There was confusion in the House of Commons as an amendment appeared to pass because no-one was ready to count the votes against it
The Kinnock amendment sought to extend the Brexit delay in order to allow MPs to pass a withdrawal agreement - based on the result of cross-party talks between Labour and the Conservatives back in May.
READ MORE: Politics LIVE: Boris Johnson calls on MPs to back October general election
It looks like the Kinnock amendment to put Theresa May's deal back to the Commons for another vote just went through by mistake.... things are getting very very odd around here indeed
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) September 4, 2019
The amendment meant that if the Prime Minister needed to request an article 50 extension because a new deal had not been negotiated with Europe, then getting an extension to pass a version of the Theresa May deal became government policy.
Here's the clause of the Bill, pre Kinnock amendment... pic.twitter.com/9LrgKzDpKe
— Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) September 4, 2019
Labour MP Stephen Kinnock’s amendment was approved after tellers for those voting against the amendment were not put forward during voting.
A Government source said it was a “free vote so no one put tellers in”.
Mrs May’s final offer, the Withdrawal Agreement Bill, emerged from cross-party talks earlier this year, but was never put before Parliament because she was ousted as Tory leader.
Although no teller was available, it is not clear whether this has passed by accident - or a tactical move by the government.
Labour's Alex Sodel tweeted: "The amendment in the name of Stephen Kinnock didn’t have a vote as the Government didn’t provide tellers to count.
"This meant the amendment went through although the No Lobby was full.
READ MORE: Michel Barnier pulls out of Belfast appearance as Brexit negotiations continue
"This wasn’t an accident you can be assured there’s some skullduggery going on"
The Withdrawal Agreement Bill was never put before Parliament, as Mrs May was ousted as leader of the Conservative Party after facing an inevitable defeat in parliament.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel