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/may/21/brexit-latest-news-developments-cabinet-to-discuss-latest-brexit-offer-to-mps-as-ministers-feud-in-public-over-no-deal-live-news

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 6 Version 7
Brexit: new bill to include MPs' vote on second referendum, May says – live news Brexit: Tory MPs abandoning May after second referendum offer – live news
(about 2 hours later)
Theresa May gave her speech the title “New Brexit Deal” and in it she identified 10 ways in which she was changing her Brexit offer to MPs. The Electoral Commission has carried out its visit to the Brexit Party’s office to conduct a review of the systems the party has in place to receive funds, it’s said.
Most of these simply reiterated concessions that have already been announced, at various points, over the last six months. See 3.51pm for a summary of what was already on the table. Perhaps the language on workers’ rights is a bit stronger - today May proposed a workers’ rights bill that “guarantees workers’ rights will be no less favourable than in the EU” - but essentially items 1-7 on her 10-point list (see 4.43pm), and item 10 were already in the bag. That was done as part of the commission’s “active oversight and regulation of these rules”, not as part of a formal investigation of the party.
But what May said about a second referendum (see 4.59pm) and about customs (see 5.04pm) was new. Here are some thoughts. A spokeswoman has said the commission has not “seen evidence of electoral offences, but the law in this area is complex and we want to satisfy ourselves that the pParty’s systems are robust”.
1) May has offered MPs a vote on a second referendum - which, in symbolic terms, is quite significant. Until now she firmly resisted the idea the idea that the government might schedule a vote on this, and last week, when cross-party talks broke down, May implied one reason was because Labour was insisting on a second referendum. And she said the intervention of Gordon Brown had no bearing on the Electoral Commission’s work.
2) But, in practical terms, this offer means much less than it sounds. During the EU withdrawal agreement bill’s passage, someone was bound to table an amendment calling for a second referendum, and so all (or almost all) May is doing is timetabling a vote that would have happened anyway. She has not promised Tory MPs a free vote on this. Last week’s meeting with the Brexit Party was an opportunity to meet with representatives of this newly formed party.
3) May has also promised to legislate for a referendum if MPs vote for one. The two do not necessarily go together; it was easy to imagine MPs voting for a second referendum, but the government then holding up the legislation required to make it happen. Today’s visit is about taking a closer look at the systems the party has in place to receive funds. It gives us active oversight of the rules and this includes helping those regulated to understand them and to ensure there are systems in place to comply with them.
4) But May did not explain how she would stop a future Conservative leader blocking second referendum legislation, or repealing it. (A new Tory leader should be in office before the autumn, and it is unlikely the Brexit bill would be law by then, even if it passed its second reading. Labour has already said such a bill would need more time.) Given how pro-Brexit the Conservative party membership is, it is hard to imagine anyone getting elected as leader if they sound keen on implementing a second referendum. As a newly registered party running a national election campaign, who have put information into the public domain about the level of their fundraising, it is right and proper for the regulator to be in regular contact with the Brexit Party.
5) May’s customs offer is much narrower than her second referendum one. She is not proposing a government vote on a permanent customs union, which is what Labour wants, even though she is proposing a vote on a second referendum. Why? Presumably because, while May must be reasonably confident that the Commons will vote against a second referendum, she must be worried that MPs would back a permanent customs union. (As with the second referendum, there will probably be a vote on this anyway, because Labour would table an amendment. But May is only committing to accept the result if MPs vote for the temporary customs union idea she mentioned in her speech.) We have been talking to the party since it registered, discussing the rules and the party’s systems. But, recently, we have seen significant public concern about the way the party raises funds. We have not seen evidence of electoral offences, but the law in this area is complex and we want to satisfy ourselves that the party’s systems are robust.
6) May seems to have resolved the question about whether to hold indicative votes before the second reading vote on the bill, or after (assuming it gets defeated) by deciding to hold the indicative votes within the bill. The referendum vote offer and the customs union vote offer seem all that is left of her indicative votes plan. Our regulatory work during this campaign – for the European Parliamentary elections – has not deviated from our usual approach.
May’s argument to Labour MPs that, if they want a second referendum, they need to vote for her bill is a plausible one. It is a case that Nick Boles MPs was making powerfully at the end of last week. But, with opposition to her deal already so entrenched, it feels as if she may have left it too late. We are an independent and impartial organisation which is accountable to Parliament. We regulate as is proportionate to the issue, regardless of a party’s politics. Our decision to visit is not related to comments made by the former prime minister.
And this is what May said in her speech on customs. Chuka Umunna has begun to speak, revealing that many of his family members from continental Europe are still grieving over the EU referendum result. He calls for a People’s Vote to remain in the European Union.
Now the government has already put a proposal which delivers the benefits of a customs union but with the ability for the UK to determine its own trade and development policy. Brexit goes beyond politics, it is about who we are. This is about a lot more than politics or ideologies. It is about me personally, about my family ... about who we are as people.
Labour are both sceptical of our ability to negotiate that and don’t believe an independent trade policy is in the national interest. They would prefer a comprehensive customs union - with a UK say in EU trade policy but with the EU negotiating on our behalf. What I find so disgusting and reprehensible is the way that my community is dismissed as a liberal, metropolitan elite ... it is disgusting.
If we are going to pass the withdrawal agreement bill and deliver Brexit, we must resolve this difference. Don’t call the people in my community some Waitrose-shopping, latte-drinking elite ... many people in my community live in poverty ... nobody has a monopoly on grievance.
As part of the cross-party discussions the government offered a compromise option of a temporary customs union on goods only, including a UK say in relevant EU trade policy and an ability to change the arrangement, so a future government could move it in its preferred direction. Loads of communities have been left behind ... the only difference is that we did not feel that leaving the European Union would change things.
We were not able to agree this as part of our cross-party talks – so it is right that parliament should have the opportunity to resolve this during the passage of the bill and decide between the government’s proposal and a compromise option. Urge everyone, if you want to stop this madness, [to] vote for Change UK on Thursday.
This is what May said in her speech about a second referendum. Another erstwhile supporter of May’s deal turns against her:
For the record, this is what she said about a second referendum With great reluctance I backed MV3. Now we are being asked to vote for a customs union and a second referendum. The Bill is directly against our manifesto - and I will not vote for it. We can and must do better - and deliver what the people voted for.
I have also listened carefully to those who have been arguing for a Second Referendum. It is maybe worth noting that Johnson is also on record as saying he hopes to replace May in Number 10.
I have made my own view clear on this many times. I do not believe this is a route that we should take, because I think we should be implementing the result of the first referendum, not asking the British people to vote in a second one. At the Manchester rally, 57-year-old Andrew Graystone – whose expression of solidarity with his local Muslim community after the Christchurch attacks went viral – gets rapturous applause.
But I recognise the genuine and sincere strength of feeling across the house on this important issue. There was a murmur of agreement across the room as he says the damage done by Brexit would take a generation to repair. He said:
The government will therefore include in the withdrawal agreement bill at introduction a requirement to vote on whether to hold a second referendum. I am Manchester through and through. My son is a nurse and wife works with refugees. Six weeks ago, I woke up to the terrible news to the shootings and I thought about how my Muslim friends might feel and it made sense to walk to my local mosque in Levenshulme with a sign that said: ‘You are my friends, I will keep watch while you pray’.
This must take place before the withdrawal agreement can be ratified. That photograph was shared millions of times, 50,000 personal messages – a torrent of goodwill and hopefulness ... overwhelmingly, British people want to live in peace with their neighbours and communities of co-operation.
And if the House of Commons were to vote for a referendum, it would be requiring the government to make provisions for such a referendum – including legislation if it wanted to ratify the withdrawal agreement. The vast majority of people want to build bridges and not walls; want a new kind of politics with a new leadership.
So to those MPs who want a second referendum to confirm the deal: you need a deal and therefore a withdrawal agreement bill to make it happen. There is yet more reaction coming in to May’s offer via various reporters in Westminster. And yet more of it constitutes bad news for the prime minister:
Here is the section from May’s speech in which she summed up her offer as a 10-point plan. One minister says May has achieved something - ‘how to take something bad and make it truly worse’ - another minister told me even before speech bill shouldn’t be tabled, more will make that point now
So our New Brexit Deal makes a ten-point offer to everyone in Parliament who wants to deliver the result of the referendum. Mark Francois says the Brexit New Deal is DOA: “The whole ERG is reuniting against this Bill, which is now effectively already dead on arrival across the bridge at St. Tommy’s.”
One - the government will seek to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the backstop by December 2020, so that it never needs to be used. ERG have just met and it was unanimous; the 40-odd who turned up said they would vote against it. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown also said he would vote against it (he’s voted for the deal every single time) > I can’t see how they bring this deal back
Two - a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland. Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna were delayed to the Manchester People’s Vote and Remain rally in the city’s Technology Centre due to train problems. Their supporters were buoyed as they waited though, by a ‘retro’ playlist that included the songs Let You Love Me, by Rita Ora, and Sweet But Psycho, by Ava Max.
Three - the negotiating objectives and final treaties for our future relationship with the EU will have to be approved by MPs. Mark Burrows and Nick Foss, both aged 58, carried placards as they accompanied Elisabeth Knight, who is standing for Change UK in the North West constituency.
Four - a new workers’ rights bill that guarantees workers’ rights will be no less favourable than in the EU. Burrows has been out campaigning and said people were ready to vote for a new party who would make a stand against Brexit.
Five - there will be no change in the level of environmental protection when we leave the EU. There is a lot of goodwill from remainers about Change UK because they see it as a force that can make things happen. It is an alternative that will make something radical happen.
Six - the UK will seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while outside the single market and ending free movement. Dan Price, engineer and local councillor from Warrington who left the Labour party for the same reasons Chuka Umunna and some others did, has taken to the stand.
Seven - we will keep up to date with EU rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at border protecting the thousands of jobs that depend on just-in-time supply chains. Five weeks ago, I was a member of the Labour party. After years of Brexit fudge, I left the Labour party ... I could no longer look my constituents in the eye.
Eight - the government will bring forward a customs compromise for MPs to decide on to break the deadlock. I was inspired by the bravery of the Change UK candidates who sacrificed their careers and put their country first.
Nine - there will be a vote for MPs on whether the deal should be subject to a referendum. I am a proud Northern, English, British and European. Brexiteers and Westminster have failed us.
And ten – there will be a legal duty to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect this new deal. The former Brexit secretary, Dominic Raab, who has previously voted for May’s deal, has dismissed her latest plan.
All of these commitments will be guaranteed in law – so they will endure at least for this parliament. I listened carefully to the PM’s speech on the govt’s revised terms of Brexit. I cannot support legislation that would be the vehicle for a second referendum or Customs Union. Either option would frustrate rather than deliver Brexit - and break our clear manifesto promises.
Q: Some of your MPs seem to be opposed to this because it is you asking them to back it. What do you say to those who say you should step aside now? And it has gone down no better with senior figures in the hard Brexit-supporting ERG:
May says this is not about her. If it were about her, the UK would be leaving, she says. At our regular ERG meeting, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown confirms he will now vote against the deal. There is no doubt the Prime Minister’s speech today has worsened the situation.
And that’s it. The Q&A is over. The Prime Minister’s latest proposals are worse than before and would leave us bound deeply in to the EU. It is time to leave on WTO terms.
Q: You came into office committed to delivering Brexit and to bring the Tories together. How successful have you been? The chancellor, Philip Hammond, is due to address the CBI’s annual dinner, which is due to start around now. It was reported earlier that he planned to say a no-deal Brexit would damage the economy.
May says she admitted in her speech she has not delivered Brexit. Now, shortly before he’s due to give the speech, a further extract emerges in which he drives home the point that fiscal imprudence is not a look that most Conservatives would like to be seen in. He plans to say:
Q: If MPs vote for a confirmatory referendum, will it happen? And if MPs vote to stay in a customs union permanently, will you implement that? Fiscal responsibility is a proud boast of Conservative governments and I know that, in the coming months, my colleagues will want to protect that reputation – and so will resist the ever-present temptation to write cheques the country cannot afford.
May says she is not proposing a vote on a permanent customs union. She is proposing one on a temporary customs union. A future government would then be able to decide what happened in the future. We must not undo a decade of hard work by the British people by making unfunded commitments that would send our national debt soaring; leave the economy vulnerable to future shocks; burden future generations and waste billions on interest payments. People must know they can trust Conservatives with the public finances.
Q: Will you publish the bill before the recess? Earlier, we reported that he planned to attack the idea on the “populist right” that a no-deal Brexit was the only acceptable form of Brexit (see 9.23am). An extract revealed that he planned to say:
May says it will be published “in the next few days”. On the populist right, there are those who now claim that the only outcome that counts as a truly legitimate Brexit is to leave with no deal.
May says EU withdrawal agreement bill will be published shortly. Let me remind them: the 2016 Leave campaign was clear that we would leave with a deal.
Q: Do you want a Brexiter to replace you, or will that just prolong the conflict? So, to advocate for no deal is to hijack the result of the referendum and, in doing so, knowingly to inflict damage on our economy and our living standards.
Nice try, says May. She says she will not comment on the leadership contest. That is a matter for the Conservative party. Because all the preparation in the world will not avoid the consequences of no deal.
May is now taking questions. So I will continue to fight, in the face of this polarisation, for a negotiated Brexit; an outcome that respects the British people’s decision to leave, while recognising that there is no mandate for a “no-deal” exit; and that we have an absolute obligation to protect Britain’s jobs, businesses and future prosperity.
Q: The opposition parties say they will not vote for this. Isn’t this too late? But we need to be clear that, if we do not resolve this issue in the next few weeks, there is a real risk of a new prime minister abandoning the search for a deal, and shifting towards seeking a damaging no-deal exit as a matter of policy … in order to protect an ideological position which ignores the reality of Britain’s economic interests and the value of our Union.
May urges MPs to look at the detail of the bill. It will be published, she says. She has compromised, she says. Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, has put out this statement in response to Theresa May’s speech. He said:
Q: If you lose the vote, can you confirm you will resign? The prime minister’s last ditch attempt to get her withdrawal agreement through the Commons without a confirmatory referendum attached is doomed to failure. Her authority is draining away.
That was last week’s news, says May. She made a statement with the chair of the 1922 Committee. Unless and until the government concedes that a people’s vote must be in the legislation, she will not win our support.
May says this deal will set the groundwork for life outside the EU. That’s all from me for tonight.
But in future, Britain will be able to choose how it develops. Some will want it to move closer to the EU. Others will want it to move further away. My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is taking over now.
Future governments will be able to decide, she says. There is a rule in journalism that, if someone frames a headline in the form of a question, it is normally best to assume the answer is no.
She says over the next two weeks the government will try to get MPs to back this deal. But in this case, if you read Laura Kuenssberg’s blog, you will find that this is a rare example of a question mark being used to understate what an article is saying, not overstate it.
Tomorrow she will make a statement to MPs, she says. Did the PM just make it worse? https://t.co/0z3bjVwDeM
She says she has compromised. It is up to MPs to compromise too, she says. Here’s an extract.
May says this is a great time to be alive. The diplomatic way of describing the situation tonight? Compromising when no one else is interested in consensus is impossible.
Britain can make a success of the 2020s and 2030s. The more brutal political interpretation - Theresa May’s mishandling of this whole situation has, over many, many months, pulled her deeper and deeper down into a quagmire of her own creation.
But it will not do that if it remains stuck in the Brexit impasse, she says. An attempt at this stage to ask others for understanding to help her escape is just too late - far, far too late. Now some Conservative minds are turning to whether she can stay on to have this vote at all.
She says, with the right Brexit deal, she can end this debate. The People’s Vote campaign has dismissed Theresa May’s offer to let MPs have a vote on a second referendum. It has put this statement from the Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett, who supports its campaign. She said:
She says the UK will have opportunities outside the EU. And it will be able to do even more if it has a deal. It can protect trade, and protect security partnerships. The prime minister’s last-ditch effort to force through her deal is no more likely to succeed than her previous attempts.
This is a huge opportunity for the UK, she says - out of the EU, out of every closer union, free to do things differently. Today she tried to spice up the same old deal with a series of supposedly new concessions, but then admitted she had no way of guaranteeing that she could deliver any of them.
May says this opportunity is practical and deliverable. MPs will be rightly weary of offers from a Prime Minister who is about to resign and will probably be replaced by a hard-line successor. It would be very dangerous to vote through a deal to leave the European Union without any clear idea of our eventual destination – a blindfold Brexit that would only prolong uncertainty for families, businesses and parliament.
But it is “slipping away from us”, she says. And her effort to persuade MPs who support a people’s vote that they need to back her or lose the chance to give the public the final say, were contradicted by the prime minister herself when she said that failure to agree her deal could result in a new public vote and the possibility that the UK stayed in the EU. (See 4.27pm.)
Rejecting this hotchpotch offer will show once and for all there is no stable majority for any form of Brexit without handing the decision back to the people.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, may be tweeting this as an “amusing aside” ...
The PM might not have guaranteed a second EU referendum, but her promise of a vote on one puts the Scottish Tories ‘vote for us for no more referendums on anything ever’ pitch on something of a sticky wicket. Just an amusing aside.
But Theresa May’s offer of a vote on a second referendum does rather contradict Ruth Davidson’s election publicity, which has been loudly proclaiming that a vote for the Scottish Tories means “no more referendums”.
Less than 48 hours before the polls open, it can only add to Scottish Tory fears that Nigel Farage is about to halt their resurgence in Scotland.