Speaker 1: British Prime Minister Theresa May has set a date of
Speaker 1: March thirty one for beginning of country's withdrawal from the
Speaker 1: European Union. But our government suffered its first legislative defeat
Speaker 1: on the bill authorizing the Prime Minister to begin the
Speaker 1: Brexit process when the House of Lords voted to add
Speaker 1: an amendment to the bill over May's objection. The amendment
Speaker 1: would protect the right of EU nationals to stay in
Speaker 1: Britain even after Britain leaves the EU. It will now
Speaker 1: be sent to the House of Commons, which is set
Speaker 1: to debate the Brexit Bill on March thirteenth and fourteen,
Speaker 1: but May is sticking to a timetable even as the
Speaker 1: House of Lords may be planning to consider other amendments.
Speaker 1: Here to talk with us about these parliamentary maneuverings over Brexit,
Speaker 1: our Professor Steve Peers of the University of Essex Law
Speaker 1: School and Professor Catherine Bernard of the University of Cambridge
Speaker 1: Faculty of Law. Catherine, what is the significance of the
Speaker 1: vote by the House of Lords on this bill. It's
Speaker 1: significant because there was an important judgment of our Supreme
Speaker 1: Court in January saying that they're needed to be an
Speaker 1: Act of Parliament two trigger the Article fifty process, that's
Speaker 1: the process that will take the UK out of the
Speaker 1: European Union. And the bill went through the House of
Speaker 1: Commons very easily. There was a number of amendments proposed
Speaker 1: that they all rejected and now the House of Lords
Speaker 1: are scrutinizing it and Dave raised concerns about number of
Speaker 1: issues that particularly about protecting the rights of EU nationals
Speaker 1: who already here. And actually there's quite a lot of
Speaker 1: cross party support for giving right to EU nationals, but
Speaker 1: the question is how and when, and the big question
Speaker 1: is should it be done in advance of Article fifty
Speaker 1: being triggered or should it be part of the Brexit
Speaker 1: negotiations because trees are May says we don't want to
Speaker 1: give entitlements to EU nationals in the United Kingdom now
Speaker 1: because we want to secure the position of British nationals
Speaker 1: living in the EU. And this has led to complaints
Speaker 1: that the nationals in the UK are being used as
Speaker 1: bargaining chips and they say this is not fair. Stephen.
Speaker 1: The House of Commons will be debating the amended bill,
Speaker 1: where May's Conservative Party has a slender majority. Is the
Speaker 1: vote likely to go along party lines? Well, it did
Speaker 1: when the House of Commons first looked at this bill.
Speaker 1: There are only a few Conservative MPs who switched and
Speaker 1: voted with the opposition, and they are actually one or
Speaker 1: two Labor MPs who switched and voted with the Conservatives.
Speaker 1: And then when people like Chen fame from Northern Irelands
Speaker 1: who don't take their seats, So unless about ten Conservatives
Speaker 1: switch or something like that, that because they'll have auster
Speaker 1: unions on their side, So ten fifteen Conservatives would have
Speaker 1: to switch in order to defeat the government and that
Speaker 1: maybe um probably a politically unrealistic but we'll see, Catherine,
Speaker 1: what happens if let's say that the House of Commons
Speaker 1: votes against the amendment, that the parties stay where they
Speaker 1: are and they vote against the amendment, will what happens
Speaker 1: to the to the Brexit process? How does may proceed
Speaker 1: from there? Yeah? So it's what happens is what called
Speaker 1: ping pong legislative ping pong, and literally the bill will
Speaker 1: ping pong between the lords and the Commons. But it's
Speaker 1: thought likely that ultimately the lord's will cave in because
Speaker 1: the lords are not democratically elected unlike the Commons, and
Speaker 1: so there is a risk of something of a constitutional
Speaker 1: crisis if the Lords persist. On the other hand, they
Speaker 1: have put sent out a strong message, and it's a
Speaker 1: rather strong moral message that the lives of somewhere between
Speaker 1: three and four million EU nationals who are currently living
Speaker 1: in the UK are being affected by these decisions, and
Speaker 1: their families are in a state of considered uncertainty as
Speaker 1: to what will happen, what the future holds for them. Here, Stephen,
Speaker 1: just a thirty seconds here, Why is Maso insistent on
Speaker 1: keeping to her timetable. Well, she's made a political promise
Speaker 1: to her party and to others who support leaving the
Speaker 1: European Union, and I think you'd be moither a bouncing
Speaker 1: to go back on it now. They also want to
Speaker 1: leave before the next European Parliament elections may have two
Speaker 1: thousand and nineteen. Unless they get going soon, there's a
Speaker 1: two year negotiation windows, so that would be kind of awkward.
Speaker 1: They'd went up against that deadline if they don't start
Speaker 1: the process soon. Britain Supreme Court ruled that the country's
Speaker 1: exit from the European Union needs to be approved by
Speaker 1: Parliament and Prime Minister Theresa May has asked Parliament to
Speaker 1: pass a law that does not impose any conditions on
Speaker 1: her negotiating Britain's exit from the EU. But the House
Speaker 1: of Lords is past an amendment protecting the right of
Speaker 1: non British EU nationals to stay in Britain after Brexit
Speaker 1: takes place. We're talking about what this amendment means from
Speaker 1: as Brexit strategy with Professor Steve Peers of the University
Speaker 1: of Essex Law School and Professor Professor Katherine Bernard of
Speaker 1: the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law. Steve, the House
Speaker 1: of Lords has passed this one amendment which is now
Speaker 1: going to go to the House of Commons. They've also
Speaker 1: there's also been reports that they're considering other amendments to
Speaker 1: the law. What are they thinking about, Well, I don't
Speaker 1: know how many are still left to consider, but I
Speaker 1: think the big one that is apparently quite likely to
Speaker 1: pass is another amendment which would say there has to
Speaker 1: be a vote of Parliament on the final Brexit deal
Speaker 1: at the end of the whole process. But then that
Speaker 1: raises some awkward questions because of what a parliament said. No,
Speaker 1: we have a two year deadline to finish all this
Speaker 1: up and you can extend the deadline, but the EU
Speaker 1: has to agree and they might not. So does the
Speaker 1: government fellow power to go back and negotiate, or do
Speaker 1: we hold another referendum or something and not leave after all,
Speaker 1: depending on the results of the referendum, or do we
Speaker 1: just leave the EU without a trade deal, because the
Speaker 1: one the government done, if they even are successful negotiating,
Speaker 1: giving good enough according to Parliament, So that would be
Speaker 1: quite a big one. I think if that one goes
Speaker 1: to it went potentially and even the bigger complications for
Speaker 1: the government at the end of the process than the
Speaker 1: one on EU citizens. Katherine, as we said, May is
Speaker 1: insistent on keeping to her timetable, but if Commons rejects
Speaker 1: the changes, then it goes back to the House of
Speaker 1: Lords what you called ping ponging. Won't that eat away
Speaker 1: at her timetable? Yes, it might slow it up a bit,
Speaker 1: but it thought likely she still will trigger by the
Speaker 1: end of March because of the reason that Steve gave earlier,
Speaker 1: namely that there's got to be a two negotiating process
Speaker 1: which takes us to nineteen and it needs to be
Speaker 1: done before the European Parliament elections because there are nearly
Speaker 1: a hundred British m EPs members of the European Parliament
Speaker 1: in Strasbourg and they have got to be removed. So
Speaker 1: I think in practice it's very like to be triggered
Speaker 1: in March. There was rumor that he was going to
Speaker 1: trigger on the ninth of March, when there's a European
Speaker 1: Council meeting in Brussels, but the latest developments suggest that
Speaker 1: that's probably not going to happen, so it may be
Speaker 1: delayed a week, maybe a couple of weeks, but also
Speaker 1: that that time gives a bit of breathing space to
Speaker 1: the civil service, because the civil service they're working hard
Speaker 1: trying to work out what is going to be the
Speaker 1: UK's position in respect of the negotiations over the Article
Speaker 1: fifty divorce agreement. Steve, is there any chance that the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister might actually give in to what the House
Speaker 1: of Lords wants to do with this amendment? I think
Speaker 1: that's unlikely. I mean, she sort of put a lot
Speaker 1: of political capital on not giving in. I mean she
Speaker 1: could easily doing but I think you know, usually in
Speaker 1: these sorts of cases of the House of Lord wants
Speaker 1: to amend something, there's discussion between the two sides and
Speaker 1: there's some kind of compromise, but she's put a lot
Speaker 1: of political capital not getting in and what the government
Speaker 1: can do it may sound a bit on too American listeners,
Speaker 1: is that if it really comes down to a crunch,
Speaker 1: it can appoint extra sort of emergency members of the
Speaker 1: House of Lords. I might It's a bit like in
Speaker 1: America's is if if the president had a power to
Speaker 1: point additional senators to get things through, and that obviously
Speaker 1: would have simplified life for a lot of American presidents
Speaker 1: in the past. Um, but probably you can't do that.
Speaker 1: But in Britain, in theory, you can do that, and
Speaker 1: no one's ever done that. The threat is usually enough
Speaker 1: to make the House of Lords complying, so become a
Speaker 1: card just to polish the House of Lords or take
Speaker 1: away its powers that some people would like. What it
Speaker 1: can do is threatened, realistically threatened to have these extra
Speaker 1: lords in place, and that if it came to it
Speaker 1: might be what pushes the House of Lords back down.
Speaker 1: So it's for Americans, Catherine explain the position of the
Speaker 1: House of Lords as opposed to the House of Commons,
Speaker 1: because from what you're saying, it doesn't sound like they
Speaker 1: have of real power. Well, they do have powers to
Speaker 1: extent that they can hold up a bill um and
Speaker 1: stuff it becoming law, but they can only hold it
Speaker 1: up for one year, so it um. But their their
Speaker 1: power is important. And I think what we would also
Speaker 1: say is that, of course they don't have the legitimacy
Speaker 1: of the Commons because they're not democratically elected. They are
Speaker 1: there largely through nomination um, their mix of political nominees
Speaker 1: but also senior mens the church, any members of academia,
Speaker 1: and they have a range of experience, and they tend
Speaker 1: to scrutinize legislation quite closely um. And so they have
Speaker 1: a legitimacy through with from an experience, but not from
Speaker 1: the ballot box. And so therefore the laws are very
Speaker 1: usually very careful about directly contradicting the power of the Commons,
Speaker 1: and ultimately the Commons will will prevail, for the rule
Speaker 1: of the House of Commons will prevail. Steve, do you
Speaker 1: think what do you think the most likely outcome is here,
Speaker 1: given what the House of Lords has done and has
Speaker 1: might do on the other amendment they're considering, just in
Speaker 1: about thirty seconds, Well, what I think the government will
Speaker 1: do is it won't want amendment to the bill, but
Speaker 1: it will make some kind of concessions in terms of
Speaker 1: promises as to what it will do in the future,
Speaker 1: and it's already made a few promises. We don't very strong.
Speaker 1: I think it'll just strengthen them a little bit and
Speaker 1: that will probably be enough for the House of Holt
Speaker 1: to say, okay, we'll we'll be good amendments and go
Speaker 1: along with it. Our thanks to Professor Steve Pearce of
Speaker 1: the University of Essex School of Law and Professor Katherine
Speaker 1: Bernard of the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law for
Speaker 1: being with us here today on Bloomberg Law