A pro-leave Tory MP has applied for an urgent debate on Brexit in an attempt to prevent the government from negotiating the terms for leaving the EU without consulting parliament.



Stephen Phillips, who voted to leave in the referendum, said the government appeared intent on negotiating “without any regard to the House of Commons” in a way that was “fundamentally undemocratic, unconstitutional and cuts across the rights and privileges of the legislature”.

Phillips said: “I and many others did not exercise our vote in the referendum so as to restore the sovereignty of this parliament only to see what we regarded as the tyranny of the European Union replaced by that of a government that apparently wishes to ignore the views of the house on the most important issue facing the nation.”

Phillips said he voted to leave for reasons of restoring sovereignty but was not a supporter of the official leave campaign.

The barrister, a member of the public accounts committee, said it was apparent after the Conservative party conference that the government had no intention of consulting parliament about its negotiating aims, and this was “simply not an acceptable way for the executive to proceed”.

He said Theresa May’s government had “no authority or mandate to adopt a negotiating position without reference to the wishes of the house and those of the British people expressed through their elected representatives”.

He has written to the Speaker, John Bercow, to request the urgent debate for this week, which will be ruled on later on Monday.

Asked about Phillips’s comments, the prime minister’s spokesman said it was absolutely necessary for MPs to scrutinise the process of leaving the EU but that MPs should not be given a vote on the package negotiated.

He said: “Parliament is of course going to debate and scrutinise that process as it goes on. That is absolutely necessary and the right thing to do. But having a second vote, or a vote to second-guess the will of the British people, is not an acceptable way forward.”

There appears to be growing disquiet among MPs – both from the leave and remain camps – about the government’s decision to press ahead with triggering article 50, which starts the two-year “divorce process”, without consulting parliament about the kind of relationship the UK should have with the EU in the future.

Phillips’s application for the debate was in addition to former Labour leader Ed Miliband’s unsuccessful request for an urgent question on the issue in the Commons. Instead of the question, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is due to give a statement on plans to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.

Anna Soubry said parliament needed a proper debate about the terms of Brexit. Photograph: Ben Pruchnie/Getty Images

Miliband and Phillips were backed by Anna Soubry, the former Tory business minister involved with the Open Britain campaign group, which aims to hold the government to account over Brexit.

Soubry said she had been in touch with the former Labour leader over the weekend and was supporting his request to press the government to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Brexit process.



Miliband’s push has attracted cross-party support from MPs alarmed at May’s indication that the UK is likely to leave the EU’s single market when it departs the bloc.

Soubry said she and Miliband had talked on Saturday. “I want to make it very clear that we began our conversation from the absolutely shared position that we accept the result of the EU referendum, that we are leaving the EU,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“We do take exception to the idea that this is an effort to thwart the will of the people. It’s absolutely not.”



Soubry said parliament needed to seek answers from May about “the terms upon which she will now embark on the negotiation”.

“We don’t want a running commentary, but we do want parliament at least to debate those terms – notably, of course, whether we’re going to stay a member of the single market, something that every Conservative member of parliament was elected on a manifesto commitment to remain in, in fact to grow,” she said.

“Our real concern is that there appears to be a rush to a hard Brexit and the voice of members of parliament are being completely lost in that rush.”

Soubry said it was not an attempt to block Brexit through motions but to have a proper debate about its terms, especially over issues such as the single market and immigration.

“This is the danger we are in – over-extrapolation,” she said. “It is not good for our country and it is not the way we go forward.”



Speaking about his planned question, Miliband told the Observer: “Having claimed that the referendum was about returning sovereignty to Britain, it would be a complete outrage if May were to determine the terms of Brexit without a mandate from parliament.

“There is no mandate for a ‘hard Brexit’, and I don’t believe there is a majority in parliament for [it] either. Given the importance of these decisions for the UK economy … it has to be a matter for MPs.”

Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “My great worry is that while there will be a vote on repealing the 1972 European Communities Act, which is about the decision to leave the EU, it will be left to the executive alone to decide the terms of Brexit. That would not be remotely acceptable.”

