At #AIWA! NO! News, we focus on people and events that affect people's lives. We bring topics to light that often go under-reported, listening to all sides of the story and giving a 'voice to the voiceless'.
A backbench Tory MP tabled an amendment that would give Parliament greater influence over the Government’s “Plan B”
|Richard Vaughan, i news|AIWA! NO!|MPs were handed the chance to seize control of the Brexit process should Parliament vote down Theresa May’s withdrawal deal next week.
Backbenchers passed a crucial amendment just minutes before the Prime Minister took to the dispatch box to kick off five days of debate on the Government’s divorce agreement with Brussels. Led by Tory rebel Dominic Grieve, MPs inflicted the third humiliating defeat in a single afternoon on Mrs May that would give them far greater say over the UK’s exit from the European Union should they reject her deal on Tuesday.
Mr Grieve tabled a cross-party amendment that would give Parliament greater influence over what the Government’s “Plan B” should look like, voting in favour by 321 votes to 299.
‘No voice, no control!’ Dominic Raab outlines why May’s Brexit deal NOT best for Britain.
‘We would effectively be bound by the same rules but without the control or voice over them,’ says ex-Brexit secretary
The former Brexit Secretary insisted the proposed agreement would give Britain “no voice” over laws regulating the future economic partnership while the backstop is in place.
Speaking to the Today programme, Mr Raab said: “I always play the issue not the individual. We would lose control of our laws. It is highly unlikely the economic partnership would be enforced, the EU knows this and they indeed have control over that process.
“What they really want is lock us in the same rules. We would have no voice, no control, over their formulation. We would have to kowtow to them. That’s a massive undermining of our competitive advantage.”
During the transition period, Britain will also have to follow all the European Union rules and European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings. Should the backstop be triggered, disputes will be resolved by an arbitration panel made up of both sides – but interpretations of EU law are referred to the ECJ.