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 19 Version 20
Brexit: MPs debate ruling out no-deal exit from EU – Politics live Brexit: May suffers fresh defeat as MPs rule out no deal by majority of four – Politics live
(32 minutes later)
MPs are now voting on the Green amendment (aka the Malthouse compromise one).
This is what it says.
At end, add “; notes the steps taken by the government, the EU and its member states to minimise any disruption that may occur should the UK leave the EU without an agreed withdrawal agreement and proposes that the government should build on this work as follows:
1. That the government should publish the UK’s day one tariff schedules immediately;
2. To allow businesses to prepare for the operation of those tariffs, that the government should seek an extension of the article 50 process to 10.59pm on 22 May 2019, at which point the UK would leave the EU;
3. Thereafter, in a spirit of co-operation and in order to begin discussions on the future relationship, the government should offer a further set of mutual standstill agreements with the EU and member states for an agreed period ending no later than 30 December 2021, during which period the UK would pay an agreed sum equivalent to its net EU contributions and satisfy its other public international law obligations; and
4. The government should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.”
Theresa May has been defeated by four votes, because MPs have backed the Spelman amendment ruling out a no-deal Brexit for good by 312 votes to 308.
Theresa May’s decision to allow Tories a free vote on the main motion, and on the Malthouse compromise one, is in line with a proposal she made when she was shadow leader of the Commons in 2003, the Hansard Society’s Ruth Fox has just pointed out on the BBC.
Here's the 2003 speech by Theresa May, endorsing free votes, that @RuthFox01 just referenced | #BrexitVote https://t.co/XFSt5D48g7
Here is Yvette Cooper on why she pushed the amendment to a vote.
Voting now for amendment a. I welcome assurances from Ministers on the Government’s intentions & will vote for the main motion against No Deal if this amendment is not passed. But think it also helpful for House to have chance to vote for a simpler, clearer motion too
The Labour MP Debbie Abrahams thinks the Spelman amendment will be defeated.
Don't think amend a will be carried....
If that is right, it will be because Tory MPs who voted for it in January won’t vote for it tonight – because they think it is more important for the government motion to be passed by a huge majority (which would be a snub to the hard Brexiters).
To get that result, they have to defeat Spelman, because if Spelman were to pass, there would be no vote on the motion, which it would replace.
This amendment is word-for-word the same as one passed by the Commons in January, after the first Brexit “next steps” vote. It was passed by 318 votes to 310 – a majority of eight.
Here is the list of 17 Tory rebels who voted for this amendment in January: Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire), Guto Bebb (Aberconwy), Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford), Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe), Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon), Justine Greening (Putney), Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield), Sam Gyimah (East Surrey), Phillip Lee (Bracknell), Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford), Oliver Letwin (West Dorset), Mark Pawsey (Rugby), Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury), Anna Soubry (Broxtowe), Caroline Spelman (Meriden), Edward Vaizey (Wantage), and Sarah Wollaston (Totnes).
And there were three Labour rebels who voted against: Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow), Kate Hoey (Vauxhall), and Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton).
If the Spelman gets passed, there will be no vote on the government motion - because the amendment would replace it.
This is what the Spelman amendment says.
Line 1, leave out from “house” to end and add “rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship.”
John Bercow, the speaker, is putting the amendments to a vote.
He says Caroline Spelman said she did not want to move her amendment, but Yvette Cooper told him that she did want to move the amendment.
Cooper stands up. She starts saying, despite what Liam Fox said in his winding-up speech ...
Bercow says he does not want a speech. He just wants Cooper to move the amendment, which she does.
Fox says the Commons contracted out its decision-making to the people at the time of the referendum. The Commons is honour-bound to accept the result. He says the Lib Dems may not care about the views of the public, but he does.
The British people have given parliament a clear instruction.
It is time for us to determine who is the boss.
Fox is refusing to take an intervention from Ken Clarke. Labour MPs start jeering at Fox, but Fox continues to refuse to give way. Clarke had longer to speak than he has got, he says.
He says Yvette Cooper earlier said she wanted to know if the result of this vote would mean the UK would not leave the EU on 29 March without an agreement. That is the position, he says. But he says in the longer term the only way to take no deal off the table is to have a deal. Having no Brexit would be even worse, he says.
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, is winding up for the government.
He says some of those opposed to a no-deal Brexit want to reverse Brexit.
He says the government motion focuses on 29 March. At that point the UK either has to leave with a deal, or leave without a deal, or have an extension.
An extension is not in the gift of the UK. All 27 EU countries would have to agree. And it is not clear what price the EU might extract for an extension.
He says what Labour wants is impossible. It wants to stay in the customs union, but it also wants an independent trade policy. You can’t have both, he says.
He says for much of the debate he did not recognise the country being described. The UK is in control of its own future, he says.
Pennycook says the way the government worded its amendment (see 3.10pm) is unsatisfactory. At worst it is ambiguous, at best it is contradictory.Pennycook says the way the government worded its amendment (see 3.10pm) is unsatisfactory. At worst it is ambiguous, at best it is contradictory.
That is why Labour favours backing the Spelman amendment, he says.That is why Labour favours backing the Spelman amendment, he says.
Pennycook asks why any responsible government would contemplate an entirely avoidable act of self-harm.Pennycook asks why any responsible government would contemplate an entirely avoidable act of self-harm.
And it would be a measure that does not have majority public support, he says.And it would be a measure that does not have majority public support, he says.
He says, by repeating the mantra “No deal is better than a bad deal”, the government desensitised people to the risks involved.He says, by repeating the mantra “No deal is better than a bad deal”, the government desensitised people to the risks involved.
Pennycook says May’s “No deal is better than a bad deal” slogan desensitised people to the risks involved.Pennycook says May’s “No deal is better than a bad deal” slogan desensitised people to the risks involved.
Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, is winding up the debate for Labour now.Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, is winding up the debate for Labour now.
He says it is hard to overstate how damaging a no-deal Brexit in just over a fortnight would be. It would be “nothing short of a national disaster”, he says.He says it is hard to overstate how damaging a no-deal Brexit in just over a fortnight would be. It would be “nothing short of a national disaster”, he says.
The government has suffered two defeats in the House of Lords on the trade bill.The government has suffered two defeats in the House of Lords on the trade bill.
In the first, peers voted by 285 to 184, a majority of 101, in favour of a cross-party amendment tabled by the Labour former Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain aimed at ensuring the continuation of frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic and blocking the imposition of customs arrangements or other checks and controls after Brexit day.In the first, peers voted by 285 to 184, a majority of 101, in favour of a cross-party amendment tabled by the Labour former Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain aimed at ensuring the continuation of frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic and blocking the imposition of customs arrangements or other checks and controls after Brexit day.
Explaining what his amendment would do, Hain said:Explaining what his amendment would do, Hain said:
It does not place the government in a straight-jacket. All it requires is the very outcome we are all - leave or remain, government or opposition, London or Dublin - supposed to be signed up to. Namely the invisible open border on the island of Ireland we currently have.It does not place the government in a straight-jacket. All it requires is the very outcome we are all - leave or remain, government or opposition, London or Dublin - supposed to be signed up to. Namely the invisible open border on the island of Ireland we currently have.
And in the second vote, peers voted by 254 to 187, a majority of 67, for a cross-party move to demand that a future trade deal with the EU would include measures that enable “all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the purpose of the provision of trade in goods or services”.And in the second vote, peers voted by 254 to 187, a majority of 67, for a cross-party move to demand that a future trade deal with the EU would include measures that enable “all UK and EU citizens to exercise the same reciprocal rights to work, live and study for the purpose of the provision of trade in goods or services”.
Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, told Radio 4’s PM programme this evening that she was “not inclined” to vote for the no-deal Brexit motion tonight. Tories have a free vote, so she does not have to. She said:Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, told Radio 4’s PM programme this evening that she was “not inclined” to vote for the no-deal Brexit motion tonight. Tories have a free vote, so she does not have to. She said:
I’m going to vote to keep no-deal on the table.I’m going to vote to keep no-deal on the table.
She also said she thought May’s deal was still viable. She explained:She also said she thought May’s deal was still viable. She explained:
I think it is still alive, I do. Ultimately, when you look at the alternatives - which are a customs union, no Brexit or no-deal - Theresa May’s deal is more attractive than those other three options.I think it is still alive, I do. Ultimately, when you look at the alternatives - which are a customs union, no Brexit or no-deal - Theresa May’s deal is more attractive than those other three options.
I think that’s the conclusion MPs will ultimately come to.I think that’s the conclusion MPs will ultimately come to.
Leo Varadkar, the Irish leader, has said that if the UK government did go ahead with its plan to avoid customs checks at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it would soon end up having to set up a backstop-type arrangement anyway. He explained:Leo Varadkar, the Irish leader, has said that if the UK government did go ahead with its plan to avoid customs checks at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it would soon end up having to set up a backstop-type arrangement anyway. He explained:
I don’t think the UK’s proposals will be workable for very long. They propose to treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK.I don’t think the UK’s proposals will be workable for very long. They propose to treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK.
Northern Ireland will become a back door to the European single market and I think that in a matter of months that will lead to the need for checks at Northern Ireland’s ports.Northern Ireland will become a back door to the European single market and I think that in a matter of months that will lead to the need for checks at Northern Ireland’s ports.
So those that opposed the agreement may find that something very akin to the backstop is applied by the UK government in a few weeks’ time.So those that opposed the agreement may find that something very akin to the backstop is applied by the UK government in a few weeks’ time.
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 she would not be moving it either. (See 3.43pm.) Dromey said MPs had already backed the amendment (in January – tonight’s is word-for-word the same) and that what was important tonight was for MPs to vote, by a massive majority, for the government motion, ruling out a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.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 she would not be moving it either. (See 3.43pm.) Dromey said MPs had already backed the amendment (in January – tonight’s is word-for-word the same) and that what was important tonight was for MPs to vote, by a massive majority, for the government motion, ruling out a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.
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.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.
But, given what Dromey is saying, and what Yvette Cooper said earlier (see 5.34pm), it looks as though there won’t be a vote on it.But, given what Dromey is saying, and what Yvette Cooper said earlier (see 5.34pm), it looks as though there won’t be a vote on it.
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.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.
Leading Eurosceptics are lobbying right-of-centre governments in the EU27 to veto any British request for an extension to article 50 to 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:
In theory, only one country is required to wield its veto for any British request to be rejected.
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.
And here it is in full.
Brexiters lobby for European veto of article 50 extension
Here are two Europe correspondents on the Malthouse compromise amendment.
From the Telegraph’s Peter Foster
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”.
From the Independent’s Jon Stone
One EU source to me after reading Malthouse: “My god they are mad” https://t.co/riYj6I7xK2
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 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.
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.)
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.
He urges MPs to back the amendment, saying it offers a way forward.
This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot on the Spelman amendment. (See 5.20pm.)
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
Spelman says she is going to withdraw her amendment.
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.
So she will withdraw her amendment, she says.
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.
She can’t withdraw her amendment, her amendment hasn’t yet been moved - her amendment is frankly in the hands of the House of Commons.
If [Spelman] puts forward an amendment and chooses not to move it, that’s for her judgment and people will make their own assessment of that, but it’s perfectly possible for other signatories to it who do stick with the wish to persist with it to do so.
Bercow dismisses Tory attempt to cancel a vote on a no-deal amendment embarrassing to the government.
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.
Dame Caroline Spelman, the Conservative who has tabled the amendment ruling out a no-deal Brexit, is speaking now.
Hopefully she will address reports that the government whips are trying to get her to pull her amendment.
This is from the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment.
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.
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.)
Sky’s Lewis Goodall points out that this could end up being explosive. He has more detail here.
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.
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.”
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.
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
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.
The Green MP Caroline Lucas says going for a no-deal Brexit is the action of a rogue state. Gethins agrees.