This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/jun/20/brexit-theresa-may-faces-meaningful-vote-crunch-day-politics-live

The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Ministers offer concession to try to avoid defeat on Brexit 'meaningful vote' - Politics live Ministers offer concession to try to avoid defeat on Brexit 'meaningful vote' - Politics live
(35 minutes later)
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now.
He says he he wants to say “how deeply I object to the way [the House of Lords] get vilified for doing the job we have asked them to do”.
Grieve talks through the history of the various “meaningful vote” proposals. (There is a quick guide here.) He says he thought the original Lords amendment (Hailsham 1, you could call it) included a mandatory element, involving parliament giving directions to the government. That was unprecedented since the civil war, he says.
He says he negotiated an alternative last week. That fell through. He says he makes no criticism of anyone in relation to that. Sometimes negotiations fall through.
The alternative was tabled in the Lords.
Two concerns were raised, he says.
First, whether the matter would be justiciable (ie, whether someone could take the government to court for ignoring what the Act said).
Second, there was an argument that having this in legislation could make it harder for the government to get a good deal.
He says he found it hard to ignore this argument, even though, as is well know, he thinks Brexit is a big mistake.
Starmer says the Lords amendment would ensure that, if the Commons voted down the withdrawal agreement, there would be order, not chaos.
He urges MPs to vote for it.
Labour’s Ruth Smeeth asks Starmer to confirm that it is Labour’s policy that the UK will leave the EU in March next year.
Starmer says that is Labour’s position.
Starmer says the government originally said MPs should not vote on the deal. They said that would tie the hands of the government. But eventually the government agreed to one, and the sky did not fall in.
This is not frustrating the Brexit process, he says. He says this is about ensuring there is a process.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is speaking now.
He says the Lords amendment is not about blocking Brexit, or tying the hands of the government.
It is just about making sure that on the most important peacetime issue this country has considered, parliament has a voice.
He says Theresa May’s view is that, if parliament votes down the deal, “tough luck”. That does not amount to a meaningful vote.
The government is saying if, parliament votes down the deal, a minister will make a statement. “Well, I should think so.”
He says the government is saying there must be a vote on a motion in neutral terms.
He says there is an example of a motion in neutral terms on the order paper today. There will be a debate on Nato. And the motion says: “That this House has considered Nato.”
Labour’s Paul Farrelly raises a point of order. Referring to the Davis statement (see 1.53pm), he asks John Bercow what discretion he would have to rule that a motion could be amended if it were couched in neutral terms.
Bercow says he thinks this will be addressed in the debate.
Davis says you cannot enter a negotiation without the right to walk away.
So the Lords amendment would undermine the UK’s position in the negotiation, he says.
He says this is the paradox:
In trying to head off no deal, you actually make no deal more likely.
Davis says ‘meaningful vote’ amendment would make no deal Brexit more likely.
He says this would give the EU an incentive to delay.
He says the EU has already shown inflexibility, in issues like Galileo, and again yesterday on security.
We cannot allow such an approach to become commonplace across all negotiations.
Sylvia Hermon, the independent MP for North Down, says she could not accept a no deal Brexit. That would lead to a hard border returning in Ireland.
Davis says the government will not accept the return of a hard border.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European, says the Lords amendment (“Grieve 2”), would oblige the government to table a substantive motion. He says the government rejected that. He says, if anyone did try to propose a substantive amendment in those circumstances, the government would say that what was being proposed was unacceptable.
Davis says he does not want to follow Clarke down the path of considering hypotheticals.
Davis is now talking about the “meaningful vote” amendment.
He says the government had three tests for such an amendment: it should not undermine the negotiations, it should not change the constitutional relationship between parliament and the executive, and it should accept the results of the referendum.
He sums up what the government is now offering.
If parliament rejects the deal, the government must make a statement and table a motion. If there is no deal, there must be a statement and a motion. And if by January no agreement has been passed by parliament, a motion will be brought to parliament.
Labour’s Hilary Benn asks why the government amendment says this motion must be “in neutral terms”. Under Commons standing order 24 (b), a motion that the speaker rules to be in neutral terms cannot be amended.
Davis says he will address this. He reads out standing order 24 (b).
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is opening the debate.David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is opening the debate.
He says the government’s critics should not question its democratic credentials. He says parliament has been repeatedly involved in this process.He says the government’s critics should not question its democratic credentials. He says parliament has been repeatedly involved in this process.
Parliament has more say over Brexit than the European parliament, he says.Parliament has more say over Brexit than the European parliament, he says.
The debate is starting now.The debate is starting now.
John Bercow, the speaker, says he will call two amendments for a vote: Dominic Grieve’s one (see 11.24am) and one from the Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, saying the Commons “meaningful vote” could trigger another referendum on the final Brexit deal.John Bercow, the speaker, says he will call two amendments for a vote: Dominic Grieve’s one (see 11.24am) and one from the Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, saying the Commons “meaningful vote” could trigger another referendum on the final Brexit deal.
By lunchtime the gap between what the government was offering and what the rebels, led by Dominic Grieve, wanted was narrow. They both accept that, if MPs have not approved the Brexit withdrawal agreement by 21 January 2019, the government must schedule a vote within five working days. (See 11.24am.) But the government was saying that motion must be “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”. A motion like that would not be amendable. But Grieve and the rebels were not happy, because, in those circumstances, they wanted MPs to be able to table an amendment saying something like: “This House now requires the government to return to Brussels to try again/negotiate EEA membership/or whatever.”By lunchtime the gap between what the government was offering and what the rebels, led by Dominic Grieve, wanted was narrow. They both accept that, if MPs have not approved the Brexit withdrawal agreement by 21 January 2019, the government must schedule a vote within five working days. (See 11.24am.) But the government was saying that motion must be “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”. A motion like that would not be amendable. But Grieve and the rebels were not happy, because, in those circumstances, they wanted MPs to be able to table an amendment saying something like: “This House now requires the government to return to Brussels to try again/negotiate EEA membership/or whatever.”
The government has now issued a statement (see 1.53pm) saying that, actually, it will be up to the speaker at the time to decide if said motion debated under the terms of this clause can be amended.The government has now issued a statement (see 1.53pm) saying that, actually, it will be up to the speaker at the time to decide if said motion debated under the terms of this clause can be amended.
(It is worth reminding readers that John Bercow, the speaker, has reportedly told friends he wants to stay as speaker until next summer so he can approve such an amendment. And that is one reason why some Tory Brexiters want him out.)(It is worth reminding readers that John Bercow, the speaker, has reportedly told friends he wants to stay as speaker until next summer so he can approve such an amendment. And that is one reason why some Tory Brexiters want him out.)
The statement also says that ministers and MPs can table their own motions, implying that the Commons could have a vote anyway. This is true up to a point. But the government decides the parliamentary timetable, and, while the opposition parties get certain days for debate - when the government allows - ordinary backbenchers cannot just schedule a debate. This line is not an offer at all - just a description of the status quo (which puts most levers in the hands of the executive.)The statement also says that ministers and MPs can table their own motions, implying that the Commons could have a vote anyway. This is true up to a point. But the government decides the parliamentary timetable, and, while the opposition parties get certain days for debate - when the government allows - ordinary backbenchers cannot just schedule a debate. This line is not an offer at all - just a description of the status quo (which puts most levers in the hands of the executive.)
So the final paragraph is probably pointless. But the penultimate paragraph (the one about the speaker having the discretion to allow an amendment) does sound like a concession of sorts.So the final paragraph is probably pointless. But the penultimate paragraph (the one about the speaker having the discretion to allow an amendment) does sound like a concession of sorts.
However, it begs another question; if the government would be happy for this January 2019 motion to be amended, why doesn’t it just accept the Grieve amendment tabled today (see 11.24am) removing the reference to the motion being “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”. However, it begs another question; if the government would be happy for this January 2019 motion to be amended, why doesn’t it just accept the Grieve amendment tabled today (see 11.24am) removing the reference to the motion being “in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of”?
Over, as concessions go, it seems a bit thin. Overall, as concessions go, it seems a bit thin. It is not clear whether the speaker would actually have the discretion under Commons rules to allow the motion to be amended.
But it looks like a concession, and it is probably the case that the government whips have concluded it is just enough to buy off some of the rebels. But this does look like a concession, and it is probably the case that the government whips have concluded it is just enough to buy off some of the rebels.
We will find out in a moment, when the debate begins.We will find out in a moment, when the debate begins.
1. Whether it is a climb down or a lawyer's way out - it massively reduces the chances of a rebellion later, and gives rebels and govt an escape route https://t.co/qWhewvX2DI1. Whether it is a climb down or a lawyer's way out - it massively reduces the chances of a rebellion later, and gives rebels and govt an escape route https://t.co/qWhewvX2DI
In the Commons Labour’s Ben Bradshaw has just asked a point of order about the Tories refusing to “nod through” sick MPs.In the Commons Labour’s Ben Bradshaw has just asked a point of order about the Tories refusing to “nod through” sick MPs.
John Bercow, the speaker, says nodding through has been a long-established practice. But it is not matter for him.John Bercow, the speaker, says nodding through has been a long-established practice. But it is not matter for him.
This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssnberg.
Here’s the compromise or non-compromise pic.twitter.com/bLNJAJIZUM
John Prescott, the Labour former deputy prime minister, claims the government decision not to “nod through” sick MPs is unprecedented in his long experience.
In all my years in Parliament - even in the 1970s - I have NEVER seen this. This is absolutely bloody shameful. I trust Labour MPs will be disgusted by these desperate and heartless Tory tactics, vote against the Government and back the meaningful vote. https://t.co/4OLNNUfttJ
“Nodding through” is the practice of bringing a sick MPs into the Commons in a car or even an ambulance, but not insisting they walk through the division lobby because a whip from the other side will vouchsafe that they are there.
Back to Gosport, and this is what the Crown Prosecution Service said following today’s report. A spokesman said”
We will consider the content of the report and will take any appropriate steps as required.
This is from Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt on the EU withdrawal bill.
Word last night was that compromise on meaningful vote would be: 1) Govt gesture: agree meaningful vote could be amendable. 2) Dominic Grieve gesture: that vote would have no legal force. 3) Compromise amendment would have to be tabled in lords. We’ll see
Back to the EU withdrawal bill, and more on Labour anger about the hardline approach of the Tory whips. These are from Sky’s Lewis Goodall.
Jeremy Corbyn spokesman confirms that the Tory whips are refusing to vote through “on the nod” Labour MPs in the palace (prob in ambulances) but too ill to get to the voting lobby in person.
Labour source confirms that a "handful" of Labour MPs are being rufused convention of being voted through "on the nod" as a result of their illness: "It's inhumane and shows how desperate they are. Trying to make it s as difficult for ill MPs as possible."
Source confirms that the Tory whips nodded the same ill MPs through for last week's votes and yesterday too. But have chosen not to today.
This is what Jeremy Hunt said in his opening statement about how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service would now consider whether there was a case for criminal charges. Hunt told MPs:
The police, working with the CPS and clinicians as necessary, will now carefully examine the new material in the report before determining their next steps and in particular whether criminal charges should now be brought.
In my own mind I am clear that any further action by the relevant criminal justice and health authorities must be thorough, transparent and independent of any organisation that may have an institutional vested interest in the outcome.
For that reason, Hampshire Constabulary will want to consider carefully whether further police investigations should be undertaken by another police force.
Back in the Commons Norman Lamb thanks Hunt for backing his judgment and setting up this inquiry. And he pays tribute to the bishop, James Jones, who was very good at building trust, he says.
Lamb says he is not as confident at Hunt is that the publication of the Baker report in 2003 would have made a big difference.
Does Hunt agree there must be a mechanism for ensuring patients’ concerns are not ignored?
Hunt suggests that, if the report had been published in 2003, Mid Staffs (which came later) might have been avoided.
This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.
Chief whip’s thumbs up in Commons a few minutes ago - rebellion off? pic.twitter.com/UrNkTBmC7u
Turning back to the EU withdrawal bill, my colleague Heather Stewart says that, after PMQs, Downing Street was not forthcoming about the reported compromise offer in the pipeline.
PM’s spokesman, asked about rumours of a last minute compromise on meaningful vote today: “The only amendment that the government has put down is the one it tabled on Thursday evening. That’s the one MPs will be voting on”.
And she says Labour are angry about the hardline tactics being adopted by the government whips.
Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman confirms Tory whips refusing to “nod through” several ill Labour MPs, who are being expected to vote in person. Says it’s “unacceptable”.
Hunt is responding to Ashworth.
He says he agrees with everything Ashworth said.
He says he is constrained in what he can say about the doctor involved.
There were process issues that happened in good faith but had a terrible outcome, he says.
He says it looks as if the Baker report was left to gather dust because people thought it could not have been published while the police were investigating.
But if it had been published, transparency would have led to people acting, he says.
That shows how important transparency is.
As for whether this could happen again, he says he thinks the situation is better now. But it is not perfect, he says.
He says it is not for the government to tell the police which force should investigate.
But he says he is concerned about the police not challenging the medical staff when they closed ranks. That is something that needs to be addressed, he says.