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