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 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/mar/13/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-leaving-the-eu-with-no-deal-politics-live

The article has changed 33 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 17 Version 18
Brexit: MPs debate ruling out no-deal exit from EU – Politics live Brexit: MPs debate ruling out no-deal exit from EU – Politics live
(about 2 hours later)
Starmer ends his speech by saying that he hopes the vote tonight will “bury no deal so deep that it never resurfaces”. Jack Dromey, the Labour MP who jointly tabled the no-deal amendment with Caroline Spelman, has just told Sky News that he does not intend to move the amendment. Earlier Spelman said that she would not be moving it either. (See 3.43pm.) Dromey said that MPs have already backed this amendment (in January - tonight’s is word-for-word the same) and he said that was important was for MPs to vote, by a massive majority, tonight for the government motion, ruling out a no-deal Brexit on 29 January.
Here is the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Gove’s suggestion that the government could back “indicative votes” on Brexit alternatives. (See 3.57pm.) Asked if there would be a vote on the motion, Spelman told Sky News she did not know, because any MP who signed it could push for a vote.
Conversations going on in govt about how to find a way forward - no final decision yet on doing it this way, tomorrow might feel a bit like indicative votes any way depending what amendments go down https://t.co/EKwFx8ukCa But, given what Dromey is saying, and what Yvette Cooper said earlier (see 5.34pm), it now looks as though we won’t get a vote on it.
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw asks Starmer to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to a public vote. Sky’s Jon Craig tells the programme that Spelman was “nobbled” and that, having decided to whip against the amendment, No 10 did not want a vote because some pro-European ministers would have voted in favour.
Starmer says he can do so. The Labour manifesto said it would accept the referendum result. But it also said it would not accept May’s red lines. Leading Eurosceptics are lobbying right-of-centre governments in Europe to see if they would veto a British extension of article 50 and so ensure the UK drops out of the EU at the end of the month without a deal, my colleague Patrick Wintour reports. His story goes on:
Labour lost that election, he says. In theory, only one country is required to wield its veto for any British request to be rejected.
He says the goverment is in a “hopeless” position. It is highly unlikely this lobbying will succeed as the governments in countries such as Hungary, Italy and Poland have other more important battles to fight with the EU. But the lobbying underlines the precariousness of the British position.
The PM’s red lines, and no deal - the two things Labour rejected in its manifesto - are still on the table, he says. He says that is why a people’s vote is still on the table. And here it is in full.
Anna Soubry asks if Labour will support a peoples’ vote now. Brexiters lobby for European veto of article 50 extension
Stamer says Corbyn said two weeks ago Labour would table an amendment, or support one. That remains the position, he says. Here are two Europe correspondents on the Malthouse compromise amendment.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is responding to Gove in the Brexit debate. From the Telegraph’s Peter Foster
The Tory Brexiter Mark Francois intervenes to say Gove implied the government will bring May’s deal back to the Commons for a third meaningful vote. He says he is willing to bet Starmer £50 that that vote will take place on Tuesday 26 March. This Malthouse “pay-as-you-go” #brexit amendment is utterly delusional. Unicorns really do have more chance of existing. Am on phone with EU source discuss extension and what might trigger leaders into harder than expected response?“That”.
Starmer says he does not gamble. From the Independent’s Jon Stone
Turning to Gove’s speech, Starmer says Gove was blaming the opposition for the failure of May’s deal. One EU source to me after reading Malthouse: “My god they are mad” https://t.co/riYj6I7xK2
But the government has failed to reach out to other parties to find a plan acceptable to the Commons, he says. Labour’s Jess Phillips is speaking in the debate now. She says she thinks Theresa May is “terrified” of the Brexiters in her party. Sir Nicholas Soames, the Conservative pro-European, intervenes. He says he has studied May, and he thinks May is “respectful” of the Brexiters, not frightened of them. Phillips says Soames knows May better than she does - partly because May does not speak to her, she says - but she insists that May looks like a “rabbit in the headlights” in her dealings with the Brexiters.
The EU’s deputy Brexit negotiator Sabine Weyand has said MPs’ decision to resurrect plans already rejected by Brussels countless times shows that parliament is “divorced from reality”. The Labour MP Yvette Cooper is speaking now. Heidi Allen, the Independent Group MP, asks Cooper if she will move the Spelman amendment herself in the light of the fact that Caroline Spelman won’t move it. (See 5.20pm.) Cooper says she will listen to what Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, says in his winding-up speech. If it is put to a vote, she will support it, she says. But she says tonight is about ruling out a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.
Speaking at a closed-door meeting of EU ambassadors this morning, Weyand made the tart observation about the Malthouse compromise - a variant of plans rejected by Brussels numerous times. Damian Green, the Tory former first secretary of state, is speaking now. He has tabled what is known as the Malthouse compromise amendment. (See 3.10pm.)
Quoting private remarks by the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, Weyand also said the decision to vote for no-deal was “like the Titanic voting for the iceberg to get out of the way”. Referring to the most controversial part of the amendment, paragraph 3, he acknowledges that Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has said this proposal (a transition without the UK having to agree to the backstop, basically) is unacceptable. But he says if the government just did everything Barnier said, it would never get anywhere.
Officials have voiced astonishment that Theresa May is allowing a free vote on no-deal, rather than seeking to defend the Brexit agreement painstakingly negotiated with the EU over 20 months. One senior source told the Guardian the decision to hold a free vote was “incredible”. He urges MPs to back the amendment, saying it offers a way forward.
Weyand, an architect of the Strasbourg assurances hammered out on Monday, said that the second historic defeat for May’s deal showed that “a short technical extension” of talks could now be ruled out. This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot on the Spelman amendment. (See 5.20pm.)
But EU member states do not share this view. France and Germany are among several countries who want to see flexibility, although they share concerns about a long-drawn-out Brexit distracting the EU when it has numerous economic and foreign policy questions jostling for attention. Labour sources saying they will encourage other MPs to move the amendment anyway. Meanwhile huge soft Tory whipping operation underway to try and convince MPs that it is better to see victory on the government motion, not a backbench one. https://t.co/DEYPo4uCPM
The ambassadors concluded that the highly political question of extending Brexit talks could only be decided by EU leaders, who will assess the question at a summit next Thursday (21 March). Insiders expect the decision will be taken on Thursday by leaders, rather than pre-cooked in advance by their officials. Spelman says she is going to withdraw her amendment.
If MPs vote for an extension on Thursday, a critical period of diplomacy will begin. Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, will meet the Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte on Friday, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron on Monday, Leo Varadkar on Tuesday. She says that that is because it is more important to have a big vote for a no-deal amendment (ie, a big majority for the government motion) than for her to carry on with an amendment already passed in January.
While various extension times have been mooted - from five weeks to 21 months - there has never been a default position. Insiders stress the decision will depend on what the UK asks for. So she will withdraw her amendment, she says.
But there is growing impatience with the UK - one ambassador asked why the EU had to assess complicated scenarios, when the British government could revoke article 50. John Bercow, the Speaker, intervenes. He says she cannot withdraw it. It is being debated, and it is in the hands of the house. He says that she can choose not to move it. But other signatories to it could move it, he says.
Many EU diplomats and officials think a short extension - two to three months - would be pointless, while not lessening the distraction of Brexit. “The shorter the extension, the more likely it is going to stay on the European agenda,” said one diplomat, from a country that favours a flexible approach. Bercow dismisses Tory attempt to cancel a vote on a no-deal amendment embarrassing to the government.
But others are talking tough, while the debate in parliament has not enhanced confidence in the British political system. This is awkward for Theresa May because the government motion would have been carried overwhelmingly, without the Conservative party splitting. But if the Spelman amendment is moved by one of the other signatories, as seems likely (Labour MPs Jack Dromey and Yvette Cooper are among those who have signed it), there probably will be a Tory split.
“The damage is done. We know they are still putting party before country and humouring people who believe in fairies,” said one source, referring to the revived Malthouse compromise. “There was a feeling ‘wouldn’t it be better to have a dose of no deal to bring some sanity to the debate?’” Dame Caroline Spelman, the Conservative who has tabled the amendment ruling out a no-deal Brexit, is speaking now.
But there is also wariness of no-deal Brexit and several ambassadors refused to accept a commission proposal that a second extension would be ruled out. Hopefully she will address reports that the government whips are trying to get her to pull her amendment.
This is what Michael Gove said in his response to Emma Reynolds, when she asked about indicative votes: This is from the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment.
I think that, depending on how the house votes today, we may have an opportunity to vote on that proposition tomorrow. But one of the things that I think is important is that we, as quickly as we possibly can, find consensus. New: Tory MP Dame Caroline Spelman under huge pressure from the Govt not to push her no-deal amendment to a vote amid fears it would result in rebel Remainer Tory ministers having to be sacked.People now trying to figure out if another signatory could move the amendment. Chaos.
Labour’s Emma Reynolds asks why the government won’t agree to indicative votes, as the Brexit committee recommends. (See 2.49pm.) Earlier John Bercow, the Speaker, said that at some point in the future he could end up having to rule on whether to allow another vote on the PM’s deal - or whether to block it on the grounds that parliamentary rules say the Commons should not be asked to vote on a matter it has already considered. (See 3.43pm.)
Gove says he thinks there could be a vote on this tomorrow. He goes on to say that, if a no-deal Brexit is rejected tonight, it will be important to “find consensus” as quickly as possible. Sky’s Lewis Goodall points out that this could end up being explosive. He has more detail here.
Gove suggests government may support MPs being given indicative votes on Brexit alternatives. Echoing what Philip Hammond said earlier (see 1.36pm and 2.24pm.) VERY interesting. John Bercow, responding to a question from @angelaeagle, implied it's possible that if the government keeps bringing back the withdrawal agreement to the Commons, he could rule it out of order as it's not responding to the will of the House. Would be explosive.
Ken Clarke, the Tory pro-European, asks if the government will revoke article 50 if the EU refuses to extend article 50. Page 397 of erskine may: “A motion or an amendment which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided during a session may not be brought forward again during that same session.”
Gove says the UK cannot revoke article 50 and then trigger it again. The European court of justice has said that is not allowed, he says. Continued: “Whether the second motion is substantively the same as the first is a matter for the chair.” Essentially, as several MPs and parliamentary experts have said to me this afternoon- Bercow has the power to decide.
Labour’s Hilary Benn asks why it is democratic to keep asking MPs to vote on the same idea, but undemocratic to ask the public if they want to change their mind. Here is the relevant passage from erskine May. Last time the power was used was in 1943. But as one parliamentary source said, “that’s because since the rule was implemented properly, governments and MPs don’t bother to try it, so it’s never usually needed.” pic.twitter.com/DWvnGU0SeM
Gove claims the deal being voted on last night was significantly different from the one voted on in January. Stephen Gethins, the SNP’s Europe spokesman, is speaking in the debate now. He says that a no-deal Brexit should have been ruled out straight after the referendum. The Scottish government brought together experts to come up with a compromise plan for Brexit, he says. But the UK government failed to do this, he says.
And he says Labour originally opposed a second referendum. The Green MP Caroline Lucas says going for a no-deal Brexit is the action of a rogue state. Gethins agrees.
Gove says May’s deal got more votes last night than it did in January.
He says MPs cannot dodge choices.
Labour’s Angela Eagle rises to make a point of order. She says Gove has made it clear that the government intends to put the same motion to the Commons again and again. Is that allowed?
John Bercow, the Speaker, says there are precedents for this. But he says at some point in the future he might have to rule on it.
Gove says it is now make-your-mind-up time for the Commons.
Labour’s Yvette Cooper asks Gove to confirm that, if the government motion is approved, the UK won’t leave the EU on 29 March without a deal.
Gove says that that is what the motion is designed to prevent.
Gove says the government motion does not take no deal off the table. The only way you can do that is by passing a deal, or revoking article 50, he says.
The SNP’s Stewart McDonald says Gove is one of the senior authors of the mess he has just described. (See 3.24pm.) Does he feel any sense of responsibility? Will he apologise?
Gove says he voted for the deal last night. The SNP did not. He accuses the SNP of sectional posturing.
Gove says farmers would face “very, very challenging circumstances” in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
He says many businesses have made the preparations necessary to be able to carry on trading with the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
The government can do many things to mitigate against the impact of no deal, he says.
But he says the UK cannot tell the EU what tariffs it must impose, and it cannot tell ports such as Calais what checks they should and should not impose.
Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, asks Gove to confirm that, if the government motion is passed, it will amend the EU Withdrawal Act to amend the date of Brexit.
Gove says May has given that commitment.