REWIND: Article 50 Triggered: Inside the Historic Brexit Debate

Join us as we delve into the momentous day the UK formally triggered Article 50, beginning the process of leaving the European Union. This episode takes you inside the House of Commons as Prime Minister Theresa May delivers her statement and faces a barrage of questions from MPs across the political spectrum. Hear the key arguments, the hopes for a "global Britain," and the deep divisions that persist. Understand the government's aims for negotiations, including a new "deep and special partnership" with the EU, and the opposition's concerns about jobs, rights, and the future of the Union.

Key Takeaways:

• The UK government formally invoked Article 50, acting on the democratic will of the British people expressed in the referendum.
• Prime Minister May outlined the government's ambition for a stronger, fairer, more united, and more outward-looking Britain.
• The government aims for a new deep and special partnership with the EU, covering security and economic affairs, based on cooperation.
• Key priorities include seeking a comprehensive free trade agreement, controlling immigration, ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU.
• The government intends to convert the 'acquis' into British law via a White Paper and put the final deal to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
• The Labour party respects the decision to leave but voiced concerns about a "hard Brexit" and the need to protect jobs, living standards, and access to the single market.
• The SNP strongly opposed the triggering of Article 50, highlighting that Scotland voted to remain in the EU and demanding a second independence referendum.
• Concerns were raised about the impact on Northern Ireland, the importance of maintaining the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, and the need to avoid a hard border.
• The government acknowledged the economic consequences of leaving the EU but emphasized the opportunity for new trade agreements globally.

Source: Hansard - Article 50 Volume 624: debated on Wednesday 29 March 2017

REWIND episode

Chapters

• 1:45 The PM's statement - key elements
• 3:06 Our 'deep and special partnership' with the EU
• 4:04 White Paper
• 4:46 Consequences of leaving the EU
• 5:40 Views of The Opposition - anxieties
• 7:47 Rights of UK and EU nationals
• 8:16 Labour's key tests for any final deal
• 9:11 Leaving the single market
• 10:09 Scotland and NI
• 10:58 'No deal is better than a bad deal'
• 11:29 Role of Parliament itself
• 11:50 Economic impact - fisheries example
• 13:13 Common ground?
• 13:41 Conclusions

Transcript

Welcome to the bench report where we unpack and analyze all the big debates and discussions happening in UK parliament. Making politics a little more accessible and a little less, well intimidating. Exactly. Because, honestly, sometimes it can feel like a whole different world. With a language all of its own.

And we aim to break all that down, analyze the issues that impact us all personally or professionally. And today, we are looking back at a pivotal moment. Eight years ago this month, March 2025, might feel recent to you. Like just yesterday. But in the world of UK politics, eight years is like a lifetime.

An eternity so much can change. We're taking a deep dive into a moment from March 2017. A historic moment. The triggering of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Article 50.

Oh, boy. That brings back memories. So for this deep dive, what are our sources? We're gonna be looking at excerpts from the official record of UK parliament. Straight from the source.

Specifically, the statements and the questions that followed the prime minister's announcement on that day. That's right. We're going right back to that historic day and dissecting it all. It's gonna be a fascinating journey. It really is.

Our mission today is to unpack the key arguments, the immediate reactions, and the underlying tensions that were present at this major turning point in politics. I mean, just think about it. This was the moment The UK formally set the wheels in motion to leave the EU. A decision that continues to shape the country's political and economic landscape to this very day. What were the government's stated goals back then?

What were the major concerns raised by other parties? And looking back, can we spot any hints about the path that lay ahead? Oh, good question. Let's find out what stood out to you from these parliamentary exchanges. Well, the prime minister's statement on that day was really a defining moment.

It was it really set the tone for everything that followed. What key elements did she emphasize? You know, the thing that really struck me was how the idea of acting on the democratic will was front and center. It was presented as this decisive moment, you know, a a historic moment from which there can be no turning back. So right from the start, it was framed as a definitive, irreversible decision.

Exactly. And this language really underscored the gravity of the situation. Right. And it was all about fulfilling the outcome of the referendum. Which she described as the clear and convincing decision of the British people.

So this idea of respecting the referendum result was the bedrock of everything that followed. It was the foundational principle guiding their actions, taking control back, steering towards a vision of a stronger, fairer Britain. Stronger, fairer Britain. But what did that actually look like? Well, she spoke at length about this idea of forging a new deep and special partnership with the European Union.

So it wasn't about completely severing ties. No. It was more about redefining the relationship. Built on shared values Yeah. And continued cooperation, especially in areas like security and the economy.

Like this partnership was going to be the cornerstone of their post Brexit world. A reassurance to both UK citizens and the international community. Exactly. But you know what's so interesting about that phrase deep and special partnership is that it's actually quite ambiguous. Oh, absolutely.

The specifics of what that would entail in terms of trade and regulatory alignment were really left undefined at this early stage. Which looking back is fascinating because this lack of concrete detail almost set the stage for the many debates and disagreements that were to come. Right. It's almost as if they were trying to be all things to all people at that point. Trying to bridge a very wide divide.

And alongside this new European partnership, she also very clearly articulated the ambition for a truly global Britain. So this wasn't just about the EU anymore. The horizon was expanding. Yes. The vision extended to building stronger relationships with countries around the world, you know, leveraging opportunities for global trade and influence.

It was about forging a new path on the world stage. And it was a vision that really appealed to a certain segment of the population. The ones who felt that The UK had been held back by its membership in the EU. Now one thing that stood out for me at the time was her commitment to a vote in parliament on the final withdrawal agreement. That was huge.

A recognition of parliament's role in such a monumental decision. And then there was this whole plan to transpose all of EU law into British law via a white paper. That must have been a gargantuan task just thinking about the sheer volume of legislation involved. It was an undertaking of extraordinary scale and complexity, and the white paper was meant to provide a framework for this legal transition, offering a bit of clarity for businesses and individuals. It was supposed to be this road map for how The UK would disentangle itself from the EU legal framework.

A huge undertaking, and there was definitely a recognition of that. Yeah. She didn't shy away from acknowledging that there would be consequences to leaving the EU. It wasn't all sunshine and roses. No.

There was an awareness that leaving would bring about changes and adjustments. But while acknowledging those challenges, she remained optimistic, stressing a commitment to a smooth and orderly Brexit facilitated by an implementation period. So it was about balancing a realistic outlook with a sense of hope and possibility. And throughout her statement, there was this repeated call for national unity. Which given the deep divisions exposed by the referendum must have felt like a herculean task.

It was a plea to put aside those divisions and come together as a nation. She repeatedly stressed her determination to represent all parts of The United Kingdom and all its citizens regardless of how they had voted. Including EU nationals living in The UK. It was an attempt to bridge the divide and forge a shared vision for the future. An ambitious goal, to say the least.

So that gives us a good overview of the government's initial position. But what about the response from the other side of the aisle? Well, the leader of the opposition's response was really interesting because while he acknowledged the decision to leave the EU, the focus very quickly shifted to mitigating the potential negative consequences. A more cautious approach. And one of the core concerns he raised was this risk of Brexit leading to a low wage tax haven, a prospect that labor was absolutely determined to fight against tooth and nail.

So right from the start, there were worries about the potential impact on workers' rights Yeah. And economic fairness? Absolutely. And I imagine this fear stemmed from the idea that in an attempt to remain competitive outside the EU, the UK might be tempted to lower its standards on things like wages, workers' rights, environmental protections, you know, creating a race to the bottom. The valid concern given the potential for regulatory divergence between The UK and the EU.

And this also tied into anxieties about reduced access to the EU's single market. Because on that front, labor was crystal clear about their priorities for the future relationship. They insisted on maintaining full access to the single market and a comprehensive customs agreement with the exact same benefits as membership. So for them, maintaining those economic ties was nonnegotiable. They questioned whether the government stated aims of leaving the single market and customs union were actually compatible with delivering those equivalent benefits.

There's a fundamental difference in perspective. And they also raised really critical questions about how the government plan to safeguard workers' rights, maintain those environmental standards, and crucially avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland all within this new framework outside of the EU. A lot of big questions and no easy answers. Now the issue of the rights of EU and UK nationals living in each other's territories, that was a major sticking point right from the get go. It was a human issue with real consequences for people's lives.

And labor pushed hard for an early and unequivocal guarantee of their status. Why was this such an immediate priority for them? Well, it was framed as a matter of fundamental fairness, you know, a moral obligation to individuals who had built their lives and careers based on the existing arrangements. People who had made The UK their home. Exactly.

Securing their rights early on was seen as essential to provide certainty and alleviate the anxiety for all those people directly affected. It was a human face to this complex political process. And they also specifically raised concerns about the future of UK Pensioners living in the EU, you know, seeking assurances that their pensions would continue to be protected. It was about protecting the most vulnerable. And Labour also made it very clear that they were approaching these negotiations with a very specific set of tests that any final deal would have to meet to gain their support.

These tests essentially acted as benchmarks against which they would judge the success or failure of the negotiations. So they were laying down the gauntlet early on? Absolutely. Some of the key tests were ensuring continued full access to the single market, preventing any erosion of existing rights and protections, and establishing a strong and cooperative future relationship with the EU. It was a clear message that they wouldn't just rubber stamp any deal that came back from Brussels.

They were gonna hold the government accountable. Now looking across the different contributions in parliament from that day, you can really see the tensions around the single market and customs union just bubbling to the surface. It was a fundamental point of disagreement right from the outset. And it really highlights the challenges inherent in trying to reconcile such divergent perspectives. So on the one hand, you had the government arguing that leaving the single market and customs union was essential to regain control over laws, borders, and trade policy, particularly with regards to immigration.

It was about sovereignty taking back control. But on the other hand, the opposition and even some members of the government's own party emphasized the potential economic damage of putting up new barriers to trade with the EU. After all, the EU was and still is The UK's largest trading partner. This difference in perspective on balancing sovereignty with economic integration was a defining feature of the entire Brexit debate. And it continues to be debated even today.

It was a tension that couldn't be easily resolved. And while there seem to be broad agreement on the importance of protecting the rights of EU and UK nationals, the timing and the mechanisms for achieving that clearly presented a challenge in the context of these complex negotiations. It's a reminder that even when there's agreement on the goal, the devil is often in the details. And Scotland's distinct position in all of this was also immediately apparent with the overwhelming vote to remain in the EU and the SNP's call for a second independence referendum. It highlighted the potential for Brexit to reshape the very fabric of The UK.

It brought to the fore the question of what it means to be a United Kingdom. And the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland with its land border with an EU member state and the delicate balance underpinned by the Belfast agreement that added yet another layer of complexity to the whole process. The commitment to upholding the Belfast agreement and avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland was paramount. But with The UK leaving the EU, it raised fundamental questions about future regulatory and customs customs arrangements across that border, something that had been largely seamless within the EU framework. It was a conundrum with no easy solutions.

And then there was the prime minister's statement that no deal is better than a bad deal that really stirred things up, especially with the opposition. They painted a pretty bleak picture of the potential economic consequences of a no deal Brexit. They pointed to economic analysis, including some from the government's own treasury that projected significant negative impacts on GDP trade and employment in the event of a new deal scenario. It was a stark warning about the potential costs of walking away from the negotiating table without an agreement. The role of parliament itself was also a recurring theme in these early discussions.

The need for scrutiny for debate and for a final vote on the withdrawal agreement. It was about ensuring parliamentary sovereignty and accountability. Though the specifics of how much influence parliament would actually have over the negotiations, that would become a source of much debate and contention in the years to come. And, of course, the economic impact of leaving the EU was a major focus of discussion. With some emphasizing the potential opportunities for global trade and others highlighting the risks to existing economic relationships and jobs.

It was a tale of two narratives, optimism versus caution. And even specific sectors like the fishing industry had their own particular hopes and anxieties tied to Brexit. Can you remind us briefly about the London Fisheries Convention and why leaving it was seen as so significant by the fishing industry? Sure. So the London Fisheries Convention was an agreement that allowed vessels from certain European countries to fish within a specific radius of The UK coastline.

It was a shared resource. Right. And leaving it was seen by many in the fishing industry as a chance to regain exclusive control over UK fishing waters, potentially leading to a revival of the sector. So there was a sense of opportunity there, but also a lot of uncertainty. Exactly.

The future of the fishing industry was just one of many unknowns in this uncharted territory. And that aspiration for national unity that was invoked so often, but the deep divisions that the referendum had exposed made it seem like a rather distant prospect. The desire for unity was there, but the path to achieving it amidst such fundamental disagreements over the direction of the country was gonna be a difficult one to navigate. But amidst all the disagreements, were there any areas where common ground could be found? Well, despite the sharp differences on many fronts, there was some shared objectives.

Like what? Well, the need for a strong and cooperative future relationship with the EU, particularly in areas like security, was acknowledged by most. Security was a common concern. And there was a shared commitment to protecting the rights of EU and UK citizens and ensuring a relatively smooth and orderly withdrawal process. Even if the definition of smooth and orderly might have varied?

Precisely. So even at this very early stage, looking back at these initial parliamentary exchanges, what were some of the lingering questions and potential future implications that you could see starting to take shape? One of the biggest questions was how exactly would The UK achieve frictionless trade outside the single market and customs union? The practicalities of that were a real mystery. And the specifics of that envisioned deep and special partnership that remained to be defined.

It was a blank canvas. And then there was the question of how The UK would balance its desire for tighter immigration controls with the needs of its economy. That was a tough one. And what about the future relationship between the different nations and regions of The UK? Especially with Scotland openly considering independence.

That was a potential powder keg. And then you had the complexities of negotiating new trade deals with countries around the world and the mammoth task of transposing decades of EU law into The UK legal system. It was a period of immense uncertainty and possibility. So this deep dive into the parliamentary debates immediately after the triggering of article 50, it's like a time capsule, isn't it? It captures that moment of transition, the hopes, the anxieties, and the fundamental disagreements that would go on to shape the following years.

You can practically see the seeds of many of the challenges and debates we've witnessed since being sown in that very session. Looking back at these initial statements and concerns, how do they resonate with where The UK stands today? What aspects of the priorities and predictions discussed then surprise you the most given what we know now? And what further questions does this period raise for you about the ongoing impact of Brexit on The UK? It's a lot to think about.

It is. Make sure you subscribe to the bench report so you don't miss any of our future deep dives. Because politics is everyone's business.