LONDON — Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, on Tuesday promised greater control for Parliament over withdrawal from the European Union, after a threatened rebellion by lawmakers forced her into a new and potentially significant retreat in the country’s troubled exit from the bloc.
The day began on an ominous note with the resignation of one of Mrs. May’s ministers over her plans for withdrawal, known as Brexit, and got steadily worse for the prime minister when some of her rebel lawmakers combined with opposition parties, posing the threat of a damaging defeat.
The vote concerned an amendment that had been added by the House of Lords to Mrs. May’s main Brexit legislation. The amendment would have given lawmakers more control over the process by, among other things, avoiding a last-minute, take-it-or-leave-it vote on whatever package the government negotiated with Brussels.
Mrs. May had appealed to lawmakers not to support the amendment, arguing that it would weaken her negotiating hand with the European Union. Ultimately, they were placated by promises of a timely vote and adherence to some of the technical guarantees demanded by a Conservative rebel, Dominic Grieve, about what happens if a Brexit deal proves unacceptable to Parliament.
All this is before Mrs. May meets other European Union leaders at a summit this month for talks that are likely to be difficult.
For avoidance of any doubt the promised further amendment in the Lords must closely reflect Dominic Grieve’s amendment (or Lords likely to bring that forward themselves & for that to be passed)
— Sarah Wollaston MP (@sarahwollaston) June 12, 2018
There were warning signs for the government on Tuesday morning when Phillip Lee resigned his post as a junior justice minister, saying that Parliament was being sidelined and that he could not support “how our country’s exit from the E.U. looks set to be delivered.”
The way the withdrawal was being pursued was “detrimental to the people we are elected to serve,” added Mr. Lee, who will remain a lawmaker.
"I believe that the evidence now shows that the #Brexit policy our Government is currently pursuing on the basis of the 2016 referendum is detrimental to the people we are elected to serve". #BrightBlue
— Dr Phillip Lee MP (@DrPhillipLeeMP) June 12, 2018
Since losing her parliamentary majority last year, Mrs. May has been forced to adjudicate between warring factions within her Conservative Party, something that has led her to postpone a number of important decisions.
As a consequence, almost two years after the 2016 referendum that mandated British withdrawal, the British government has been unable to outline what type of economic relationship it wants with the European Union, which is its biggest trading partner.
Mrs. May’s cabinet is split between those who want to keep close ties, in order to protect the economy, and hard-line Brexit supporters who want to cut free in the hope of striking trade deals further afield.
A fierce dispute has also broken out over a British contingency plan to prevent the imposition of border checks between Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, and Ireland which will remain in the European Union.
This idea would involve keeping many European trade rules until technological tools — like tracking devices or online customs declarations — are ready that would eliminate the need for border checks. Some Brexit supporters fear that such a plan could keep Britain tied indefinitely into Europe’s regulatory system.
On Tuesday, the pro-Brexit Conservative lawmaker, Edward Leigh, warned that defeating Mrs. May on the Lords amendment “would be a catastrophe for the government,” whose opponents, he said, want to “create a situation in which the whole process is frustrated.”
Dominic Grieve, one of the Conservative rebels, told lawmakers that “the irrationality of the debate we are having on the details of Brexit is truly chilling.”
Elsewhere in Parliament, Arron Banks, a high-profile businessman who helped finance one of the pro-Brexit referendum campaigns in 2016, played down the significance of meetings with Russian diplomats, and said there was “no evidence” of collusion with Moscow over the campaign of British withdrawal.
Mr. Banks, the combative founder of Leave.EU, appeared before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee two days after it emerged that, in addition to a lunch he had made public with Alexander Yakovenko, the Russian ambassador to Britain, there had been two further meetings, and that he had discussed a potential Russian mining venture, which was not pursued.
At one encounter, after the American elections, Mr. Banks and his spokesman Andy Wigmore passed along contact details for the Trump transition team, which they had gotten on a visit to Trump Tower in New York, where they met the incoming president.
During their occasionally confrontational testimony, Mr. Banks and Mr. Wigmore admitted that they sometimes exaggerated to journalists, particularly during the referendum campaign.
Finally, as the hearing ran long, Mr. Banks cut short his appearance saying that he had a lunch appointment, telling the lawmakers that they could join him if they wanted.