European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — New Clause 54 — Transition Period — 20 Dec 2017 at 21:22

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.


Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con305 (+2 tell) 2097.8%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 1020.0%
Lab0 244 (+1 tell)094.6%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 32 (+1 tell)094.3%
Total:315 295095.6%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Kenneth ClarkeRushcliffewhilst Con (front bench)aye
Anna SoubryBroxtowewhilst Conaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive