Afternoon summary
- David Davis has promised that British MPs and peers will be able to scrutinise, amend and vote on the final Brexit agreement through primary legislation in a concession to pro-EU Conservative backbenchers. Although this did not come as a complete surprise - Number 10 hinted it was planning this move two weeks ago, and ministers were under pressure to concede because otherwise they were facing a likely defeat on this matter during the EU withdrawal bill’s committee stage - it nevertheless amounts to a potentially significant announcement. Pro-Brexit MPs did not seem especially happy about what Davis had to say, and the Labour party said it was a “significant climbdown”. (See 4.56pm.) In theory this means that the House of Commons, which probably contains a decisive “soft Brexit majority”, could start rewriting the Brexit transition and withdrawal deal if, as planned, it is agreed next autumn. But in the Commons Davis admitted that his promise to implement the withdrawal deal through an act of parliament would only take effect if a deal actually gets agreed. If there is no deal, there won’t be a bill. And, as Davis admitted in the Commons, even if the Commons does vote to change the withdrawal deal, there is no guarantee that Brussels will agree to its proposals. When Labour’s Clive Efford asked Davis what would happen if the Commons amends the legislation to demand a different sort of withdrawal, Davis replied:
If he House does that [votes to change the bill], that will be taken I guess by the government as an instruction to go back and speak for them [to Brussels]. Whether that will deliver any outcome, I don’t know.
In private government sources are even blunter, suggesting that there is very little chance of amendments to the bill passed by the Commons leading to the EU agreeing to change the terms of a Brexit deal already negotiated by the government.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
The Irish government had said the Democratic Unionist Party will not decide the future of Northern Ireland in Brexit negotiations.
Foreign minister Simon Coveney told reporters in Brussels on Monday that its future is far too important to be left to any one party.
“We respect the views of the DUP, but we respect the views of other parties in Northern Ireland. No one party should have the only say,” he said after a meeting of EU foreign ministers.
That is not how a decision as fundamental and as important to Ireland’s future and Britain’s future should be made.
I don’t accept that the options should be limited on the basis of the political arithmetic in the House of Commons.
Illuminating the potential for the Irish question to turn into a Brexit roadblock, Coveney said that those who thought the Irish border question could simply be pushed into the second phase of Brexit talks were mistaken.
“Some people hoped that Ireland and the EU task force would simply allow this issue to drift into phase two in the hope that it would be resolved through some form of trade agreement or trade partnership agreement in the future,” he said. He added that this was “not a viable proposal”.
The EU has indicated that short of a fresh solution from the British government, it sees the best way to achieve an invisible border in Ireland was for Northern Ireland to stay in the Customs Union and the single market, something the DUP has said it will oppose.
This was seen in some quarters as a bid by the EU give Northern Ireland “Hong Kong style” autonomy.
Brexit secretary David Davis rejected this on Friday saying the government would not accept anything that would undermine the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland.
Coveney said he did not believe reports at the weekend that British officials were “horrified” by this proposal. He said:
Anybody whose been following this process knows that Ireland has been consistent and stubborn and strong on the border issue because it’s so important to the functioning of the island of Ireland; linked to a peace process, linked to normal commerce, and the movement of goods, services, livestock, people.
This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.
Next few hours going to be really interesting ... Davis' concession has taken wind out of rebels' sails, but not clear yet if they will stand down
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 13, 2017
This is from Jakub Krupa, who works for the Polish Press Agency in London.
Deputy DG of Poland's Lewiatan Business Confederation Grzegorz Baczewski tells me after this morning's No10 visit that two-year transition period "would not have been enough even if we had the rest of deal already done now", adds "the UK should be more specific" to boost talks
— Jakub Krupa (@JakubKrupa) November 13, 2017
Dominic Grieve expressed concern that ministers were making a verbal promise alone for a Brexit deal bill - and he said the policy needed to be written into the EU withdrawal bill. He told the Guardian:
I welcome the announcement today that parliament will be asked to approve any withdrawal agreement by statute but it remains the case that the bill as drafted does not reflect what the government is now promising - and the bill will therefore have to be changed to meet the government’s promise.
I hope that my amendment won’t be necessary but it will remain there to be debated and if necessary voted on.
According to Sky’s Faisal Islam, Dominic Grieve is not withdrawing his amendment yet.
Understand that Grieve not withdrawing his amendment... Govt will not say if they are accepting his... pic.twitter.com/SO9DsI69C7
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) November 13, 2017
In the Commons earlier David Davis refused to commit the government to accepting it. See 4.52pm.
John Bercow, the speaker, has granted an emergency debate on the Paradise Papers tomorrow. That means the debate on the EU withdrawal bill will start, and finish, later than planned.
The David Davis statement is now over.
I’ll post a summary soon.
Davis says the Brexit talks have been tough, and may get tougher.
Suella Fernandes, the Conservative chair of the European Research Group, which is pushing for a hard Brexit, asks Davis to confirm that MPs will not be able to use the newly-announced bill to reverse Brexit.
Davis agrees. It will be a meaningful vote, but not one that can undo Brexit, he says.
Davis says, if MPs reject any aspect of the Brexit deal bill, that will be taken by the government as an instruction to go back to Brussels and try again. But whether they take any notice is a matter for them, he says.
The Labour MP Mike Gapes says, if MPs vote down the proposed Brexit deal bill, the UK will leave the EU anyway without a deal. That means MPs are not getting a real choice, he says. It does not amount to parliament “taking back control”.
Davis does not accept this.
Updated
Open Britain, which is campaigning for a soft Brexit, has put out this statement about David Davis’s announcement. It is from the Labour MP Chris Leslie. He says:
What could have been a very welcome concession by the government, instead looks like a sham that pretends to respect the sovereignty of parliament but falls well short of what is required.
It’s a transparent and fairly desperate attempt at the eleventh hour to save face and avoid losing votes in the House.
Ministers need to do much better. It is crucial that this meaningful vote takes place well before we leave; that defeat for the government’s legislation will not imply leaving the EU with no deal; and that parliament has the same role in the event of a disastrous ‘no deal’ outcome.
Here is the press release from the Brexit department giving more details of David Davis’s announcement. The bill implementing the withdrawal agreement will be called the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill.
The department says:
In this afternoon’s statement to the House on the latest round of Brexit negotiations, the secretary of state for exiting the EU, David Davis outlined plans for the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill.
This confirms that the major policies set out in the withdrawal agreement will be directly implemented into domestic law by primary legislation – not by secondary legislation under the EU (withdrawal) bill. This will allow for parliamentary scrutiny and oversight of the process ...
The exact details of the withdrawal agreement are the subject of ongoing and future negotiations and cannot be known until those negotiations are near completion.
Therefore a bill separate to the EU (withdrawal) bill is required to legislate for our withdrawal arrangements and planned implementation period.
The bill is expected to cover the contents of the withdrawal agreement, including issues such as an agreement on citizens’ rights, any financial settlement and the details of an implementation period agreed between both sides.
Bringing forward this bill means that parliament will be given time to debate, scrutinise and vote on the final agreement we strike with the EU. It comes over and above the undertaking the government has already made that it will give parliament a vote on the final deal as soon as possible after the deal is agreed.
Opposition MPs divided over significance of David Davis's concession
Opposition parties and MPs are divided over the significance of David Davis’s concession.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has issued this statement.
This is a significant climbdown from a weak government on the verge of defeat.
For months, Labour has been calling on ministers to guarantee parliament a final say on the withdrawal agreement. With less than 24 hours before they had to defend their flawed bill to parliament they have finally backed down. However, like everything with this government the devil will be in the detail.
Ministers must now go further. They need to accept Labour’s amendments that would ensure transitional arrangements, and protect jobs and the economy from a cliff edge.
But his Labour colleague Chuka Umunna has posted these on Twitter.
David Davis' announcement just now that there will be an Act of Parliament to approve a final EU deal is totally insufficient: he gave no guarantee of a meaningful vote before 29 March 2019 and this doesn't cover the event of there being no deal /1
— Chuka Umunna (@ChukaUmunna) November 13, 2017
Clearly this is an attempt to see off amendments that go much further than David Davis on a 'meaningful vote' - it is vital the EU Withdrawal Bill is amended to provide for a proper not a fake meaningful vote before any exit day /2
— Chuka Umunna (@ChukaUmunna) November 13, 2017
And the Lib Dems have put out this statement from their Brexit spokesman Tom Brake.
A parliamentary vote simply isn’t good enough.
The people voted to leave the EU, they should get to decide whether to accept the deal the government has negotiated.
If they reject the government’s Brexit deal, they must have the option to stay in the EU.
Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP, asks Davis if the government will accept Dominic Grieve’s amendment saying the Brexit deal must be implemented in statute.
Davis says he is stating government policy.
- Davis refuses to confirm that the government will accept rebel amendment putting a commitment to having a Brexit deal act of parliament in the EU withdrawal bill.
Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, asks Davis to confirm that, if there is no Brexit agreement and no Brexit deal, the UK will leave without MPs voting on it.
Davis says, if there is no agreement, there can be no withdrawal agreement bill.
Labour’s Yvette Cooper asks for an assurance that the Brexit deal bill will come to the Commons before Brexit happens.
Davis says that is the government’s intention.
Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, says it is increasingly clear there is a fundamental contradiction between wanting to leave the customs union and not having a border in Northern Ireland.
Davis says there are a range of possible outcomes. If the government achieves its goal of having tariff-free, friction-free trade with Europe, any customs deal would be very light touch.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary, asks Davis to accept that, if there is going to be a yes/no vote on the Brexit deal before the Brexit deal legislation, a no vote would mean there being no legislation.
Davis accepts that. That is the case, he says.
Here is some comment from journalists on the announcement.
From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg
And now - big concession for Tory rebels - sounds dull but important, Davis promises a separate piece of legislation, 'withdrawal agreement bill - to go through Parliament once deal nearly done
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 13, 2017
From Sky’s Faisal Islam
Big: David Davis announces Government has conceded to Withdrawal Bill amendments enshrining Exit Deal as statute - ie both Houses/ amendable
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) November 13, 2017
Here is James McGrory, the executive director of Open Britain, which is campaigning for a soft Brexit, on David Davis’s announcement.
Wow. Possibly huge concession from the Government on primary legislation for the Brexit deal. Detail important though. It's got to be more than a take-it-or-leave-it fait accompli.
— James McGrory (@JamesMcGrory) November 13, 2017
Davis is replying to Starmer.
He accuses him of carping.
And he says the government needs to have a bill implementing the final Brexit deal so the EU citizens’ can be sure their rights are being guaranteed.
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, says Davis is conceding that the government is not making much progress in the Brexit talks.
He says Davis had to make this announcement he had just delivered because he was facing defeat on the EU withdrawal bill.
He asks if MPs will get a vote if there is no deal.
Davis announces final Brexit deal will take form of act of parliament
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is making a Commons statement on Brexit now.
He says, once there is a Brexit agreement, there will be a specific piece of primary legislation - ie, a government bill - to enact it.
That means MPs will be able to vote on it.
He says it will cover items like citizens’ rights and the implementation period.
This will be as well as a vote in principle on the Brexit deal, he says.
- Davis announces final Brexit deal will be implemented via a government bill. This means MPs will have the option of amending it.
This is something opposition MPs and Tory rebels have been demanding. Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, has tabled an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill demanding exactly this.
Updated
How Boris Johnson finally apologised and admitted he made a mistake
On Tuesday last week Boris Johnson answered questions about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in the Commons. He said he was sorry if his comments to the foreign affairs committee had been “misconstrued”, but that was a classic unapologetic apology (ie, one of those “I’m sorry, even though I did nothing wrong” efforts that particularly popular with politicians and children.)
Today he went much further. He admitted he did make a mistake. And he issued what sounded like a sincere apology.
This is what he said in his opening remarks.
The British government has no doubt that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in Iran on holiday and that was the sole purpose of her visit. As I said in the House last week, my remarks on the subject before the foreign affairs committee could and should have been clearer and I acknowledge that the words I used were open to being misinterpreted, and I apologise. I apologise to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family if I have inadvertently caused them any further anguish.
This is what he told Yvette Cooper when she challenged him to admit that he got it wrong at the foreign affairs committee.
In so far as people got a different impression from what I was saying at the FAC [foreign affairs committee, that was my mistake. I should have been clearer. It was my mistake. I should have been clearer. I apologise for the distress and anguish that has been caused to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family.
And a moment ago he told Labour’s Kevin Brennan that it was “wrong” of him to say that Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in Iran in a professional capacity.
Updated
Here is the start of the Press Association story about Boris Johnson’s apology.
Boris Johnson’s pride “matters not one ounce” compared with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s freedom, Labour said, as they urged the foreign secretary to apologise.
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said there had been a week of “obfuscation and bluster” from Johnson as she urged him to state “simply and unequivocally” that he got it wrong when claiming Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was training journalists in Iran when arrested in 2016.
Foreign secretary Johnson, responding to an urgent question in the Commons, said he apologised for the “distress and suffering” caused by his remarks.
He added: “I do apologise, I do apologise and of course I retract any suggestion that she was there in a professional capacity.”
Johnson said he had made such a statement about “a dozen times”.
Johnson says the Foreign Office often does not publicly call for the release of Britons held abroad, because that exacerbate their plight. But in this case he has publicly called for Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release on humanitarian grounds, he says.
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw asks Boris Johnson if he will also correct the record about his links with Joseph Mifsud, the “London professor” with high-level Kremlin contacts. Johnson denied having met him before a photograph emerged showing the pair together.
John Bercow, the speaker, says this question is out of order, because it has nothing to do with the subject of the UQ, and he rules that Johnson does not have to answer.
Johnson admits what he said about Zaghari-Ratcliffe was 'a mistake'
Labour’s Yvette Cooper asks Johnson to admit that he got it wrong.
Johnson says Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in Iran on holiday. In so far as people got the contrary impression, “that was my mistake,” he says. He says he has apologised for that.
- Johnson admits what he said about Zaghari-Ratcliffe was “a mistake”.
Labour’s Tulip Siddiq, Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s local MP, asks what the Foreign Office is doing to ensure her constituent gets diplomatic protection.
Johnson says he will be explaining this when he meets Richard Ratcliffe.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, says as Churchillian, Boris Johnson will appreciate that this has not been his finest hour. But he urges the opposition not to play politics with this issue. Referring to Tulip Siddiq’s comment this morning (see 9.17am), and the way it has been reporting, he says if the Iranians think they can get rid of a foreign secretary by jailing her for longer, they have an incentive to do that.
Johnson says he is not seeing Richard Ratcliffe tomorrow. The meeting is on Wednesday, he says.
The SNP’s Hannah Bardell asks why Michael Gove was not properly briefed about the case before he went on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday.
Sir Hugo Swire, a Conservative, says there is more than “a faint whiff of opportunism” about Labour’s UQ.
Johnson is replying to Thornberry.
He says he is happy to apologise for the distress caused by what he said.
Of course he retracts any suggestion that Zaghari-Ratcliffe was in Iran in a professional capacity, he says.
On the subject of diplomatic protection, he says he intends to explain this to Richard Ratcliffe when they meet tomorrow.
He says he does not know yet if it will be possible to take Ratcliffe with him to Iran.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, starts by saying our thoughts are with the victims of the earthquake in Iran.
She thanks Johnson for returning from Brussels to answer the UQ.
She says it is urgent that Zaghari-Ratcliffe can be brought home.
She says if she can be helped by giving her diplomatic status, that should be pursued.
(Thornberry has not picked up yet the fact that the Foreign Office are looking at diplomatic protection, not diplomatic status. Some confusion on this point was generated by a misunderstanding at the lobby briefing. See 1.11pm.)
She asks Johnson to admit that he just got it wrong when he spoke to the foreign affairs committee.
Johnson runs through steps taken by the government to secure Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release. He says David Cameron intervened on her behalf when he was prime minister.
He says he hopes his visit to Iran later this year will reset relations with Iran.
Boris Johnson apologises to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for what he said about her to MPs
Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is speaking now.
He says MPs will share his “deep concern” about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has been in jail for 19 months.
He is meeting Richard Ratcliffe, her husband, later this week.
She was visiting relations in April last year with her daughter. She was arrested at the airport on the way home.
He says she was in the country visiting relatives. His words to the Commons foreign affairs committee could and should have been clearer. He says he apologises if his words have caused her anguish.
- Boris Johnson apologises to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe for what he said about her to the foreign affairs committee. His words “could and should” have been clearer, he says.
Boris Johnson returns to Commons from Brussels for UQ on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Boris Johnson is in the chamber for the UQ. He was in Brussels earlier, but he seems to have made a surprise early return.
Downing Street has issued its own read out from Theresa May’s meeting with European business leaders earlier. As usual with these things, it is exceedingly bland. But here it is anyway.
Today the prime minister chaired a meeting of leaders from UK and EU business organisations at Downing Street.
The prime minister reassured the group that Brexit meant the UK was leaving the EU, not Europe and reiterated her ambition for free and frictionless trade with the EU27 once the UK departs. She also expressed her commitment to giving businesses the certainty they need by agreeing a time-limited implementation period as soon as possible.
The secretary of state for exiting the EU, David Davis, gave an update on negotiations, highlighting the progress made on citizens’ rights.
Mr Davis said there was an important role for business leaders in the UK and the rest of the EU to play. He underlined that economic considerations should be to the fore in the negotiations.
Carolyn Fairbairn, director-general of the CBI, represented the wider group in welcoming the opportunity to hear from and discuss such key issues for industry with the Prime Minister. And Emma Marcegaglia, President for BusinessEurope stated that the business groups stand together, ready to play a constructive role in supporting governments find the solutions they need.
There was a consensus among the business groups for the need for an implementation period and for economic relations between the UK and EU27 to remain close.
The business secretary, Greg Clark and economic secretary, Stephen Barclay also attended the roundtable to hear the views from business leaders from across the EU.
Cable urges opposition parties to unite and vote against committing to 29 March 2019 as Brexit date
Two Conservative pro-European former ministers have criticised Theresa May’s plan to pass an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill saying the UK will definitely leave the EU on 29 March 2019. (See 2.28pm.) Now Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, has written to the leaders of the other opposition parties urging them to join the Lib Dems in rejecting the government amendment. He says:
By seeking to set an arbitrary UK departure date from the EU of the 29 March 2019, the PM is curtailing the UK parliament’s right to consider any deal and, if necessary, vote for the government to resume negotiations and potentially, if it was in the UK’s interests, to seek an extension to the article 50 negotiations.
Parliament must not be bounced by a ploy that is all about Tory party management and nothing to do with Britain’s interests. Furthermore this move weakens the UK government’s negotiating stance, as the EU would know the UK was tied by a firm deadline, putting extra pressure on the UK to settle disadvantageously.
May's proposed two-year Brexit transition not long enough, says Federation of German Industries
According to my colleague Philip Oltermann, the Guardian’s Berlin bureau chief, the Federation of German Industries put out a statement after the Downing Street meeting saying Theresa May’s proposed two-year transition would not be long enough. The Federation of German Industries is the German equivalent of the CBI.
Statement from Federation of German Industries after Downing Street visit: "Businesses' idea of a transition phase differs from that of the British government. Two years not enough to create necessary legal framework" pic.twitter.com/x3nj4OjnTb
— Philip Oltermann (@philipoltermann) November 13, 2017
Lunchtime summary
- A Foreign Office minister is being summoned to the Commons to answer an urgent question about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, tabled the question, but Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, will not be responding himself because he is in Brussels. The UQ comes as Number 10 confirmed that the government is considering offering Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection to help secure her release from jail in Iran.
- European business leaders have told Theresa May that progress is urgently needed in Brexit talks or UK jobs and investment could be lost. As the Press Association reports, the prime minister hosted senior industry figures from across the continent in Downing Street to hear their concerns. Emma Marcegaglia, president of the lobbying group BusinessEurope, said it was crucial for progress to be made within two weeks in order for trade talks to be given the green light by EU leaders at December’s summit. She said in a statement after the meeting:
Business is extremely concerned with the slow pace of negotiations and the lack of progress only one month before the decisive December European council. Business aims to avoid a cliff edge and therefore asks for a “status quo – like” transitional arrangement with the UK staying in the customs union and the single market as this will best provide citizens and businesses with greater certainty.
- Pro-European Tories have criticised Theresa May’s decision to announce a government amendment to the EU withdrawal bill saying the UK will definitely leave on 29 March 2019. Asked about the announcement, that came in a Telegraph article, the former education secretary Nicky Morgan told the Daily Politics:
I’m afraid to say the prime minister’s tone-deaf, tin-eared article in the Telegraph was guaranteed to continue to deepen divisions in the Conservative party, rather than trying to heal them, which is what she should be doing.
And Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, told Sky News:
I think it is an incoherent and thoroughly stupid amendment and it won’t have my support.
Carl Sargeant was found hanged, inquest hears
Wales assembly member Carl Sargeant was found hanged at his home by his wife, a coroner’s court has heard. As the Press Association reports, the 49-year-old was found dead last Tuesday by his wife Bernadette, four days after being removed from his role as cabinet secretary for communities and children. The PA report goes on:
The father-of-two, from Connah’s Quay, North Wales, was suspended from the Labour party over allegations of “unwanted attention, inappropriate touching or groping”.
Bernadette Sargeant had gone downstairs and found a note on the door of her utility room in her husband’s handwriting advising her not to enter but to call the police, Ruthin coroner’s court heard.
John Gittins, senior coroner for North Wales (East and Central), giving details at the opening of the inquest into Sargeant’s death, continued: “Nonetheless she did go in and found her husband on the floor after an apparent act of self-harm.”
Efforts to resuscitate him continued by Sargeant’s wife and family members along with paramedics until life was pronounced extinct.
A provisional cause of death was given as hanging.
Gittins said his inquest will not consider the truth of allegations made against Sargeant or making adjudications on “who is right or wrong”.
Welsh first minister Carwyn Jones has called for a senior QC to carry out an independent inquiry to examine his handling of the case.
Sargeant’s family has criticised the decision to ask the permanent secretary to begin preparatory work and said it will prevent the probe from being truly independent.
Gittens, before adjourning the inquest to a date yet to be fixed, continued: “But as part of my investigation I must gather evidence to assist me in reaching a conclusion, as, when the final inquest hearing takes place, I will be required to give consideration to reaching a conclusion of suicide which would require me to be certain, that is to say beyond reasonable doubt, that it was Mr Sargeant’s intention to end his life at that time and I must therefore have regard to his mental state and his ability to form such an intention.”
Gittins added: “The events of the days preceding his death may be relevant to my inquiry”, and said he would be seeking statements from Sargeant’s family and the first minister and “possibly from others at the Welsh Assembly in the coming weeks”.
He said he would be “examining carefully the steps taken by the assembly to have regard to Sargeant’s mental welfare prior to his death”.
Due to the independent inquiry already announced, the coroner said he was not able to set a date for the inquest to resume, and its own findings may have a bearing on the inquest.
He concluded: “May I take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr Sargeant and to assure them all that there will be a full and fair examination of the matters which are relevant to my investigation and that I shall not allow the inquest to be a trial by press, politics or personality.”
Updated
What is diplomatic protection?
Redress, the human rights organisation working with Richard Ratcliffe (see 1.04pm), has sent out a note explaining the difference between diplomatic status and diplomatic protection. It says:
Diplomatic immunity has nothing to do with this case; we are simply speaking about diplomatic protection as a state to state process:
Diplomatic protection is a mechanism where a state may secure reparation for injury to one of its nationals. A State asserts diplomatic protection on its own behalf, but also on behalf of its national whose rights have been breached.
Diplomatic protection has been used by States whose nationals face the death penalty – cases have been brought by both Germany and Mexico against the USA and by Guinea against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It can consist of formal protest, a request for an inquiry or for negotiations aimed at the settlement of disputes, negotiation, mediation and conciliation ranging up to arbitral and judicial dispute settlement.
What is important is that the matter is no longer a consular matter where consular officials are representing the interests of the individual and trying to prevent an unlawful act; by exercising diplomatic protection, the government elevates the matter to a dispute affecting its own fundamental interests for which it is seeking to remedy.
And here is the 10-page counsel’s opinion for Redress (pdf) arguing that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is entitled to diplomatic protection.
Richard Ratcliffe is calling for his wife to be offered diplomatic protection, and the Foreign Office is considering this option. That is not the same as her being offered diplomatic status, as I wrongly said earlier. I’ve amended the earlier posts to make that clear.
Speaker grants urgent question on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
The speaker has granted an urgent Commons question at Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
UQ granted at 330 to @EmilyThornberry to ask @BorisJohnson to make a statement on the case of British-Iranian national, Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 13, 2017
Richard Ratcliffe says his wife should get diplomatic protection to secure her release
Richard Ratcliffe has written a column for the Evening Standard explaining why he thinks his wife should get diplomatic protection. It takes the form of an open letter to Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary. Here is an excerpt.
Nazanin is being held because she is British and is being used as a bargaining chip against the UK, now justified by your words. That direct connection of her to you is why I believe my wife should be entitled to diplomatic protection — rather than consular assistance, as she has now. Nazanin is no longer simply a consular case as she has been endangered in a deeper way. As foreign secretary, I would like you to instruct your department personally to give her that protection.
With the help of Redress, we submitted a legal opinion to the Foreign Office two months ago, setting out the abuse of Nazanin’s rights and why she is entitled to diplomatic protection. The Foreign Office has not answered our lawyers’ questions on this, nor has it acknowledged any violation of Nazanin’s rights in its replies to parliamentary questions.
Mr Ratcliffe’s powerful letter about Nazanin to the Foreign Secretary @EveningStandard: “I want you to solve this mess created in your name” pic.twitter.com/FVUjlIjnsj
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) November 13, 2017
Updated
Peter Foster, the Daily Telegraph’s Europe editor, has posted an interesting Twitter thread on the row about how much the UK should pay the EU as it leaves. It starts here.
So #BorisJohnson and friends are not signed up to €40bn-€60bn #BrexitBill - as we reported
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) November 13, 2017
Does that matter? Are they right to be cautious? Where are May/Davis/DexEU on this? Where are the EU? 1/Threadhttps://t.co/GXBQCFZpaA
As Northern Ireland starts to slide on the slippery slope towards direct rule from London, the pro-EU lobby group Open Britain has warned that the transfer of power away from Belfast will have a harmful impact regarding Brexit and the Irish border.
With James Brokenshire preparing to impose a budget on Northern Ireland in the absence of political agreement and the stalemate at Stormont, Open Britain notes that the region will be voiceless in Brexit negotiations.
Open Britain’s deputy director Francis Grove-White expressed concern that the political vacuum of the last 10 months and the prospect of direct rule would harm Northern Ireland’s interests in terms of Brexit. Grove-White said:
The views of the devolved administrations, including the one in Northern Ireland, have already been largely side-lined by the government throughout the Brexit process. And the slide back to direct rule risks making this problem worse.
The casual and vague way in which ministers like David Davis are treating serious issues like the possible return of a hard border on the island of Ireland is a real concern. To be clear, a return to a hard border would be a threat to trade and people’s livelihoods, and would risk undermining the peace process.
The people of Northern Ireland, just like people across the rest of the UK, are entitled to assess whether the realities of Brexit match up with the promises made to them during the referendum. If it doesn’t, everyone has the right to change their minds.
Updated
Downing Street lobby briefing - Summary
Here are the main points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.
- The government is considering granting Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection as a means of securing her release, Downing Street said. The prime minister’s spokesman also said that Theresa May had been “engaged” with the Zaghari-Ratcliffe case throughout and that she had spoken twice to the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, about it. He declined to comment on Michael Gove’s comment on Sunday that he did not know why she was in Iran, saying only: “The government’s position on this is clear. She was there on holiday. It wasn’t for any other purpose.”
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, will make a statement to MPs this afternoon after last week’s Brexit talks.
- Number 10 described what is happening to the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar as “ethnic cleansing”, but refused to call it genocide. Asked if the government considered what was happening as genocide, the spokesman replied:
We have been appalled by the inhumane violence which has taken place in Rakhine state. It’s a major humanitarian crisis which has been created by Burma’s military and it looks like ethnic cleansing.
The UK has been a leader in responding in speed and size. We’ve provided an additional £47m since August to help meet the urgent humanitarian needs there.
What we’re absolutely clear on is that Burmese authorities need to stop the violence and ensure access into Rakhine state, so that UK aid can provide a lifeline to those suffering there.
- Downing Street played down a report in today’s Times saying that the government now conceded that it will not be able to finalise a UK-EU trade deal before Brexit. The Times (paywall) quotes an unnamed senior Downing Street saying they now expect Britain to be able to strike only the “heads of agreement” of a deal before March 2019. Asked about this, the spokesman said: “Our position remains the same.” MLex’s Matthew Holehouse says the Times story just a recognition of reality.
Not an EU plot. This is literally the text of Art 50, to which May has obliquely referred at Florence and CBI when she said must be "realistic" about "finalization" process. Tories who think otherwise either havent read A50 or wilfully want talks to fail. https://t.co/oi2AzRleEj
— Matthew Holehouse (@mattholehouse) November 13, 2017
- Number 10 hinted that the government may accept further amendments to the EU withdrawal bill. “We are prepared to listen to colleagues across the House where we think improvements [to the bill] can be made,” the spokesman said.
- The spokesman said he did not know when the Cabinet Office investigation into Damian Green would conclude.
- The spokesman refused to comment on the Church of England advice saying teachers in C of E schools should let pupils crossdress. The Daily Mail has splashed on the story today.
DAILY MAIL: Church: let little boys wear tiaras #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/sSXU0kQXo9
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) November 12, 2017
Asked about this, the spokesman said the government thought it was up to schools to decide their own uniform policies, taking into account the wishes of parents and pupils.
- Downing Street refused to comment on John Redwood’s advice to investors to invest abroad, not in the UK. Redwood made the comment in a recent investment column in the Financial Times column, arguing that money “could be better put to work in places where the authorities are allowing credit to expand a bit, to permit faster growth”. Asked if the prime minister agreed, the spokesman just said that the government was working for a good Brexit deal for Britain.
Updated
Ministers considering granting diplomatic protection to Briton in Iranian jail to secure her release, No 10 says
I’m just back from the Number 10 lobby briefing. It was thin gruel on the news front, although there was a line on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and Downing Street said that David Davis will be making a Commons statement about Brexit later.
- The government is considering granting Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe diplomatic protection as a means of securing her release, Downing Street said.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, will make a statement to MPs this afternoon after last week’s Brexit talks.
I will post a longer summary shortly.
Updated
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary and Brexit enthusiast, told the BBC this morning that he thought Labour’s stance on Brexit was shifting. Referring to Sir Keir Starmer’s transition demands (see 10am), he said:
Staying inside the court of justice would actually be tantamount to staying within the European Union.
I’m off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
Request to readers: I have included one post relating to the sexual harassment scandal and, although it is not the main story of the day, there may be more. Please can you ensure that, if you comment on this story, you stick to general points and don’t make allegations against individuals. Contrary to what some people assume, the Guardian is legally liable for comments posted BTL and if libellous comments start to appear, comments will have to be closed. It will be better for everyone if we can avoid that.
Updated
Here are two stories in today’s papers on the revived Boris Johnson/Michael Gove hard Brexit alliance (see 9.17am) that are worth reading.
Senior ministers have told The Times that Mr Gove is very much in the lead when it comes to the direction on Brexit and is more likely to stand up to figures such as Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd in cabinet ...
One ally said: “Boris and Michael have formed a political alliance of necessity to ensure Brexit is delivered and therefore they feel it necessary to set out what needs doing or Tories will be unelectable if Brexit is stopped.”
Another ally of the men said: “It’s because they are standing up for Brexit. There’s a lack of decision making, meaning Boris and Michael have been forced into a bigger role. If Theresa was getting on with it, it wouldn’t matter.”
Mr Hammond is thought to believe that, of the various Brexiteers around the cabinet table, Mr Gove is the most formidable, forensic and well briefed. In private, the chancellor has a much better relationship with Mr Johnson than previous public spats might suggest ...
The alliance is not, at present, based on leadership ambitions although that could change if Mrs May went suddenly. It is only 16 months since Mr Gove derailed Mr Johnson’s bid to become Tory leader, declaring him unfit to be prime minister.
One cabinet minister does not see it as a duopoly. “It appears to be Michael leading Boris, who doesn’t do detail, in this thing”.
(I don’t think anyone at Westminster sees Coates as a Gove lackey by any stretch, but it is worth pointing out that Gove is a former Times journalist. Johnson used to work for the Telegraph. Throw in Daniel Hannan, and the Brexit campaign was to a large extent run by rightwing newspaper columnists, which may explain a few things.)
- Andrew Pierce in the Daily Mail says Johnson and Gove have a private meeting for an hour or two every month where they discuss Brexit. It was at one of these meetings in September, over a bottle of merlot, that the they decided to send their secret letter to Theresa May, he says.
Mark McDonald, the MSP who resigned from the Scottish government over “inappropriate” behaviour, has insisted he is “determined” to change. As the Press Association reports, McDonald stepped down as minister for childcare and early years reportedly because he sent a text message to a woman which included a reference to a sex act.
Writing in the Press and Journal newspaper, the married father of two made clear he “apologised unreservedly” for his actions. He stated:
There is no question in my mind that in making my apology it was also right for me to resign from my role as a government minister.
I need to go further than that though. For my apology to mean anything I must also commit to changing my behaviour and to taking more care in my actions and my language. I am determined to do that.
I have been offered support through the SNP to help me understand more about the way I behaved, the impact it had upon others and how I can work to ensure my behaviour does change. I have accepted that offer of support.
As has been said by many others, it is change in behaviour across the board which is the required outcome from this issue.
Government may not survive if it tries to leave EU with no deal, says Starmer
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, wrote an open letter to Theresa May released overnight challenging her to accept Labour amendments to the EU withdrawal bill saying that the UK could not leave with the EU without a transition period that would include staying in the single market and the customs union.
I have written to PM. The only way to face down her Brexit extremists, who will drive us to 'no deal', is to accept Labour's amendments to the Withdrawal Bill. Act now in the national interest; not party interest. https://t.co/dPMAMiqL3B
— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) November 12, 2017
In an interview with the Today programme, Starmer said that if the government tried to leave the EU without a Brexit deal, it might not be able to survive. He said:
No deal is a very, very bad outcome. Taken literally, it means we have not agreed anything, and that means we haven’t agreed anything about EU citizens, we haven’t agreed anything about the border in Northern Ireland, we haven’t agreed anything on security. I think that sort of no deal is unthinkable.
In those circumstances I think the government would have to seriously consider whether it could continue.
There will be a real crisis of confidence. A constitutional, sort of, disturbance. And probably all sorts of emergency legislation. And that’s why we shouldn’t casualise no deal.
Richard Ratcliffe, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s husband, told the Today programme this morning that he was not calling for Boris Johnson to resign over the error he made about his wife. (See 9.17am.) Here are some of the other things he said in interviews this morning
- Ratcliffe said Johnson did not apologise for his error when the two men spoke yesterday. Asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain if Johnson had apologised, Ratcliffe said: “He was sorry for what Nazanin was going through, and for her suffering, and he said all the country was behind her.” When pressed on whether Johnson has apologised for making Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s situation worse, Ratcliffe said: “He didn’t make the connection.”
- Ratcliffe said there was “anger” in his house yesterday when Michael Gove, the environment secretary, told the Andrew Marr Show that he did not know what Zaghari-Ratcliffe was doing in Iran. Ratcliffe told GMB:
Certainly there was all sorts of anger in our house. The government’s position is that the government is clear, and has no doubt, that she was there on holiday. I asked the Foreign Office to remind all of the cabinet members that that’s the government’s position.
Later he told the Today programme that he did not think Gove doubted that his wife was in Iran on holiday (and not teaching journalism, as the Iranian authorities have claimed). Ratcliffe said that he thought Gove was just trying to defend Johnson, but was clumsy about how he did so.
- Ratcliffe said he was pushing Johnson to be allowed to accompany him on his forthcoming visit to Iran. If the two men did go together, Johnson would find it easier to visit Zaghari-Ratcliffe in jail, Ratcliffe said.
[A prison visit is] much easier if comes with me, in all honesty, because I can go and see her as a family member.
In his interviews Ratcliffe also repeated some of the points he made in interviews yesterday, including his revelation that his wife has said she feels on the verge of a nervous breakdown.
This is what Boris Johnson had to say about the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case when he arrived at the meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels this morning. He said:
Let me just say on Iran and on Iraq and consular cases generally, they are all very sensitive. And I think the key thing to understand is that we are working very, very hard and intensively and impartially on all of those cases.
Boris Johnson should resign if British woman's jail term in Iran gets extended, says Labour MP
MPs return to the Commons today after their mini recess to find that, just as on the day they left, Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is in trouble. As well as facing criticism for some of his colleagues for apparently setting up a secret Vote Leave cabal with Michael Gove and dictating orders to Theresa May (well, sort of), he can’t get away from the trouble caused by his error about Nazanin Zahhari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian woman detained in Iran.
This morning the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq, Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s local MP, said that if Zaghari-Ratcliffe spends “even one more day” in jail because of Johnson telling the foreign affairs committee that she was in Iran teaching people journalism, he should resign. (Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family and employers say she was in Iran on a family holiday. Johnson subsequently told MPs he accepts that, but he has refused to admit that his original comment was wrong, instead insisting that it was misinterpreted.)
Siddiq told BBC Breakfast:
This issue isn’t political point-scoring for me; this about getting an innocent mother home. I’ve been campaigning on this for 18 months - if Boris Johnson is going to Iran then I have a few demands.
The first is that he needs to take my constituent, Richard Ratcliffe, with him.
When he gets to Iran, I want him to meet Nazanin face to face. There’s a history of British diplomats going to Iran, visiting the very prison that Nazanin is in and not getting to meet her
If the foreign secretary goes to Iran, meets Nazanin, takes Richard and officially retracts the statement he’s made then at least he’s trying to make amends for what he said.
But she added:
If my constituent spends even one more day in prison as a result of what the foreign secretary said then he should resign.
Richard Ratclifffe, Nazanin’s husband, has also been giving interviews this morning. He told the Today programme:
I don’t think it’s helpful for Nazanin at this point. I don’t think it’s helpful also in terms of who that looks in Iran for me to be looking like I’m playing politics. It is very important that the Iranians can see that this is just a family who are battling to bring Nazanin home, and not get this sense that we’re some sort of great Machiavellian power. We’re not.
I will post more from Ratcliffe’s interviews shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Downing Street lobby briefing.
1pm: The inquest opens into the death of Carl Sargeant, the Welsh government minister who apparently killed himself after being forced to stand aside on the basis of harassment allegations.
2.30pm: David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
At some point today Theresa May is meeting a delegation of European business leaders to discuss Brexit and the transition.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard’s Playbook. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
