European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill — Clause 1 — Consideration by MPs of Any Withdrawal Delay Proposed by the European Council — 3 Apr 2019 at 21:45
The majority of MPs voted for MPs in the House of Commons to consider any delay to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union in-light of a new withdrawal date being proposed by the European Council.
The European Council is made up of the heads of state or government of the 28 EU member states, the European Council President and the President of the European Commission.[1]
MPs were considering the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill[2].
The amendment rejected by a majority of MPs in this vote was:
- Amendment 21, page 1, line 21, leave out subsections (6) and (7)
Subsections (6) and (7) stated:
- (6) Subsection (7) applies if the European Council proposes an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union to a period ending other than on the date proposed in the resolution arising from the motion in the form set out in subsection (2) for the purposes of subsection (1).
- (7) If the condition in subsection (6) is met, on the day after the European Council makes the proposal referred to in subsection (6), the Prime Minister must move a motion in the House of Commons in the form set out in subsection (2).
Subsection (2), the main operative clause of the Bill, required a motion to be put before the House of Commons in the form:
- “That this House agrees for the purposes of section 2 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 […]”
The date to which the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union would be delayed was not given in the Bill but would, under subsection 1(3) of the Bill, be added to the motion prior to it being moved and could be amended during debate.
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.
| Party | Majority (No) | Minority (Aye) | Both | Turnout |
| Con | 15 | 287 (+2 tell) | 0 | 97.1% |
| DUP | 0 | 10 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Green | 1 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Independent | 19 | 3 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Lab | 228 (+2 tell) | 4 | 0 | 95.5% |
| LDem | 11 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| PC | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| SNP | 35 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| Total: | 313 | 304 | 0 | 96.9% |
Rebel Voters - sorted by name
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
| Name | Constituency | Party | Vote |
| Guto Bebb | Aberconwy | whilst Con (front bench) | no |
| Steve Brine | Winchester | whilst Con | no |
| Ronnie Campbell | Blyth Valley | Lab | aye |
| Kenneth Clarke | Rushcliffe | whilst Con (front bench) | no |
| Jonathan Djanogly | Huntingdon | Con (front bench) | no |
| Justine Greening | Putney | whilst Con | no |
| Dominic Grieve | Beaconsfield | whilst Con (front bench) | no |
| Sam Gyimah | East Surrey | whilst Con (front bench) | no |
| Richard Harrington | Watford | whilst Con | no |
| Stephen Hepburn | Jarrow | Lab (minister) | aye |
| Kate Hoey | Vauxhall | Lab (minister) | aye |
| Phillip Lee | Bracknell | whilst Con | no |
| Oliver Letwin | West Dorset | whilst Con | no |
| Paul Masterton | East Renfrewshire | Con (front bench) | no |
| Antoinette Sandbach | Eddisbury | whilst Con (front bench) | no |
| Caroline Spelman | Meriden | Con (front bench) | no |
| Graham Stringer | Blackley and Broughton | Lab (minister) | aye |
| Thomas Tugendhat | Tonbridge and Malling | Con (front bench) | no |
| Ed Vaizey | Wantage | whilst Con (front bench) | no |