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/2019/mar/13/brexit-mps-to-vote-on-leaving-the-eu-with-no-deal-politics-live

The article has changed 32 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 19 Version 20
Brexit: MPs vote on 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)
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 by 318 votes to 310 – a majority of eight. From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg
So... the main vote is now on whether UK can EVER leave the EU without a deal (because of earlier Spelman vote) - govt is now said to be trying to force its own MP s to vote against its own motion - frankly things so chaotic this could implode by mistake
MPs are now voting on the main motion, as amended.
But this is basically a re-run of the first vote. The result is likely to be very similar although it is possible that, because some MPs may not have expected Spelman to win first time round, they might vote differently now.
The Malthouse compromise amendment has been defeated by 374 votes to 164 - a majority of 210.
This is from Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt.
Govt now facing ministerial resignation alert. Govt planning to whip against their no deal motion because it has now been amended to rule out no deal in all circumstances. If govt whips against that ministers say they will resign
After the vote on the Green amendment, we should get a vote on the main motion as amended - ie, potentially a combination of Spelman and Green.
It is important to stress, of course, that the Spelman amendment passed a few minutes ago does not definitely rule out a no-deal Brexit.
There are two reasons for that.
First, it is not a binding amendment. It is not legislation, and it is not a motion that gives a formal instruction to the government as “humble address” motions do.
The government could choose to accept it, and treat it as binding, but it has not said yet that it will. And even if it did ...
Second, it is not within the government’s power to rule out no deal (in the terms of the motion) because it does not call for article 50 to be revoked, which would probably require separate legislation anyway. Caroline Spelman and Jack Dromey, who tabled it, intended it to signal that ministers should extend article 50 in the event of no deal being agreed. But, as Theresa May says repeatedly, that only postpones the problem.
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).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).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.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.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.”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.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.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 ...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.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.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.The British people have given parliament a clear instruction.
It is time for us to determine who is the boss.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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”.
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.
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 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:
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.
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.
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.
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.