A Labour peer has revealed that he and some colleagues will vote against triggering article 50 in the House of Lords because he believes Theresa May’s Brexit will be damaging for the poorest communities.



Peter Hain, a former minister for Europe, told the Guardian it was “a matter of principle and a matter of conscience” to oppose the government’s plans after the prime minister made clear she would not attempt to keep Britain in the single market.

“I respect the referendum result but it was a vote against something, rather than a vote for anything. What is clear now is the alternative will be very destructive, making Britain poorer for the next 10 years as our economy adjusts to the shock,” he said. “The very people Labour is in politics to represent will be the hardest hit.”

If the supreme court rules next week that the government must put article 50 to a vote in both houses of parliament, Lord Hain could be one of dozens of peers to vote against it when it comes to the Lords in around mid-February, according to sources.

Those minded to reject the plans include a number within the Labour and Conservative parties and Liberal Democrats, who would be trying to secure amendments for a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

The Commons and the Lords are highly likely to pass article 50 overall but Lib Dem sources believe there are enough peers sceptical of Theresa May’s plan for a hard Brexit to vote for amendments that would force her to publish a more detailed analysis of the impact in a white paper.

The Labour frontbench in the Lords is expected to take a different approach from the Lib Dems. Senior Labour sources have suggested they will focus on getting the government to concede key points, such as regular consultation with parliament, but they want to be clear they are not trying to block or delay the legislation.

That position is not shared by peers such as Hain, who is odds with Labour’s leadership after Jeremy Corbyn appeared to suggest his party could impose a three-line whip on the article 50 vote, meaning that any MPs or peers would be rebelling if they opted to reject the plans.

Hain said he felt certain his leader could relate to his desire not to back the party line on this issue.

“I’m sure Jeremy Corbyn understands, because he voted with his conscience disobeying the whip hundreds of times. I’ve never done that – I’ve had a very occasional rebellion. But I cannot bring myself to vote for something that is going to be so damaging for Britain ... We are heading for the precipice and we are about to jump over and I can’t support.”

Hain said he might have felt differently if May’s speech had “indicated a willingness to retain membership of the single market, albeit with a deal on free movement for labour”. He said that while his party was understandably worried about voters in Labour heartlands who had backed Brexit, it should also remember that up to 70% of those who voted Labour in 2015 also backed remain in the referendum.

His view represents more widespread disquiet within the Labour party about the leadership’s decision to accept May’s plan to leave the single market, but then attempt to replicate its attributes in a trade deal.

Some shadow cabinet members have admitted they are minded to vote against article 50. Others, including Seema Malhotra, who sits on the Commons’ Brexit committee, said they thought May ought to at least start out arguing for single market membership alongside EU-wide reform to free movement.

Meanwhile, Lib Dems have criticised Labour’s position, with the party’s leader, Tim Farron, telling the Guardian he would not sign up to any progressive alliance deals with Corbyn’s party because it had given up on tackling Brexit.

However, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, made clear that his party had to accept that free movement reform meant leaving the single market, and said Labour would seek to represent both leave and remain voters.

A Labour source in the Lords said the party was “relaxed about people on our side voting differently”. The source made clear that there was no chance of the House of Lords blocking article 50, but that it would be much more active with legislation that May’s government will lay down after Brexit negotiations begin.

“The great repeal bill is when the House of Lords will come into its own, when we get down into the weeds of scrutinising those changes to regulations and any necessary changes coming out of Brexit,” he said.

Hain said he believed there would be a large number of abstentions in the Lords’ article 50 vote. Jack McConnell, the former first minister of Scotland, said he had not decided which way he would vote. He told the Guardian: “I think Labour needs to be tougher as the official opposition to force the government to listen to voices in the UK, including in Northern Ireland and Scotland.”

Lord McConnell said it was imperative to scrutinise the impact of Brexit on foreign and environmental policy as well as the impact on jobs of leaving the single market. “I don’t think Labour should be giving a blank cheque to the government,” he said, arguing that it was important to see the legislation first. “We can’t oppose the will of the people but the timing and detail has got to be put to parliament for a vote.”