Parliament will pass the Article 50 bill, but only when Theresa May kicks off the Brexit procedure will the real debate about its terms begin

IT WAS certainly a majestic setting. The House of Lords was resplendent with gilt, glass, a bevy of bishops and many geriatric former politicians crammed onto its red leather benches. And there perched on a parapet just below the glittering royal throne sat Theresa May, on a highly unusual visit to the upper house.

The reason for the prime minister’s presence on February 20th was that the Lords were starting to debate the bill authorising her to invoke Article 50, the treaty procedure for leaving the European Union. Although (or because) they are unelected, the quality of their debate far exceeded that in the Commons a fortnight ago.

Lord Hague, a former Tory leader, loudly denounced Tony Blair, a former Labour prime minister, for inviting people to “rise up” against Brexit (see Bagehot). Lord Mandelson, Mr Blair’s close ally, responded that Brexit supporters did not want Britain to be poorer and politically isolated, and so should be entitled to change their minds. Lords Lawson and Lamont, both former Tory chancellors, attacked as undemocratic the idea of amending a bill that had not only passed the Commons unscathed but also reflected one of the biggest votes in British history.

Even so, because the government lacks a majority in the upper house, the Lords will try to amend the bill. One amendment could demand a bigger role for Parliament. Another would try to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in Britain to stay put. Their Lordships might even demand a second referendum on the precise terms of Brexit. This idea was supported not just by Liberal Democrats and Scottish Nationalists but by other luminaries, including Lord Butler, a former cabinet secretary.

But peers also made clear that they will eventually back down and let an unamended bill become law in the first half of March. And that will allow Mrs May to invoke Article 50 in good time to avoid overtly spoiling the EU’s 60th birthday bash in Rome on March 25th, a party she has already said she will not attend.

The real problem with the debate was its focus on procedure, not substance. Peers are doubtless right to call for closer parliamentary involvement. They are also right to object to Mrs May’s plan to present Parliament after her Brexit negotiations with what Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former diplomat often credited with writing Article 50, called Hobson’s choice: a bad Brexit deal or, in his view worse, no deal at all. In effect, Mrs May has now set the terms of Brexit as either hard or chaotic.

Yet once Article 50 is invoked, the argument over Brexit will instantly become substantive. Trading arrangements, a new migration regime, the future of regulation, security and defence co-operation, money and much else will be on the table. And as Lord Hill, a former European commissioner, noted in the debate, what will matter then is not what the British government wants but what the other 27 countries are prepared to offer, as the bargaining power is mainly on their side.

The big risk is that the eventual result will be good neither for Britain nor for the EU. In a new paper for the Centre for European Reform, a think-tank, Charles Grant notes that this is because “both the UK and the 27 are placing politics and principles ahead of economically optimal outcomes.” Sadly, it was ever thus.