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/27/brexit-latest-news-live-debate-indicative-votes--to-vote-on-alternative-votes-as-speculation-mounts-may-could-announce-plans-to-quit-live-news

The article has changed 20 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 11 Version 12
Brexit: Bercow puts fresh meaningful vote in doubt by firming up his 'no repeat votes' ruling - live news Brexit: Bercow puts fresh meaningful vote in doubt by firming up his 'no repeat votes' ruling - live news
(32 minutes later)
This is useful - a chart from Simon Usherwood from UK in a Changing Europe, an academic network, explaining the implications of the eight amendments for the EU.
Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt has more thinking on what the government could do to get round John Bercow’s ruling.
Ministers think it is highly unlikely PM could argue that change of date meets substantial change demanded by speaker
And that ain’t possible Mr W bc no paving motion
Govt source: only realistic way to circumvent John Bercow’s ruling on meaningful vote is to incorporate it into Withdrawal Bill (the one implementing Brexit deal). So second reading of that bill would effectively be the meaningful vote
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, is speaking in the debate now.
He says the government is going to table a motion for the Commons to sit on Friday, in case it wants to hold the third meaningful vote then. He does not confirm that the debate will be held then. But he says it is better to have the option, and not need it, than to need it, and not have it available.
Thirty three Tory MPs defied the whip and voted in favour of the business motion. The full list is here. That is three more than the 30 Tories who rebelled on this issue on Monday.
Two Labour MPs joined the Tories, the DUP and three independent in voting against the business motion: Stephen Hepburn and Kate Hoey.
Here is some reaction to the Bercow ruling (see 3.47pm) from people who follow Commons procedure closely.
From Nikki da Costa, the former head of legislative affairs for Theresa May at Number 10
This is extraordinary and extremely inflammatory in a long series of inflammatory actions https://t.co/WBuLwu7rEE
From Chris White, a former adviser to William Hague when he was leader of the Commons
This is extraordinary. The Speaker is saying that the Commons can set aside Standing Orders on Government precedence for its business, but it *cannot* do so to hold a vote on the same motion again. https://t.co/ckfV9mOOmf
MPs have literally just voted to pass a Business Motion that disapplies the precedent for the purposes of indicative votes, yet the Speaker apparently is saying that it would not be in order for the Government to do so for a third attempt at a Meaningful Vote. https://t.co/mk8PUwZKNk
White is correct. Bercow said he would disallow a notwithstanding motion in relation to MV3. But the business motion today includes a “notwithstanding” element. Its third clause says:
(c) notwithstanding the practice of the house, any motion on matters that have been the subject of a prior decision of the house in the current session may be the subject of a decision;
From the Times’ Esther Webber
One clerk just texted me, unsolicited: "Why even have procedure anymore, apparently we're making it up as we go along"
From Jack Simson Caird, a research fellow at the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.
If I was the Government I would bring forward a motion tomorrow or Friday to approve the Withdrawal Agreement *only* and which set out the Government is committed to deliver the option on the Future Relationship that the majority of MPs can support through the votes on Monday.
A WA only motion + commitment to listen to Commons' view on FR would pass speaker's test and would enable long extension if approved
John Bercow, the Speaker, is putting eight amendments to a vote.John Bercow, the Speaker, is putting eight amendments to a vote.
Here they are. I have taken the summary of what each one says from the Press Association summary I posted earlier. The letters refer to the letters attached to each amendment in the order paper.Here they are. I have taken the summary of what each one says from the Press Association summary I posted earlier. The letters refer to the letters attached to each amendment in the order paper.
B - John Baron’s - No dealB - John Baron’s - No deal
Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.Backed by Conservative MPs John Baron, David Amess, Martin Vickers and Stephen Metcalfe, the motion proposes leaving the European Union without a deal on April 12.
D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0D - Nick Boles’s - common market 2.0
Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.Tabled by Conservatives Nick Boles, Robert Halfon and Andrew Percy and Labour’s Stephen Kinnock, Lucy Powell and Diana Johnson. The motion proposes UK membership of the European free trade association and European Economic Area. It allows continued participation in the single market and a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU after Brexit, which would remain in place until the agreement of a wider trade deal which guarantees frictionless movement of goods and an open border in Ireland.
H - George Eustice’s - Efta and EEAH - George Eustice’s - Efta and EEA
A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining Efta, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.A motion tabled by Conservative MP George Eustice – who quit as agriculture minister this month to fight for Brexit – proposes remaining within the EEA and rejoining Efta, but remaining outside a customs union with the EU. The motion was also signed by Conservative MPs including former minister Nicky Morgan and head of the Brexit Delivery Group Simon Hart.
J - Ken Clarke’s - Customs unionJ - Ken Clarke’s - Customs union
Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.Requires a commitment to negotiate a “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU” in any Brexit deal. Tabled by veteran Conservative Europhile Ken Clarke, backed by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, Helen Goodman and chair of the Commons Brexit committee Hilary Benn and Tory former ministers Sir Oliver Letwin and Sarah Newton.
K - Labour’s - Customs union and alignment with single marketK - Labour’s - Customs union and alignment with single market
Labour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrantLabour has tabled a motion proposing its plan for a close economic relationship with the EU. The plan includes a comprehensive customs union with a UK say on future trade deals; close alignment with the single market; matching new EU rights and protections; participation in EU agencies and funding programmes; and agreement on future security arrangements, including access to the European arrest warrant
L - Joanna Cherry’s - Revocation to avoid no dealL - Joanna Cherry’s - Revocation to avoid no deal
Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of the Independent Group.Under this plan, if the government has not passed its withdrawal agreement, it would have to stage a vote on a no-deal Brexit two sitting days before the scheduled date of departure. If MPs refuse to authorise no-deal, the prime minister would be required to halt Brexit by revoking article 50. The motion, tabled by the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, has been signed by 33 MPs including the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Vince Cable, Labour’s Ben Bradshaw and all 11 members of the Independent Group.
M - Dame Margaret Beckett’s - Confirmatory public voteM - Dame Margaret Beckett’s - Confirmatory public vote
Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.Drawn up by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson and tabled by former foreign secretary Dame Margaret Beckett with the backing of scores of MPs across the House, this motion would require a public vote to confirm any Brexit deal passed by parliament before its ratification.
O - Marcus Fysh’s - Contingent preferential arrangementsO - Marcus Fysh’s - Contingent preferential arrangements
A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.A group of Conservative MPs, including Marcus Fysh, Steve Baker and Priti Patel, have signed a motion that calls for the government to seek to agree preferential trade arrangements with the EU, in case the UK is unable to implement a withdrawal agreement with the bloc.
This is what John Bercow said about firming up his “no repeat votes” ruling. (See 3.32pm.) Reminding MPs of his original decision, Bercow told MPs:This is what John Bercow said about firming up his “no repeat votes” ruling. (See 3.32pm.) Reminding MPs of his original decision, Bercow told MPs:
In the course of answering questions following her statement [on Monday], the prime minister accepted this constraint, saying that: “I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week and, were we to bring forward a further motion to this house, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.”In the course of answering questions following her statement [on Monday], the prime minister accepted this constraint, saying that: “I am very clear about the strictures that Mr Speaker gave when he made his statement last week and, were we to bring forward a further motion to this house, we would of course ensure that it met the requirements he made.”
I understand that the government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote three before the house either tomorrow or even on Friday, if the house opts to sit that day.I understand that the government may be thinking of bringing meaningful vote three before the house either tomorrow or even on Friday, if the house opts to sit that day.
Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted.Therefore, in order that there should be no misunderstanding, I wish to make clear that I do expect the government to meet the test of change. They should not seek to circumvent my ruling by means of tabling either a notwithstanding motion or a tabling motion. The table office has been instructed that no such motions will be accepted.
I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes which give the house the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants.I very much look forward, colleagues, to today’s debate and votes which give the house the chance to start the process of positively indicating what it wants.
There had been speculation that the government might get round Bercow’s ruling, which is based on a rule in the Commons bible, Erskine May, by having a vote on a motion disapplying the rule in this case. That option has now been disallowed.There had been speculation that the government might get round Bercow’s ruling, which is based on a rule in the Commons bible, Erskine May, by having a vote on a motion disapplying the rule in this case. That option has now been disallowed.
John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, is now talking about his ruling about “no repeat votes”, that prevented Theresa May from bringing back her meaningful vote before the EU summit.John Bercow, the Commons Speaker, is now talking about his ruling about “no repeat votes”, that prevented Theresa May from bringing back her meaningful vote before the EU summit.
He says there is talk of the government bringing back the vote on Thursday or Friday next week.He says there is talk of the government bringing back the vote on Thursday or Friday next week.
He says that, for this to be allowed, there would have to a substantial change to the motion.He says that, for this to be allowed, there would have to a substantial change to the motion.
And he says he has instructed the clerks to block any attempt by the government to get round this ruling by tabling a “notwithstanding” motion – ie, a one-off rule change that would allow the debate to go ahead despite the usual Commons rule.And he says he has instructed the clerks to block any attempt by the government to get round this ruling by tabling a “notwithstanding” motion – ie, a one-off rule change that would allow the debate to go ahead despite the usual Commons rule.
Bercow restates his ruling that he will only allow a new vote on the Brexit deal if it has changed significantly.Bercow restates his ruling that he will only allow a new vote on the Brexit deal if it has changed significantly.
He says he will block any attempt by the government to use a procedural rule change to get round his decision.He says he will block any attempt by the government to use a procedural rule change to get round his decision.
This is new, and unexpected. It has probably reduced the chances of the meaningful vote being brought back this week (MV3), and it makes the chance of MV3 never happening a distinct possibility.This is new, and unexpected. It has probably reduced the chances of the meaningful vote being brought back this week (MV3), and it makes the chance of MV3 never happening a distinct possibility.
John Bercow, the Speaker, says he is putting eight amendments to a vote.John Bercow, the Speaker, says he is putting eight amendments to a vote.
Theresa May has lost again. Her attempt to defeat the business motion failed, and it was passed by 331 votes to 287 - a majority of 44.Theresa May has lost again. Her attempt to defeat the business motion failed, and it was passed by 331 votes to 287 - a majority of 44.
From Sky’s Kay BurleyFrom Sky’s Kay Burley
Standby for a DUP statementStandby for a DUP statement
Theresa May could be quite close to announcing her resignation as PM. But, according to some new Ipsos MORI polling, she is still seen as having what it takes to be a good prime minister than all of her most obvious rivals.Theresa May could be quite close to announcing her resignation as PM. But, according to some new Ipsos MORI polling, she is still seen as having what it takes to be a good prime minister than all of her most obvious rivals.
And this is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth.
Tory switchers believe that Theresa May will go when the withdrawal agreement bill gets Royal assent
From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg
Last min nerves in Commons that biz motion, which enables the Letwin temporary takeover might be a tighter vote than assumed - be surprised if it doesn’t but could be close
MPs are now voting on the business motion.
If you are interested, you can read the text of it on the order paper here (pdf).
On Monday MPs voted in favour of the Oliver Letwin amendment approving the indicative votes process by 329 votes to 302 – a majority of 27. Thirty Tories rebelled and backed the amendment. You would expect the result of today’s vote to be broadly similar. If it is not, that could be because support for the Letwin process has grown, or shrunk, over the last 48 hours.
In the Commons the vote on the business motion has just wrapped up. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, spoke against it, and it all got very public school.
Then it gets niche. Rees-Mogg (Eton) accuses Boles (Winchester) of making a Wykehamist point: "highly intelligent but fundamentally wrong."Then he throws public school shade on Old Etonian Letwin of being more Winchester than Eton. Can't see Letwin coming back from that.
Today in parliament: - Rees-Mogg accuses Boles and Letwin of not respecting the result of the referendum.- Boles points out they voted for the Brexit deal, and Rees-Mogg didn’t.- Rees-Mogg accuses them of not acting like Etonians.
I am not sure @Jacob_Rees_Mogg’s denigration of @oletwinofficial as behaving more like a Wykehamist (alumnus of Winchester school) rather than the Old Etonian he is will win him many votes in Red Tory Britain
Here is ITV’s Robert Peston on the government’s decision to give MPs and junior ministers a free vote.
Been in transit. So only just seen Smith whipping notice. It is fascinating. @theresa_may will allow junior members of the payroll to vote with their consciences in indicative votes. She clearly took seriously risk that up to 20 ministers would have quit if no free vote
And another question from BTL
Hi Andrew, thanks to you and the Guardian team for greatly increasing my understanding of the political mess we're all currently living through. I have a question. Much is being made of the need for the PM to bring the ERG around to voting for her deal, and how their support is crucial. Isn't this only half the picture? Won't the staunchly Remain tories vote against her deal regardless, and so May won't have the numbers even with the ERG, DUP and the odd Labour straggler?
The remain Tories are less important, because there are fewer of them, but almost a dozen of them have voted against May’s deal, and so they do count.
My colleague Rowena Mason has been looking at the numbers that May needs in more detail. She has sent me this summary of the PM’s situation.
The magic number that Theresa May needs for her deal is 320 votes. It means she could get the withdrawal agreement over the line if she had:
- 303 out of 313 Conservative MPs
- 10 DUP MPs
- 7 Labour and Independent MPs who have already backed her deal
So unless she gets more Labour abstentions or votes, she can only afford to lose 10 Tory votes. This means it is still looking extremely tight for her – even assuming the eventual backing of Eurosceptic big beasts like Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg and the DUP.
There are currently six or seven Tory MPs (eg Justine Greening and Sam Gyimah) who want a second referendum and therefore guaranteed to vote down May’s deal come what may. And there are undoubtedly more than a dozen Tory Eurosceptic MPs who currently say they are still immovably opposed – like Andrea Jenkyns, Steve Baker, Crispin Blunt and Julian Lewis.
Here is a question from BTL, or two.
@Andrew2 Questions...1. You posted on Monday night that the orders for today had also called for Monday to be given over to Parliamentary business rather than Government business. Is there anything to stop them repeating that process into Tuesday or some other day next week?2. Peston last night on ITV suggested that the AG and Cabinet Secretary were of the view that anything that Parliament does decide (seems a long way off, I know) would be binding on the Executive. So if the votes ended up with - let's say - Revoke, she'd be obliged to go to Brussels and do that - or be in contempt (again) etc
Thanks v much - your work is greatly appreciated.
Obscure, Constitutional issues I know but quite pertinent here.
1) No, nothing at all. In theory the process could be self-perpetuating. That is why it alarms the government so much – even though Oliver Letwin did say earlier that, after Monday, if ministers were to accept what the Commons proposes, there would be no need for him to seize the order paper on any more days.
2) I did not see Peston’s report, but there is a write-up of it here.
Whether the PM would be bound by the vote would depend on the precise wording. Normally Commons motions are not binding on the government. But some categories of motions are considered binding – eg, “humble address” ones, and also, I think, ones that require or order (“mandate”, to use Peston’s word) the government to do something.
But these votes would not necessarily be legally binding, in the sense of capable of being enforced by a court. To bind the hands of the government in that way, MPs would have to pass legislation.
It would be interesting to read the Sedwill/Cox advice. I’m sure they know more than me. But the Peston story talks about May possibly being in breach of the ministerial code if she failed to follow an instruction of parliament. That may be the case, but the person ultimately in charge of deciding whether or not a minister has broken the ministerial code is – the PM herself.
Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman confirmed that the party would whip for Margaret Beckett’s “confirmatory public vote” option – as well as Gareth Snell’s and Ken Clarke’s, calling for a customs union, and of course the one setting out Labour’s own Brexit policy.
And he said whips would be “encouraging” Labour MPs to support common market 2.0, the cross-party proposal drawn up by Stephen Kinnock, among others.
The spokesman then embarked on a long justification of Labour’s support for a referendum – which has sparked a backlash, and could yet result in resignations tonight. He said:
The basis for that is that they’re all in line with our policy – in the case of the public vote motion, in the sense of our conference policy that if we’re unable to achieve a general election, keeping all options on the table. So the intention is to support those options going forward in the process – and obviously it is an unusual process, and these aren’t normal parliamentary votes.
Asked if shadow frontbenchers would be sacked if they disobeyed the whip later, he said “the discipline arrangements are a matter for the chief whip”.
Corbyn’s spokesman also pointed to the phrase “in this parliament”, in the Beckett motion, and suggested that meant that if a future Labour government were to negotiate its own, distinct Brexit deal – after a snap general election, for example – that would not need to be subject to a confirmatory ballot. He said:
The other issue of controversy about it is the issue about whether it implies support or abstention on Theresa May’s deal, which we have said we would not support in any circumstances.
That flatly contradicts what Corbyn’s deputy, Tom Watson, said in his speech to the Put it to the People march on Saturday, when he offered to vote for May’s deal in exchange for a referendum.
In the Commons Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the house, is speaking now.
She says she is disappointed that MPs voted for this process on Monday. It should be the government that decided what business gets debated, she says, not the house itself.
She says anything the house decides must be deliverable and negotiable, and it must deliver on the results of the referendum.
She says the withdrawal agreement is complicated. And the EU has said it must be accepted if the UK is to get the transition, she says.
She says the government will vote against the business of the house motion because it opposes the principle of the Commons taking control of the parliamentary timetable.
The government could make another attempt to win a majority for Theresa May’s Brexit deal on Friday.
Friday though remains a possibility for MV3. It is March 29 after all. Would require a change in house business, but can be done easily.
The choice of Friday 29 March is not an accident. Although no longer Brexit day, it remains an important day in the calendar, because of the two-step extension process imposed by the EU last week.
EU leaders agreed to grant the UK an extension until 22 May if the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House of Commons “by 29 March 2019 at the latest”. But if the withdrawal agreement is not approved, the extension will expire on 12 April, a UK domestic deadline for confirming British participation in the European elections.
The text of the EU’s legal decision states:
In the event that the withdrawal agreement is not approved by the House of Commons by 29 March 2019 at the latest, the period provided for in article 50(3) TEU is extended until 12 April 2019. In that event, the United Kingdom will indicate a way forward before 12 April 2019, for consideration by the European council.
Some EU sources suggest there could be some leniency on 29 March deadline. If, for example, MPs vote for the deal on 1 April. “The text of the legal decision says that we need to vote by Friday,” a senior EU source said. “Quite honestly I think that we will be lenient on that. The real question is whether we have clarity in the coming days, if this going to work or not.”
That remains unclear given the “volatile” nature of British politics that is changing day-by-day, the source said.
The EU has already pencilled in a summit for a few days before the 12 April deadline, although it is impossible to say whether that summit will be for EU leaders to decide on a long extension or help them prepare for no-deal.
Last week’s meeting with Theresa May left EU leaders unconvinced that the deal would pass, but a positive meaningful vote three has not been completely ruled out.
Neither, however, has a major government crisis leading to new elections. Officials see two outcomes from a soft Brexit result of the indicative votes process. “It could mobilise forces for a slim majority for May’s deal, or we will have a serious government crisis which will probably lead to elections,” the EU source said.
In that case it would not be clear if the prime minister would be in a position to request an extension. Whatever happens in parliament, for the EU it is the government that counts. “Our interlocutor is not the Commons, our interlocutor is the UK government,” the EU source said.