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.
Brexit: May floats plan to give MPs vote on extending transition in bid to avert Commons defeat - Politics live
Brexit: Hammond tells MPs UK cannot afford economic costs of no deal Brexit - Politics live
(35 minutes later)
Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, asks what McDonnell means by Labour collaborating with the single market. Is Labour advocating full regulatory convergence?
McDonnell says Labour wants a permanent customs union, with the UK having a say in future EU trade deals. He says Labour wants close collaboration with the single market. That would be its opening negotiating position, he says.
Alex Chalk, a Conservative, intervenes. He says Labour would keep the UK in the customs union permanently. But it would not be in the single market, and so under Labour’s plan a backstop would still be needed, he says.
McDonnell says that Labour would organise comprehensive customs union deal with the EU and that this would make it “so much more unlikely” that a backstop would be need. He says the “permanence” of the agreement would also help.
McDonnell appears to concede that a backstop might be needed under Labour’s Brexit plans. The general Labour line has been to argue that there would be no need for a backstop under its plans. But, when pressed on this, McDonnell just said that Labour’s plans would make a customs union “much more unlikely”.
Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, agrees with my colleague Daniel Boffey. (See 10.41am.)
The PM says she wants to let Parliament choose whether to enter the backstop or extend the 'transition'. This is simply not possible. Under her deal the EU has the legal right to stop us extending the transition and make us enter the backstop - whatever the PM or Parliament says
McDonnell says, under the government’s deal, every region of the UK, every sector, and every household will suffer.
McDonnell says the financial services industry were offered “enhanced equivalence” agreements. But they have not got that, he says.
The Conservative MP Vicky Ford intervenes. She says what the political declaration (pdf) says about financial services on page 9 amounts to enhanced equivalence.
McDonnell says he does not accept that.
The DUP’s Ian Paisley intervenes. Would Labour drop the backstop?
McDonnell says he will address this later in the speech. But under Labour’s plan for the UK to stay in the customs unions, and for a close relationship with the single market, a backstop would not be necessary, he claims.
This is from the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon.
Not saying the Government is getting desperate, but in the Commons a Tory MP has just asked John McDonnell: "Would you consider voting for this deal, so that we can please get on with our lives?"
UPDATE: Here’s the clip.
Tory MP David Morris intervenes on John McDonnell's speech, asking Labour to back the Brexit deal "so we can all get on with our lives". pic.twitter.com/Sbalhrf9L6
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, is speaking now.
He says he wants to stress four point.
First, a no deal Brexit must be avoided
Second, Theresa May’s deal is not acceptable to MPs.
Third, Labour’s plan would honour the result of the referendum, while being good for jobs.
Fourth, it is important to consider the impact on communities.
The SNP’s Angus MacNeil asks McDonnell what he would choose: no deal, or no Brexit.
McDonnell says he does not accept that choice. He says the government will soon have to accept the need for an alternative approach.
Hammond says the UK has to make its choice as a nation.
After two and a half years, it is time to choose. This deal will ensure the UK can move forward as a nation, he says.
He says this deal will set the UK on course for a prosperous future.
Hammond is close to winding up now.
Hammond is close to winding up now.
He says MPs need to act now, to end divisions and uncertainty.
He says MPs need to act now, to end divisions and uncertainty.
But what if they do not? Some people claim the UK has nothing to fear from a no deal Brexit. But there would be restrictions on Britons travelling in the EU. And Britain would be the only major economy trading with the EU on WTO terms, he says.
But what if they do not? Some people claim the UK has nothing to fear from a no deal Brexit. But there would be restrictions on Britons travelling in the EU. And Britain would be the only major economy trading with the EU on WTO terms, he says.
He says this would generate tariffs and paperwork.
He says this would generate tariffs and paperwork.
Cars would face tariffs of 10%, clothing 12%, and agricultural goods would face even higher tariffs.
Cars would face tariffs of 10%, clothing 12%, and agricultural goods would face even higher tariffs.
He says 90% of beef exports and and 95% of lamb exports to go the EU. They would face tariffs of 70% and 45% respectively.
He says 90% of beef exports and and 95% of lamb exports to go the EU. They would face tariffs of 70% and 45% respectively.
I do not believe we can afford the economic costs of a no deal Brexit.
I do not believe we can afford the economic costs of a no deal Brexit.
But he says he also does not believe the UK can afford the society costs of ignoring the results of the referendum.
But he says he also does not believe the UK can afford the society costs of ignoring the results of the referendum.
The Times’ Sam Coates has got hold of the note distributed by the Tory whips ahead of today’s debate to encourage helpful interventions.
The Times’ Sam Coates has got hold of the note distributed by the Tory whips ahead of today’s debate to encourage helpful interventions.
Here we go: let me know the most egregious government toadies.... pic.twitter.com/BsXl1qP6fg
Here we go: let me know the most egregious government toadies.... pic.twitter.com/BsXl1qP6fg
Jo Johnson, who resigned as a transport minister because he is opposed to the Brexit deal, intervenes. He asks Hammond to accept that Theresa May’s deal is also bad for the financial services sector. He says the government’s economic analysis shows it will end up 6% smaller than it otherwise would have been.
Hammond says there is no Brexit deal available that would allow the financial services industry to keep passporting (the arrangement that allows firms to trade freely in the EU).
Although the UK will not have an influence in future on the shaping of EU financial regulations, it will influence global decisions about regulations - which will in turn have an influence on the EU, he says.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, intervenes. Does he accept that remaining in the EEA would preserve the economic benefits of EU membership, if not the political benefits?
Hammond accepts that point. But he says there are two main problems with this proposal. First, the UK would have to accept free movement. And, second, the financial services industry would have to comply with a lot of fast-changing EU regulations over which it would have no control.
Hammond says Labour are “deluded” if they think they can get a Brexit deal delivering all the benefits of being in the EU, with no payments to the EU, no state aid rules, and no free movement.
The only way of obtaining all the benefits of being in the EU is by staying in the EU, he says.
Labour wants to stay in the customs union. But that would not deliver benefits like a frictionless border, he says.
Hammond says he expects the economy to grow after Brexit, under all scenarios.
And he says the government Brexit economic analysis (pdf) released last week did not contain forecasts. Instead it was a modelling exercise, showing how different types of Brexit compared.
He says the Chequers plan scenario would produce more growth than all the other scenarios modelled.
Hammond says that, if the UK has to make a choice between extending the transition (or implementation period, as he puts it, using the government’s preferred phrase) or going into the backstop, he would favour extending the transition.
Hammond says he has observed this process closely for two years. The idea that renegotiating the deal at the 11th hour is possible is “a delusion”, he says.
He says this is the best deal on the table. Only the compromise set out in the deal would allow the UK to move on.
Divided nations are not successful nations, he says.
As Hammond starts, Labour’s Clive Betts intervenes and asks Hammond about something he told the Treasury committee yesterday. Betts said Hammond used to say that leaving the EU would be bad for the economy. But now he is saying it would be better to leave than to hold a referendum and stay. Why did he change his mind?
Hammond says he has always been clear that leaving the EU would have economic disadvantages, But he says he thinks the wider impact of ignoring the EU referendum result would be worse.
Before the debate started Boris Johnson apologised to the Commons for breaching the rules by declaring some royalty payments late. (See 10.54am.)
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is about to open the third day of the Brexit debate.
John Bercow, the speaker, starts by saying 75 MPs want to speak in the debate today.
In a speech in Dublin today Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, is saying that Theresa May should withdraw article 50 if she loses the Brexit vote next week. According to extracts released in advance, he is saying:
The worst possible outcome – which remains a grave concern given the political uncertainty in Westminster - is that the UK leaves the EU with no Brexit deal at all.
This would not only be devastating for London’s economy, but would actually hurt businesses and economies across Europe – including here in Dublin – and increase the chance of a hard border on the island of Ireland.
In my view, the prospect – the very notion – of a no deal Brexit must be taken off the table by the British government.
It’s just too dangerous to leave as a possibility.
That’s why – today – I’m calling on Theresa May to withdraw article 50 if the British Parliament rejects her deal next week, which is looking extremely likely.
This move would be the single best way to guarantee that we avoid falling off the cliff edge.
It would stop the clock that is ticking down towards a no deal Brexit, and it would provide the breathing space to decide how we resolve this mess.
If the British prime minister refuses to take this precautionary step – we would continue heading towards a no-deal Brexit in just a few months’ time – and would risk us having to explain to future generations why the government of the day knowingly put our economy, our prosperity and our place on the world stage in such grave peril.
It is worth stressing that Khan is calling for article 50 to be revoked in the event of May losing the vote. That is not the same as asking for article 50 to be extended. Extending it would delay Brexit beyond 29 March. Withdrawing it would cancel Brexit altogether.
Under the Lisbon treaty, article 50 can be extended, with the unanimous agreement of all EU member states.
On Monday the European court of justice will give a definitive ruling on whether the UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally. Earlier this week the court’s advocate general issued an opinion (pdf) saying a state could revoke article 50 unilaterally. Opinions like this are normally a reliable guide to what the court will decide, and if the ECJ follows the advice of its advocate general, then Khan’s proposal will in theory be do-able.
But the article 50 case was mostly about a country that changes its mind about leaving the EU. Khan says the UK should withdraw article 50 to give itself more time to take a decision. During the ECJ hearing the lawyer for the European council expressed concern about the possibility of a country being allowed to withdraw article 50 as a negotiating tactic and, in his opinion (pdf), the advocate general said the right to revoke article 50 should be subject to “certain conditions and limits” in order to “prevent abuse of the procedure”. It is not clear whether or not revoking article 50 just to “stop the clock” would count as such an abuse.
Another problem is that, under the EU Withdrawal Act, the UK will be leaving the EU’s legal regime on 29 March anyway. To stop Brexit, as well as revoking article 50, the PM would have to repeal all or part of that Act.
