European Union (Withdrawal) Bill — Schedule 1 — Challenges to Retained European Union Law — 12 Jun 2018 at 16:15

The majority of MPs voted not to allow challenges to European Union law retained as United Kingdom law following withdrawal on the grounds of invalidity before withdrawal.

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 52.

Lords amendment 52 stated:

  • Page 16, leave out lines 11 to 15

The section referred to is within Schedule 1 paragraph 1. The rejected amendment sought to delete Subsections 2(b) and (3) from paragraph 1 which stated:

  • Challenges to validity of retained EU law
  • 1
  • (1)There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge any retained EU law on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid.
  • (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply so far as—
  • (a) the European Court has decided before exit day that the instrument is invalid, or
  • (b) the challenge is of a kind described, or provided for, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.
  • (3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2)(b) may (among other things) provide for a challenge which would otherwise have been against an EU institution to be against a public authority in the United Kingdom.

The explanatory notes to the rejected amendment[3] stated:

  • Lords Amendment 52 relates to challenges to retained EU law in domestic law after exit on the basis that an EU instrument was invalid.
  • This amendment would remove the mechanism under which a Minister of the Crown could specify in regulations the circumstances in which such validity challenges could be available in domestic law. It would also remove the ability for regulations made under this power to provide for a challenge which would have been brought against an EU institution before exit to be brought instead against a public authority in the United Kingdom after exit.
  • The amendment would not affect the general exclusion of challenges to retained EU law on validity grounds after exit, provided for under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1.


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 (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con311 (+2 tell) 0099.1%
DUP10 00100.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent2 40100.0%
Lab3 245 (+2 tell)097.3%
LDem0 120100.0%
PC0 40100.0%
SNP0 350100.0%
Total:326 301098.4%

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

Frank FieldBirkenheadwhilst Lab (front bench)aye
Kate HoeyVauxhallLab (minister)aye
Graham StringerBlackley and BroughtonLab (minister)aye

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