A key topic raised in debates this week was that of the meaningful vote, a campaign to ensure parliament gets a final say on the Brexit deal.
The issue I and other colleagues have with this is that there is already a path laid out which can be taken if the government comes back with a ‘poor deal’ and that is a vote of no confidence in the government.
So for as long as the government maintains the confidence of the House, they can negotiate international treaties.
But should they fail in negotiations then there is already the mechanism in place which has been used by the House of Commons historically.
The meaningful vote amendment would change this constitutional balance and separation of powers between parliament and government.
It has also been noted that such an amendment is superfluous since, as Lord Callanan stated when speaking for the government in the Lords debates: “there is no mechanism by which the government can give the full final withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect without introducing primary legislation”.
Two thirds of Amber Valley voters, myself included, chose to leave the European Union in the 2016 referendum.
That is now two years ago so I am pleased that the Lords amendments were rejected this week and we can soon move onto the important business of discussing the details of our departure from the EU.
There is widespread acceptance that in legislating for Brexit, the regulations to convert non-domestic EU law into UK law will need to be implemented speedily to ensure a smooth and orderly transition.
It is time to stop messing about and make some major decisions on the key issues which we will face in order to do justice to the electorates decision to leave the European Union. Now that the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is in its final stages I hope that will be the case.