15, line 21, at end insert—
• “(2B) But none of the remaining provisions may come into force until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.
• (2C) Regulations under this Act may not repeal or amend subsection (2B).”

amendment (a) to that amendment^[4] stated:

• Line 3, leave out “an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day” and insert “the United Kingdom has full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum.”

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill^[5] stated, in respect of the original amendment:

• Lords Amendment 51 would prevent the Minister from commencing aspects of the Bill until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.

The amendments relate to Clause 19 of the Bill^[6] which provided for certain sections of the Bill to come into force as soon as it became an Act, and empowered ministers to set the commencement data of other provisions, including the key operative Clause 1^[7], which would withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 which implemented the treaties of the European Union in United Kingdom law.

This vote is not taken into account for the "For the UK to Remain a Member of the EU" policy on the grounds withdrawal would be conditional on either of the options which were being chosen between in this vote.

==

• [1] European Economic Area Treaty, as amended, European Free Trade Association website.
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [3] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 51. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [4] Amendment sheet, 13 June 2018, House of Commons, Parliament.uk website. Dated: Revised 12 June 2018
• [5] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill
• [6] Clause 19 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018
• [7] Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018

The majority of MPs voted against making the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union conditional on seeking, as an objective for the United Kingdom's negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, an international agreement which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area.

The European Economic Area is the area, set up by the EEA agreement^[1], in which there is free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the European Single Market. Membership of the EEA is open to members of either the European Union (EU) or European Free Trade Association, the latter being comprised, at the time of writing, of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[2].

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 51

Lords amendment 51^[3] stated:

• Page 15, line 21, at end insert—
• “(2B) But none of the remaining provisions may come into force until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.
• (2C) Regulations under this Act may not repeal or amend subsection (2B).”

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill^[4] stated, in respect of the amendment:

• Lords Amendment 51 would prevent the Minister from commencing aspects of the Bill until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.

The amendment relates to Clause 19 of the Bill^[5] which provided for certain sections of the Bill to come into force as soon as it became an Act, and empowered ministers to set the commencement data of other provisions, including the key operative Clause 1^[6], which would withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 which implemented the treaties of the European Union in United Kingdom law.

==

• [1] European Economic Area Treaty, as amended, European Free Trade Association website.
• [2] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [3] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 51. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [4] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill
• [5] Clause 19 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018
• [6] Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018

The majority of MPs voted against making the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union conditional on a statement on how the United Kingdom's continued participation in a customs union with the European Union was sought during negotiations on the withdrawal agreement.

The requirement could be met by a statement saying no steps were taken to seek continued participation in a customs union; this was not a vote on the substance of membership, or not, of a customs union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

Lords amendment 2^[2] stated:

• (3) The condition in this subsection is that, by 31 October 2018, a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement outlining the steps taken in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union to negotiate, as part of the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union, an arrangement which enables the United Kingdom to continue participating in a customs union with the European Union.”

The rejected amendment sought to set a condition which would have to be met before the key operative provision of Clause 1 of the Bill^[3] could take effect. Clause 1 stated:

• "The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day."

Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would withdraw the United Kingdom from the union as the act implemented the treaties of the European Union in United Kingdom law.

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill^[4] stated, in respect of the rejected amendment, and the associated amendment 2:

• Lords Amendments 1 and 2 would prevent the repeal of the European Communities Act from taking place until the Government has laid a statement before Parliament outlining the steps taken to negotiate, as part of a framework for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union (EU), an arrangement to enable the UK to continue to participate in a customs union with the EU.

This vote followed a vote on Lords amendment 1^[5], which made withdrawal conditional, Lords amendment 2, which was the subject of this vote, set out the condition.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 1. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [3] Clause 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018
• [4] Page of explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill covering amendment 1, Parliament.uk website, 22 May 2018
• [5] European Union (Withdrawal) Bill - Make Withdrawal Conditional on Unspecified Condition, House of Commons Vote, 13 Jun 2018 at 19:43, PublicWhip.org.uk

The majority of MPs voted against largely retaining the European Union "Charter of Fundamental Rights" as part of United Kingdom law following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. The proposal rejected in this vote was to retain the charter with the exception of the preamble and the element setting out the rights of European Union citizens in connection with voting, standing as a candidate, access to information, free movement, good administration, appeals, petition and consular protection.

Fundamental rights protected by the charter include: human dignity; right to life; right to the integrity of the person; prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; prohibition of slavery and forced labour; right to liberty and security; respect for private and family life; protection of personal data; right to marry and right to found a family; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of expression and information; freedom of assembly and of association; freedom of the arts and sciences; right to education; and many more.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5

Lords amendment 5^[2] stated:

• Page 3, line 20, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
• “( )
• The following provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are not part of domestic law on or after exit day—
• (a) the Preamble, and
• (b) Chapter V.”

The rejected amendment would have impacted Clause 5^[3] of the Bill, subsections (4) and (5) of which stated:

• (4) The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.
• (5) Subsection (4) does not affect the retention in domestic law on or after exit day in accordance with this Act of any fundamental rights or principles which exist irrespective of the Charter (and references to the Charter in any case law are, so far as necessary for this purpose, to be read as if they were references to any corresponding retained fundamental rights or principles).

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill^[4] stated, in respect of the amendment:

• Lords Amendment 5 would provide that only the preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (the Charter) and Chapter V (which relates to citizens’ rights) would be excluded from retained EU law under clause 5. This amendment would therefore mean that any directly effective rights contained in the remainder of the Charter would form part of domestic law after exit by virtue of clause 4, to the extent that these would not in any event form part of domestic law under clause 3 or clause 6.
• Claimants would therefore continue to be able to bring legal action grounded on these rights as expressed in the Charter. The outcome of this action could be that domestic legislation which directly implements EU law could continue to be struck down on the basis of incompatibility with Charter rights.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 5. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [3] Clause 5 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill as referred to by the Lords amendment
• [4] Page of explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill covering amendment 5

The majority of MPs voted not to make incompatibility with the general principles of European Union law actionable in United Kingdom courts following the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the union.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 53

Lords amendment 53^[2] stated:

• Page 16, line 21, leave out paragraph 3

This rejected amendment would have impacted Schedule 1 of the Bill^[3], paragraph 3 of which stated:

• (1) There is no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law.
• (2) No court or tribunal or other public authority may, on or after exit day—
• (a) disapply or quash any enactment or other rule of law, or
• (b)quash any conduct or otherwise decide that it is unlawful, because it is incompatible with any of the general principles of EU law.

The explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill^[4] stated, in respect of the rejected amendment:

• Lords Amendment 53 would remove from Schedule 1 the general exclusion of rights of action in domestic law based on a failure to comply with the general principles of EU law. Claimants would therefore continue to be able to bring legal action on the basis of incompatibility with the general principles. Courts, tribunals or other public authorities would retain the remedy to disapply or quash legislation and executive actions that is found to be incompatible with the general principles, including UK legislation which is in the scope of EU law that was passed after exit day.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 53. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [3] Schedule 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, version as referred to by the Lords amendments. 18 January 2018
• [4] Explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill

The majority of MPs voted against steps designed to ensure that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union does not result in the removal or diminution of any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 3

Lords amendment 3^[2] sought to add a new clause titled: Maintenance of EU environmental principles and standards stating:

• (1) The Secretary of State must take steps designed to ensure that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU does not result in the removal or diminution of any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment.
• (2) In particular, the Secretary of State must carry out the activities required by subsections (3) to (5) within the period of six months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.
• (3) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation to establish a duty on public authorities to apply principles of environmental law established in EU law or on which EU environmental law is based in the exercise of relevant functions after exit day.
• (4) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation to establish an independent body with the purpose of ensuring compliance with environmental law by public authorities.
• (5) The Secretary of State must publish—
• (a) a list of statutory functions that can be exercised so as to achieve the objective in subsection (1); and
• (b) a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that require to be retained or replicated in UK law in order to achieve the objective in subsection (1).
• (6) The Secretary of State must before 1 January 2020 lay before Parliament a Statement of Environmental Policy which sets out how the principles in subsection (7) will be given effect.
• (7) The principles referred to in subsection (3) include—
• (a) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment,
• (b) the principle of preventive action to avert environmental damage,
• (c) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source,
• (d) the polluter pays principle,
• (e) sustainable development,
• (f) prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
• (g) public access to environmental information,
• (h) public participation in environmental decision making, and
• (i) access to justice in relation to environmental matters.
• (8) Before complying with subsections (3) to (6) the Secretary of State must consult—
• (a) each of the devolved administrations;
• (b) persons appearing to represent the interests of local government;
• (c) persons appearing to represent environmental interests;
• (d) farmers and land managers; and
• (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”

The explanatory notes to the rejected new clause^[3] stated:

• Lords Amendment 3 would require the UK Government to take steps to ensure that environmental protection and improvement is not reduced as a result of leaving the EU. In particular, it would require the UK Government to publish within six months of this Act being passed:
• a. proposals for primary legislation establishing a duty on public authorities to apply environmental principles after exit day;
• b. proposals for the establishment before exit day of an independent body to ensure compliance with environmental law; and
• c. a list of statutory functions that can be exercised so as to achieve the objective in subsection (1) (not reducing environmental protection) and a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that must be retained or replicated in UK law in order to ensure that environmental protection is not reduced as a result of EU exit.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
• [2] Page of amendment sheet containing Lords amendment 3. Parliament.uk website, 16 May 2018
• [3] Page of explanatory notes to the Lords amendments to the Bill covering amendment 3, Parliament.uk website, 22 May 2018

The majority of MPs voted to make retaining membership of the European medicines regulatory network a government objective.

MPs were considering the Trade Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause accepted in this vote was titled: UK participation in the European medicines regulatory network and stated:

• (1) It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement, which enables the UK to fully participate after exit day in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the European Union, European Economic Area and the European Medicines Agency.
• (2) Exit day shall have the meaning set out in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

The accepted new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This new clause would ensure that it is a negotiating objective for the UK Government to secure an international agreement through which the UK may continue to participate in the European medicines regulatory network partnership between the EU, EEA and the European Medicines Agency, ensuring that patients continue to have access to high-quality, effective and safe pharmaceutical and medical products, fully aligned with the member states of the EU and EEA.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Trade Bill

The majority of MPs voted against making it a UK negotiating objective to establish a free trade area for goods between the UK and the EU and, if that cannot be agreed by the 21st of January 2019, against making reaching an agreement to enable the UK’s participation in a customs union with the EU a negotiating objective.

MPs were considering the Trade Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Free trade area for goods and stated:

• (1) Before exit day it shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to achieve the implementation of an international agreement to enable the United Kingdom to establish a frictionless free trade area for goods between the UK and the EU.
• (2) If an international agreement of the type set out in subsection (1) has not been agreed by 21st January 2019 then it shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to achieve the implementation of an international agreement which enables the United Kingdom to participate after exit day in a customs union with the EU.
• (3) “Exit day” shall have the meaning set out in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by an explanatory statement saying:

• This new clause would make it a negotiating objective of the UK to establish a free trade area for goods between the UK and the EU and if that cannot be agreed then it should be the objective of the UK to secure an agreement to enable the UK’s participation in a customs union with the EU.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Trade Bill

The majority of MPs voted for greater partnership and cooperation between European Union members, the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community, and the Republic of Armenia.

The majority of MPs voted to declare the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Armenia, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 24th November 2017 to be an EU Treaty.^[1]

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement) (Armenia) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.

Explanatory notes to the regulation^[1] state:

• The Agreement will enhance dialogue with Armenia on domestic reform, human rights, trade and all other areas of mutual interest, including conflict prevention, fighting organised crime and counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and their means of delivery.
• [1] Explanatory notes to the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement) (Armenia) Order 2018

The majority of MPs voted to strengthen relations between the European Union, its Member States and Cuba.

The majority of MPs voted to declare the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Cuba, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 12th December 2016 to be an EU Treaty.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement) (Cuba) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.

The explanatory notes to the order state:

• The Agreement is intended to strengthen relations between the EU, its Member States and Cuba. It provides for political dialogue in are as of common interest in order to strengthen political relations and promote exchanges and mutual understanding. The Agreement establishes dialogues to promote greater coordination and cooperation in a variety of areas, including: human rights; sustainable development; non-proliferation; illicit trade in arms; counter-terrorism; human trafficking; counter narcotics and combating racial discrimination. The Agreement aims to promote increased trade between the parties through exchanges of information and technical assistance to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.
• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement) (Cuba) Order 2018

The majority of MPs voted to broaden engagement, dialogue and cooperation with Canada in areas of common interest, such as: human rights and democracy, international peace and security and effective multilateralism, economic and sustainable development, and justice, freedom and security.

The majority of MPs voted to declare the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Canada, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 30th October 2016 to be an EU Treaty.

The motion approved by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Strategic Partnership Agreement) (Canada) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.

The explanatory notes to the order^[1] state:

• The Agreement will broaden engagement, dialogue and cooperation with Canada in areas of common interest, such as: human rights and democracy, international peace and security and effective multilateralism, economic and sustainable development, and justice, freedom and security.
• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Strategic Partnership Agreement) (Canada) Order 2018

The majority of MPs voted to strengthen cooperation between the EU, its Member States and Australia in a range of sectors of mutual interest.

The majority of MPs voted to declare the Framework Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Australia, of the other part, signed at Manila on 7th August 2017 to be an EU Treaty

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement) (Australia) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.:

The explanatory memorandum to the order^[1] states:

• The Agreement will provide a framework to consolidate and strengthen cooperation between the EU, its Member States and Australia in a range of sectors of mutual interest. These include: promoting democratic principles and respect for human rights; countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; combating illicit trade of small arms and light weapons; taking measures against the most serious crimes of concern to the international community; and combating terrorism. The Agreement is also a precursor to an EU-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which the UK has supported and continues to support.

--

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement) (Australia) Order 2018

The majority of MPs voted to consolidate and strengthen cooperation between the EU, its Member States and New Zealand in a range of sectors of mutual interest.

The majority of MPs voted to declare the Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and New Zealand, of the other part, signed at Brussels on 5th October 2016 to be an EU Treaty.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation) (New Zealand) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 4 June, be approved.

The explanatory memorandum to the order^[1] states:

• The Agreement will provide a framework to consolidate and strengthen cooperation between the EU, its Member States and New Zealand in a range of sectors of mutual interest. These include: promoting democratic principles and respect for human rights; countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; combating illicit trade of small arms and light weapons; taking measures against the most serious crimes of concern to the international community; and combating terrorism.
• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement on Relations and Cooperation) (New Zealand) Order 2018

The majority of MPs voted against making the continued participation of the United Kingdom in the European Arrest Warrant a negotiating objective during negotiations over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

MPs were considering the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill^[1].

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant and stated:

• “(1) It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, to seek continued United Kingdom participation in the European Arrest Warrant in relation to persons suspected of specified terrorism offences.
• (2) In this section, “specified terrorism offences” has the same meaning as Schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.”

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement:

• This new clause would require the Government to adopt the continued participation of the UK in the European Arrest Warrant in relation to people suspected of terrorist offences as a negotiating objective in the withdrawal negotiations with the European Union.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

The majority of MPs voted in favour of steps to ensure the regulation of trading in financial instruments continued to operate effectively on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 17 October, be approved.

The regulations relate to the regulation of the buying, selling and organised trading of financial instruments, such as shares, bonds, units in collective investment schemes and derivatives.^[1]

The regulations were not intended to make policy changes but to ensure existing legislation continued to operate effectively on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union^[1].

The majority of the regulations would come into force on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

The regulations^[1]:

• transfer functions from the European Securities and Markets Authority to the UK Financial Conduct Authority, Prudential Regulation Authority and Bank of England as well as transferring regulatory functions of the European Commission to the UK Treasury.
• remove obligations on UK authorities to cooperate and share information with European Economic Area authorities
• enable the functioning of the Temporary Permissions Regime to enable European firms and funds a transition period to adjust to UK regulations.
• introduce temporary powers relating to the disclosure fo price and volume information on trades.
• [1] Draft Explanatory memorandum to the Draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

The majority of MPs voted to amend the law on accounts and reports from corporate bodies to remove the involvement of the European Union and to remove preferential treatment of bodies from the European Economic Area.

The majority of the regulations would come into force on the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.
• [1] Explanatory Memorandum to the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

The majority of MPs voted to maintain and improve coordination and cooperation between European Union member states in the field of policing and justice, particularly in relation to serious organised crime. The majority of MPs voted in favour of the UK's continued participation in European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust).

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House takes note of Regulation 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2002/187/JHA; endorses the Government's decision to request to opt in under Protocol 21 on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice annexed to the EU Treaties; and supports the Government's assessment that Eurojust provides a valuable service to the UK and that opting in would enable us to maintain operational continuity and minimise disruption for UK law enforcement and prosecution authorities during the proposed Implementation Period.

The majority of MPs voted to confirm the rights of Irish citizens to enter and remain in the UK without permission but to otherwise make European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss nationals, and their family members, subject to UK immigration controls.

MPs were considering the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path to becoming law.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Immigration and Social Security Co-Ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted not to seek to delay the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union; not to rule out leaving without a withdrawal agreement, and against Scotland remaining in the European Union.

MPs were considering a motion stating:

• That this House, in accordance with the provisions of section 13(6)(a) and 13(11)(b)(i) and 13(13)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, has considered the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018” and made on 21 January 2019, and the Written Statement titled “Statement under Section 13(11)(a) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”and made on 24 January 2019.

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment (o), in line 1, leave out from “House” to end and add
• “notes that the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and House of Commons all voted overwhelmingly to reject the Prime Minister’s deal;
• calls for the Government to seek an extension of the period specified under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union;
• agrees a No Deal outcome should be ruled out; and
• recognises that if the UK is an equal partnership of nations, the 62 per cent vote to remain at the EU referendum on 23 June 2016 in Scotland should be respected and that the people of Scotland should not be taken out of the EU against their will.”

The majority of MPs voted to revoke arrangements for cross-border action to tackle infringements of various EU consumer laws. The laws in question are those listed in the Anex to the Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004, known as the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation, and relate to:

• misleading advertising
• contracts negotiated away from business premises
• consumer credit
• television broadcasting
• package travel, package holidays and package tours
• unfair terms in consumer contracts
• timeshares
• the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers
• aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees
• online purchases
• medicinal products
• medicinal products
• compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 4 December 2018, be approved.

--

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft Consumer Protection (Enforcement) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted to revoke a series of European Union regulations relating to shipping, including removing a right for ships registered in the European Union to provide transport services within the United Kingdom.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.

The regulations:

• Remove a right of "cabotage" (the right operate transport services within a country) from ship owners based in the European Union. Note "within" is a key word, this doesn't appear to relate to international transport services.
• Remove references to rights to transport people and goods on the Rhine from UK legislation as the rights will be lost on withdrawal from the European Union.
• Revoke a reciprocal regime enabling ships to be easily transferred between registers of European Union member States
• Revoke arrangements for information collection on activities of fleets from third countries whose practices are harmful to shipping interests of member States and arrangements for countermeasures against anti-competitive action.
• Revoke arrangements to tackle unfair pricing in the shipping industry.
• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the draft Maritime Transport Access to Trade and Cabotage (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted to allow the Government to update United Kingdom law to correspond with European Union financial services laws currently making their way through the European legislative process.

MPs were considering the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill^[1][2].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The proposals supported by the majority of MPs in this vote included allowing the Government to make: "adjustments the Treasury consider appropriate".^[3]

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [3] Clause 1 of the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill 2017-19 as at the time of the vote, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to make European Union laws regulating converting loans into "securities" for sale to investors effective and enforceable in the United Kingdom.

The motion rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Securitisation Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 1288), dated 3 December 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4 December 2018, be revoked.
• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the Securitisation Regulations 2018, legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted to approve the Government's assessment of the UK's medium term economic and budgetary position for submission to the European Commission.

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, HM Government’s assessment of the medium term economic and fiscal position as set out in the latest Budget document and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

The majority of MPs voted against leaving the European Union on the 12th of April 2019 without a withdrawal agreement.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House agrees that the UK shall leave the EU on 12 April 2019 without a deal

A withdrawal agreement had been negotiated in November 2018 which provided for^[1]:

• * an "implementation period" running until 31 December 2020 during which European Union law and rules generally continue to apply in the UK. At the end of the period the new arrangements for a relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union would come into force.
• * an option for the implementation period to be extended, subject to mutual agreement.
• * the protection the rights of of European Union citizens in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom nationals in the European Union, ensuring they can continue to live their lives broadly in the same way. This includes the protection of benefit, pension and reciprocal healthcare rights.
• * the free circulation of goods on the EU or UK market before the end of the implementation period.
• * a financial settlement in the order of £35-39 billion, covering participation in the European Union's budgets during 2019 and 2020, and sharing in ongoing receipts and liabilities, such as European Union staff and European Parliament member, pensions.
• * a commitment to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland and that there will be no split in the UK’s customs territory.

--

• [1] Explainer for the agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union, Gov.uk, 14 November 2018

The majority of MPs voted against continued relatively free movement of goods, services, persons and capital between the UK, EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, achieved via membership of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), but without a customs union with the EU.

The majority of MPs rejected a proposal to continue the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Area, re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and not enter a customs union with the European Union but seek new protocols on the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade.

EFTA is the intergovernmental organisation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, it promotes of free trade and economic integration between its members^[1]. The EFTA's Agreement on the European Economic Area brings its members and the European Union into a single market.^[2]

The motion rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• recognises the democratic duty of Parliament to respect the result of the 2016 referendum whilst securing an orderly departure from the EU that preserves the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
• notes that the UK is a signatory to the treaty establishing the European Economic Area and has not given notice to leave the EEA as is required under Article 127 of that agreement;
• further notes that the UK was a founding member of the European Free Trade Association in 1960 and
• therefore call on the Government to (a) assert its existing rights as a signatory to the EEA, (b) take necessary steps to make our rights and obligations as an EEA member operable on an emergency basis through the domestic courts, (c) apply to re-join EFTA at the earliest opportunity to make the EEA agreement operable on a sustainable basis and (d) decline to enter a customs union with the EU but seek agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade

--

• [1] The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) website
• [2] https://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement, The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) website

The majority of MPs voted against a United Kingdom wide customs union with the European Union.

The motion rejected by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House instructs the Government to:
• (1) ensure that any Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU;
• (2) enshrine this objective in primary legislation

The majority of MPs voted against a permanent and comprehensive United Kingdom-wide customs union with the European Union.

The motion rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• instructs the Government to (1) ensure that any Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration negotiated with the EU must include, as a minimum, a commitment to negotiate a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU; (2) enshrine this objective in primary legislation

The majority of MPs voted against continued relatively free movement of goods, services, persons and capital between the United Kingdom, EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, achieved via membership of European Free Trade Association (EFTA); and against external tariff alignment between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

EFTA is the intergovernmental organisation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, it promotes of free trade and economic integration between its members^[1]. The EFTA's Agreement on the European Economic Area brings its members and the European Union into a single market.^[2]

Free trade internally and external tariff alignment are the key defining characteristics of a Customs Union.

The motion rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• (1) directs Her Majesty’s Government to (i) renegotiate the framework for the future relationship laid before the House on Monday 11 March 2019 with the title ‘Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom’ to provide that, on the conclusion of the Implementation Period and no later than 31 December 2020, the United Kingdom shall (a) accede to the European Free Trade Association (Efta) having negotiated a derogation from Article 56(3) of the Efta Agreement to allow UK participation in a comprehensive customs arrangement with the European Union, (b) enter the Efta Pillar of the European Economic Area (EEA) and thereby render operational the United Kingdom’s continuing status as a party to the EEA Agreement and continuing participation in the Single Market, (c) agree relevant protocols relating to frictionless agri-food trade across the UK/EU border, (d) enter a comprehensive customs arrangement including a common external tariff, alignment with the Union Customs Code and an agreement on commercial policy, and which includes a UK say on future EU trade deals, at least until alternative arrangements that maintain frictionless trade with the European Union and no hard border on the island of Ireland have been agreed with the European Union, (ii) negotiate with the EU a legally binding Joint Instrument that confirms that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement, the implementation of all the provisions of paragraph 1(i) of this motion would cause the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to be superseded in full;
• (2) resolves to make support for the forthcoming European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill conditional upon the inclusion of provisions for a Political Declaration revised in accordance with the provisions of this motion to be the legally binding negotiating mandate for Her Majesty’s Government in the forthcoming negotiation of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

--

• [1] The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) website
• [2] https://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement, The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) website

The majority of MPs voted to, if the United Kingdom withdraws from the European Union, remove protections against traders discriminating against customers on the basis of a customer's nationality or location.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.

The regulations revoke Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market.^[2]

• [1] Draft Explanatory Memorandum to the The Geo-Blocking Regulation (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Legislation.gov.uk
• [2] Regulation (EU) 2018/302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2018 on addressing unjustified geo-blocking and other forms of discrimination based on customers' nationality, place of residence or place of establishment within the internal market, European Union Publications Office,

The majority of MPs voted in favour of seeking to delay the United Kingdom leaving the European Union until 30 June 2019.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• agrees for the purposes of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019 to the Prime Minister seeking an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union to a period ending on 30 June 2019.

The majority of MPs voted to exclude wind and water turbines from a special reduced rate of VAT applying to the supply and installation of energy-saving materials in residential accommodation.

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 958), dated 21 May 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 May, be approved.

The changes were proposed following a European Court of Justice judgment which found the United Kingdom was in breach of Article 98 *and the linked Annex III) of the European Union VAT directive which sets out when reduced rates of VAT may be applied.

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 958), dated 21 May 2019, Legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted in favour of a proposed procedure to enable the House of Commons to pass a bill^[1] requiring the Prime Minister to seek a delay to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union until 31 January 2020 unless MPs have approved either terms of a withdrawal agreement, or withdrawal without an agreement.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote began:

• That this House has considered the matter of the need to take all necessary steps to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 without a withdrawal agreement and accordingly makes provision as set out in this order:
• (1) On Wednesday 4 September 2019
• (a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply;
• (b) any proceedings governed by this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;
• (c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);
• (d) at 3.00 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this order and call a Member to present the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;

The motion went on to make further provisions relating to the consideration of the Bill, including a timetable for proceedings.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to require the Prime Minister to seek a delay to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union until 31 January 2020 unless MPs have approved either terms of a withdrawal agreement, or withdrawal without an agreement.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path towards becoming law.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to require the Prime Minister to seek a delay to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union until 31 January 2020 unless MPs have approved either terms of a withdrawal agreement, or withdrawal without an agreement.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill^[1].

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Third time.

Support for this motion enabled the Bill to continue on its path towards becoming law.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to transfer powers to set certain technical environmental regulations from the European Union Commission to United Kingdom ministers, or ministers of the devolved administrations within the United Kingdom, on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 6 June 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved

--

• [1] Draft explanatory memorandum to the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, Legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted to remove rights for European Union, Swiss and Turkish nationals to pursue activities as self-employed persons, to own and manage companies, and to provide services in the United Kingdom, on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 11 July 2019, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The explanatory memorandum^[1] identifies just one practical impact of the regulations, saying they will make using otherwise legitimate satellite decoder cards from the EU to dishonestly receive a programme with the intent of avoiding a charge an offence.

The explanatory memorandum^[1] states:

• It is anticipated that disapplication of these rights will have limited direct or practical impact ...
• This is because UK legislation should be in accordance with EU law at exit day, including these rights.

However the purpose of the regulations is given as being to: "address deficiencies in retained European Union (EU) law" so to deviate from the default position.

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit)Regulations 2019, Legislation.gov.uk website

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the UK Government’s proposals for leaving the European Union.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined in the Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

MPs were considering the following motion:

• That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
• Most Gracious Sovereign,
• We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

the amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment (h), at end add:
• “but
• particularly regrets the UK Government’s intention to use the Immigration Bill to end freedom of movement within Europe, and
• believes that freedom of movement has brought immeasurable social, cultural and economic benefits to the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the European Union as a whole;
• further believes that freedom of movement should be maintained irrespective of the UK’s future membership status of the European Union; believes that any provisions of the Environment Bill must match the ambition shown by the Scottish Government to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, and should provide for immediate action to invest in carbon capture and storage technologies and introduce funding for a green new deal;
• further regrets that the Gracious Speech does not contain provision to end the freeze of social security benefits or scrap the two-child limit and so-called rape clause attached to child tax credits;
• rejects the UK Government’s proposals for leaving the European Union; and
• believes the European Union Withdrawal Agreement Bill must not become law unless and until it has received legislative consent from the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament

The 'rejects' clause was the operative, clause.

The majority of MPs voted against requiring the Government to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the European Union's Erasmus+ education and youth programme.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.^[1]

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Implementation period negotiating objectives: Erasmus+ and stated:

• (1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and the EU before the end of the implementation period that enables the UK to participate in all elements of the Erasmus+ programme on existing terms after the implementation period ends (“the Erasmus+ negotiations”).
• (2) A Minister shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the Erasmus+ negotiations within six months of this Act being passed.’

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

• This new clause would require the Government to seek to negotiate continuing full membership of the EU’s Erasmus+ education and youth programme.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Parliament.uk website

The majority of MPs voted against seeking close alignment with the European Union single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations; against participation in European Union agencies and funding programmes; and against United Kingdom rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment keeping pace with European Union standards as a minimum.

MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill.^[1]

The proposed new clause in this vote was titled: Implementation period negotiating objectives: level playing-field and stated:

• (1) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and EU to secure agreements that achieve the following outcomes—
• (a) close alignment with the European Union single market, underpinned by shared institutions and obligations, with clear arrangements for dispute resolution;
• (b) dynamic alignment on rights and protections for workers, consumers and the environment so that UK standards at least keep pace with evolving standards across the EU as a minimum, and;
• (c) participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including for the environment, education, science, and industrial regulation.
• (2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on each of the outcomes listed in subsection (1) (a) to (c) within 4 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.

The rejected new clause was accompanied by the following explanatory statement from its proposer:

• This new clause would require the UK Government to seek close alignment with the EU single market on key level playing-field provisions such as workers’ rights and environmental and consumer standards and protections as part of its negotiations for the future relationship with the EU.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. Parliament.uk website

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the Government’s proposals for leaving the European Union.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined in the Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for making the speech.

MPs were considering the following motion:

• That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
• Most Gracious Sovereign,
• We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

the amendment rejected in this vote was:

• at the end of the Question to add:
• “but
• particularly regrets the Government’s intention to use the Immigration Bill to end freedom of movement within Europe;
• believes that freedom of movement has brought immeasurable social, cultural and economic benefits to the people of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the European Union as a whole;
• further believes that freedom of movement should be maintained irrespective of the UK’s future membership status of the European Union;
• notes that the Gracious Speech lacked proposals for bills that expand parental leave, protect the NHS, introduce tougher legal targets to address the climate emergency, increase the minimum wage to an equal wage, bring justice to the 3.8 million women born in the 1950s who will be denied their pensions at the proper age, and abolish nuclear weapons;
• further regrets that the Gracious Speech does not contain provision to end the freeze of social security benefits or scrap the two-child limit and so-called rape clause attached to child tax credits;
• rejects the Government’s proposals for leaving the European Union; and
• believes the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill must not become law unless and until it has received legislative consent from the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament.”

The majority of MPs voted to end the general right for nationals of European Union member states, European Economic Area states and Switzerland to enter and reside in the UK while retaining such rights for Irish citizens.

MPs were considering the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.^[1]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Majority support for the Bill enabled it to continue its path to becoming law.

Explanatory notes to the Bill^[2] set out its purpose:

"The purpose of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill) is to end free movement of persons in UK law and make European Union (EU), other European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss citizens, and their family members, subject to UK immigration controls."

the notes^[2] also state:

"The Bill protects the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement rights end, a status which existed prior to the UK’s membership of the EU."

The Bill also contains provisions enabling UK Governments to make regulations to implement any new policies regarding co-ordination of social security.^[2]

The Bill provides for regulations to be made setting out when it comes into force.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Overview of the Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted to end the general right for nationals of European Union member states, European Economic Area states and Switzerland to enter and reside in the UK while retaining such rights for Irish citizens.

MPs were considering the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.^[1]

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Third time.

Majority support for the motion enabled the Bill to continue its path to becoming law.

Explanatory notes to the Bill^[2] set out its purpose:

"The purpose of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (the Bill) is to end free movement of persons in UK law and make European Union (EU), other European Economic Area (EEA) and Swiss citizens, and their family members, subject to UK immigration controls."

the notes^[2] also state:

"The Bill protects the status of Irish citizens in the UK when free movement rights end, a status which existed prior to the UK’s membership of the EU."

The Bill also contains provisions enabling UK Governments to make regulations to implement any new policies regarding co-ordination of social security.^[2]

The Bill provides for regulations to be made setting out when it comes into force.

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, Overview of the Bill, Parliament.uk

The motion rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That this House
• welcomes the European Union’s openness to extend the transition period for negotiations;
• calls on the Government to immediately accept this offer and notes the Scottish Government’s publication of 3rd June entitled, “COVID-19: The Case for Extending the Brexit Transition Period”, warning of the damage a no deal would cause to the economy in addition to the cost of the covid-19 health crisis.

The majority of MPs voted for the UK's appeal courts not to be bound by principles laid down by, and decisions of, the European Union Court of Justice, after the transition period associated with the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the union.

The motion supported by the majority of MPs in this vote is:

• That the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.

--

• [1] Draft explanatory memorandum to the draft European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020, Legislation.gov.uk

The majority of MPs voted to generally remove rights for European Economic Area citizens under the United Kingdom's immigration and benefits systems while protecting the rights of Irish citizens and those granted settled, or pre-settled, status under the European Union Settlement Scheme.

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1309), dated 17 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18 November, be approved

--

• [1] Explanatory memorandum to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1309)

The majority of MPs voted in favour of cooperation with the European Union and its member states on subjects including crime, transport, research and nuclear non-proliferation.

MPs were considering the

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill^[1][2].

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The passing of this motion enabled the Bill to continue on the path to becoming law.

If the Bill had not passed by the end of the year the United Kingdom would have left the European Union without agreements made between the United Kingdom would have left the European Union having been implemented in law in the United Kingdom.^[2]

The Bill implements a number of agreements between the United Kingdom and the European Union including the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), Agreement on Nuclear Cooperation and the Agreement on Security

Procedures for Exchanging and Protecting Classified Information^[2].

The Bill enables cooperation between the United Kingdom and EU Member States on matters including^[2]:

• * the exchange of criminal records data
• * transfers of Passenger Name Record Data (PNR) for identifying "previously unknown individuals who may be involved in terrorism or serious crime as well as individuals at risk of exploitation"
• * the reciprocal searching and comparison of fingerprints and DNA profiles in databases
• * exchange of national DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data
• * mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and asset freezing and confiscation
• * extradition
• * product safety
• * transporting goods on trucks
• * social security
• * "Fusion for Energy" research
• * civil nuclear and nuclear non-proliferation activities

--

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted in favour of cooperation with the European Union and its member states on subjects including crime, transport, research and nuclear non-proliferation.

MPs were considering the

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill^[1][2].

The motion supported by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The passing of this motion enabled the Bill to continue on the path to becoming law.

If the Bill had not passed by the end of the year the United Kingdom would have left the European Union without agreements made between the United Kingdom would have left the European Union having been implemented in law in the United Kingdom.^[2]

The Bill implements a number of agreements between the United Kingdom and the European Union including the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), Agreement on Nuclear Cooperation and the Agreement on Security

Procedures for Exchanging and Protecting Classified Information^[2].

The Bill enables cooperation between the United Kingdom and EU Member States on matters including^[2]:

• * the exchange of criminal records data
• * transfers of Passenger Name Record Data (PNR) for identifying "previously unknown individuals who may be involved in terrorism or serious crime as well as individuals at risk of exploitation"
• * the reciprocal searching and comparison of fingerprints and DNA profiles in databases
• * exchange of national DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data
• * mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and asset freezing and confiscation
• * extradition
• * product safety
• * transporting goods on trucks
• * social security
• * "Fusion for Energy" research
• * civil nuclear and nuclear non-proliferation activities

--

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the European Union (Future Relationship) Bill, Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted not to require the standard of chemical regulation standards to be at least that which applies in the European Union.

MPs were considering the Environment Bill.^[1][2]

The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 24, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
• ‘(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
• (1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
• (a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
• (b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.

The rejected amendment was accompanied by the following statement from its proposer:

• This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Environment Bill, Parliament.uk
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Environment Bill, 30 January 2020, Parliament.uk
• [3] Environment Bill as of 27 November 2020. Parliament.uk

The majority of MPs voted not to express support for a series of policy proposals put forward by the leader of the Scottish National Party Ian Blackford MP. The policies in question were: protecting workers' rights, doing more in respect of the cost of living and climate change; increasing benefits; imposing windfall taxes; retaining existing EU derived law and retaining the existing Human Rights Act.

MPs were discussing a motion thanking the monarch for the Queens' Speech.

The debate on the content of the government's legislative programme outlined in the Queens' speech is technically, and traditionally, on the subject of a message of thanks which the house is to send the monarch for the speech.

The text of the motion under consideration was:

• That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
• Most Gracious Sovereign,
• We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which was addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

The amendment rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:

• at the end of the Question to add:
• “but respectfully
• regret that the Gracious Speech
• fails to include bills that protect workers’ rights, tackle the cost of living crisis, or the climate emergency;
• further regret that the Gracious Speech does not contain provision to uplift benefits and implement a windfall tax on companies which are benefiting from significantly increased profits as a result of impacts associated with the pandemic or the current international situation; and
• reject the proposals both for a Brexit Freedoms Bill, which will undermine devolution, and the Bill of Rights, which will weaken human rights protections.

The rejected motion was proposed by the leader of the Scottish National Party Ian Blackford MP. Generally PublicWhip does not not note which MP proposed a motion, but in this case it is key context for the nature of the motion.

--

• [1] Queen's Speech, 10 May 2022, House of Commons Official Record, TheyWorkForYou.com
• [2] Queen's Speech 2022: background briefing notes, 10 May 2022 , Gov.uk

*Pressure of other work means MPs or Lords are not always available to vote – it does not always indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less important vote makes a disproportionatly small difference.