Will MPs get a vote on a trade deal with Donald Trump?
It used to be Labour policy, though Sir Keir Starmer didn’t sound keen on the idea at Prime Minister’s Questions.
The PM was challenged, first by Lib Dem MP Clive Jones, who wants a guarantee that parliament has the final say on any trade deal, including one with the US.
“This idea is not new,” said Clive, who used to be a director of various toy companies, and was president, chairman and director of the British Toy and Hobby Association, no less.
“It’s exactly what Labour promised to do in an official policy paper put forward in 2021, so I am asking this government to keep their promise,” he continued.
And, toying with the PM, he complained: “Currently, members of parliament have no vote or voice on trade deals.”
In reply, Sir Keir gave one of those non-answers we’re becoming used to at PMQs, saying rather tetchily: “As he knows, parliament has a well-established role in scrutinising and ratifying trade deals.”
More on Keir Starmer
Related Topics:
Later, Sir Ed Davey had a go. “Will the government give MPs a vote on the floor of the House on any deal he agrees with President Trump? Yes or no?” he asked.
He fared no better. Sir Keir said again: “If it is secured, it will go through the known procedures for this House.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:25
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
So what are parliament’s “well-established role” and “the known procedures”? And what exactly did Labour promise in opposition back in 2021?
The 2021 promise was, in fact, one of those worthy pledges parties make in opposition and then either conveniently forget about or water down when they’re in government. U-turn if you want to.
The policy paper referred to by Mr Jones was: “Labour’s trade policy: putting workers first” – published in September 2021 by Emily Thornberry when she was shadow international trade secretary.
The secretary of state at the time was none other than Liz Truss. Whatever happened to her? Come to think of it, whatever happened to Emily Thornberry?
Back then idealistic Emily declared in her policy paper: “We will reform the parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements…
“So that MPs have a guaranteed right to debate the proposed negotiating objectives for future trade deals, and a guaranteed vote on the resulting agreements…”
A guaranteed vote. Couldn’t be clearer. And there was more from Emily.
“…with sufficient time set aside for detailed scrutiny both of the draft treaty texts and of accompanying expert analysis on the full range of implications, including for workers’ rights.”
Sufficient time for detailed scrutiny. Again, couldn’t be clearer.
Image: Starmer was pushed on the deal at PMQs. Pic: PA
Then came a section headed: Parliamentary Scrutiny of Trade Deals.
“The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) dictates that international treaties (including trade agreements) must be laid before parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before they can become law,” we were told back then.
“At present, a treaty can only be challenged and (temporarily) rejected by means of an opposition day debate, if one is granted by the government within that time.
“The CRAG legislation was agreed by parliament before Brexit was on the horizon. Its procedures for the ratification of trade treaties, which were then negotiated and agreed at EU level, were given no consideration during the passage of the Act, and no one envisaged that they would become the mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of the government’s post-Brexit trade deals…
“Despite the flagrant evidence of the inadequacy of the CRAG Act to allow proper oversight of trade deals, the government repeatedly blocked numerous cross-party proposals to improve the processes for parliamentary scrutiny and approval during passage of the 2021 Trade Act.
“A future Labour government will return to those proposals, and learn from best practice in other legislatures, to ensure that elected MPs have all the time, information and opportunity they need to debate and vote on the UK’s trade deals, both before negotiations begin and after they conclude.”
So what’s changed from the heady days of Liz Truss as trade secretary and Labour’s bold pledges in opposition? Labour’s in government now, that’s what. Hence the U-turn, it seems.
Parliament’s role may be, as Sir Keir told MPs, “well-established”. But that, according to opponents, is the problem. It’s contrary to what Labour promised in opposition.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Sir Ed hit back at the PM: “I’m very disappointed in that reply. There was no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. We do want a vote, and we will keep pressing him and his government on that.”
And true to their word, Mr Jones and another Lib Dem MP, Richard Foord, have already tabled private member’s bills demanding a final say on any trade deal with President Trump.
Watch this space. And also watch out for Labour MPs also backing demands for a Commons vote on a Trump trade deal before long.
For decades he was the dissident backbencher, then unlikely Labour leader. She was a firebrand left-wing Labour MP with a huge online presence. To the left – on paper – it looked like the perfect combination.
Coupled with the support of four other independent MPs, it held the blueprints of a credible party. But ever since the launch of Your Party (working title) the left-wing movement has faced mockery and exasperation over its inability to look organised.
First, we learned Jeremy Corbyn’s team had been unaware of the exact timing of Zarah Sultana’s announcement that she would quit the Labour Party. Then a much bigger row emerged when she launched a membership drive linking people to sign up to the party without the full consent of the team.
It laid bare the holes in the structure of the party and pulled focus away from its core values of trying to be a party to counter Labour and Reform UK, while also drawing out some pretty robust language from their only woman MP calling the grouping a “sexist boys club”. It gave the impression that she was being sidelined by the four other male MPs behind the scenes.
This week, they tried to come together for the first time at a rally I attended in Liverpool and then, in quick succession, another event at The World Transformed conference the day after. But not everyone I spoke to who turned up to see the two heroes of the left found them all that convincing.
Jeremy Corbyn admitted to me that “there were some errors made about announcements and that caused a problem”. He said he was disappointed but that “we’re past that”.
Image: Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana take part in a discussion on Your Party at The World Transformed conference in Manchester. Pic: PA
Zarah Sultana said they were like Liam and Noel, who managed to “patch things up and have a very successful tour – we are doing the same”.
The problem is, it didn’t really explain what happened, or how they resolved things behind the scenes, and for some, it might have done too much damage already.
Layla signed up as a member when she first saw the link. It was the moment she had been waiting for after becoming frustrated with Labour. But she told me she found the ordeal “very unprofessional, very dishonest and messy”, and said she doesn’t want to be in a disorganised party and has lost trust in where her money will end up. She’s now thinking about the Greens. She said their leader, Zack Polanski “seemed like such a strong politician” with “a lot of charisma”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
30:06
Jeremy Corbyn’s back – with Zarah Sultana and a new party. But is it a real threat to Labour, or just political theatre?
Since Polanski’s rise to power as leader, the Green Party has surged in popularity. According to a recent poll, they went up four points in just one week (following their conference). Voters, particularly on the left, seem to like his brand of “eco populism”.
While he has politely declined formally working in conjunction with Your Party publicly, he has said the “door is always open” to collaboration especially as he sees common goals between the two parties. Zarah Sultana said this weekend though that the Greens don’t describe themselves as socialists and that they support NATO which she has dubbed an “imperialist war machine”.
While newer coalitions may not be the problem for now, internal fissures might come sooner than they expect. Voters at the rally this weekend came with pretty clear concerns about some of the other independent MPs involved in Your Party.
Image: The two heroes of the left fell out over a row over their party’s paid membership system
I asked Ayoub Khan if he considered himself left-wing. A question that would solicit a simple answer in a crowd like this. But he said his view was very simple, that he is interested in fighting for equality, fairness and justice: ‘We all know that different wards, different constituencies have different priorities and MPs should be allowed to represent the views of the communities they serve.” To him, that can sometimes mean voting against the private school tax and against decriminalising abortion.
The Your Party rally on Thursday night was packed, but the tone was subdued. People came full of optimism but they also wanted to make up their mind about the credibility of the new offering and to see the renewed reconciliation up close.
The organisers closed the evening off with John Lennon’s song, Imagine. That was apt, because until the party can get their act together, that’s all they’ll be doing.