European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — New Clause 17 — Report on Economic Impact of Withdrawal Agreement — 17 Jan 2018 at 16:30

The majority of MPs voted not to require an assessment of the economic impact of a proposed agreement for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, and not to make such an assessment a prerequisite for Parliamentary approval of a withdrawal agreement.

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

The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was titled: Effect of losing access to EU single market and customs union and stated:

  • “(1) The Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of any unratified agreement (“the Agreement”) between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
  • (2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the Agreement and continued participation in the EU single market and customs union.
  • (3) The assessment in subsection (1) must be prepared by the Treasury and must include separate analyses from the National Audit Office, the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government Actuary’s Department, and the finance directorates of each of the devolved Administrations of the methodology and conclusions of the Treasury assessment.
  • (4) A statute of the kind mentioned in section 9 (approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union) may not come into effect until the Prime Minister’s assessment under subsection (1) has been—
  • (a) debated by each House of Parliament, and
  • (b) approved by resolution of the House of Commons.”

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

  • This purpose of this New Clause is to ensure that the alternative of remaining in the EU single market and customs union is formally considered by Parliament on the basis of an independently validated economic assessment before any statute approving the final terms of withdrawal takes effect.
  • [1] Parliament's webpage on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate in Parliament |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your (UK) electricity and/or gas to Octopus Energy or tip us via Ko-Fi.

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
Con306 (+2 tell) 2098.1%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 3080.0%
Lab3 246 (+2 tell)096.9%
LDem0 11091.7%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 34097.1%
Total:320 301097.4%

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
Frank FieldBirkenheadwhilst Lab (front bench)no
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)no
Graham StringerBlackley and BroughtonLab (minister)no

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.

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive