Closing summary
We’re going to close down this live blog now. Thanks for reading and for all of your comments. Here’s a summary of the day’s events:
- The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, has said the government cannot bring the meaningful vote back to parliament again unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal. Number 10 did not immediately set out how it planned to proceed, saying his statement requires “proper consideration”.
- Bercow suggested the government could get round the problem by starting a new session of parliament. But he said it would be an unusual move and was not aware of whether or not ministers had such plans.
- Nicola Sturgeon complained to Theresa May about suggestions the prime minister will allow the Democratic Unionist party a seat in any Brexit trade talks. For months, May has refused to give Scotland a direct role.
- More than 20 Tory MPs said they would not back Theresa May’s deal just to avoid Brexit being cancelled. The ERG leader, Jacob Rees-Mogg, said he would do so. But many of his Brexiter colleagues disagreed.
If you’d like to read more, my colleagues Jessica Elgot, Rowena Mason and Daniel Boffey have the full story:
A government source has told the Press Association that it seems clear the Speaker’s motive today was to rule out a meaningful vote this week, which “also stands in the way of securing a shorter extension”.
Leads you to believe what he really wants is a longer extension, where Parliament will take over the process and force a softer form of Brexit. But anyone who thinks that this makes no-deal more likely is mistaken – the Speaker wouldn’t have done it if it did.
British businesses will be able to trade freely with Iceland and Norway if the UK leaves the European Union, the international trade secretary has announced.
Liam Fox called the agreement with the two countries, which is subject to final checks before it is expected to be signed next week, a “major milestone”. He said it will replicate the existing European Economic Area agreement (EEA) as far as possible.
BREAKING: Our negotiators have just initialled a trade agreement with Iceland & Norway for the European Economic Area. This is the 2nd biggest agreement we're rolling over and trade with EEA is worth nearly £30bn. This is on top of the agreement we’ve signed with Liechtenstein.
— Dr Liam Fox MP (@LiamFox) March 18, 2019
We have just reached agreement with Iceland and Norway to ensure continued access for British businesses to the European Economic Area should we leave the EU without a deal.
This is one of the largest trade agreements we are party to as a result of our membership of the EU.
Combined with the agreement we have already signed with Liechtenstein and Switzerland, it accounts for close to half of the trade we’re seeking continuity for.
This is good news for British businesses and a major milestone in getting the UK ready for Brexit, no matter the terms of our withdrawal.
I expect to formally sign this agreement shortly and others to follow soon after.
My colleagues, Daniel Boffey and Jennifer Rankin, report that the EU is set to offer Theresa May a helping hand after her plan for a new meaningful vote was derailed, by formally agreeing on a new delayed Brexit date at this week’s summit and keeping it on offer until shortly before midnight on 29 March.
Here are some more details on the comments from Justine Greening, who has said that the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, should not be negotiating an extension to article 50 because he voted against the idea last week. She told the Commons:
I question the appropriateness of the role of the DexEU secretary in this step of negotiating an extension.
We had a free vote in this house last week and I respect that. I also respect the way he chose to cast that vote, that was absolutely within his right. However, he chose to vote to leave come what may on 29 March. I take a different view to him, the house takes a different view to him.
It is simply not appropriate or credible for him to be the lead person negotiating on this country’s behalf with the European Union.
Updated
Sir Stephen Laws, who was formerly responsible for drafting parliamentary legislation, has said the Speaker of the Commons, John Bercow, would be guilty of frustrating the will of the house if he blocked a third meaningful vote when there was a majority for the deal.
Laws, now a senior research fellow at the Policy Exchange thinktank, has said:
The Speaker is right that the ‘same question’ rule is well precedented and would need consideration in this case. But it would be quite wrong to apply the ‘same question’ rule to disallow a third meaningful vote on the government’s Brexit deal. He has not yet finally decided that it will.
Since the deal was last put before the House of Commons, there have been two significant votes: on preventing a no-deal Brexit; and on extending article 50. The deal may look broadly the same but those two votes have produced fundamentally different circumstances
In addition, there has been time for a more considered look at the legal effects and implications of the documents produced overnight on 11 March. The ability of the government to put the matter back to the house should not depend on the order in which the questions were put last week or the haste in which decisions were made. Indeed, the vote for a delay of the article 50 deadline resulted in a resolution that specifically provided for a third vote, and so implicitly gave the house’s permission to have one. The Speaker should respect that.
If there is a majority for the deal, preventing the vote would be to frustrate the will of the house. It would be deeply concerning to see a Speaker act in such a way. Those who are opposed to the deal should want to win with a majority on the substance, not by procedural manoeuvring or on a technicality, and the Speaker should allow that.
He warned Bercow that his “reputation for impartiality has already become questionable” and that it was “difficult to see how it could survive the application of the same question rule to a third vote on the deal when the same rule was not applied to prevent Dominic Grieve’s amendments”.
Laws speculated that the government could work around the problem by putting down a new motion insisting on a vote on the deal “notwithstanding the practice of the house”.
Updated
The Labour MP Chris Bryant gave a good, short speech on the “no repeat votes” rule in the Commons Brexit debate last week. Here is an extract.
My amendment is the embodiment of a very old principle of this house. When James I became King in 1603 - do not worry, I am not going to do every year – he summoned parliament, and that parliament became so fed up with MPs constantly bringing back issues on which it had already decided that the house expressly decided on 4 April 1604: “That a question being once made, and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgement of the house.”
That has been our rule.
This ruling has been repeated many, many times. On 30 June 1864, Sir John Pakington wanted to give more money to nursery schools – hoorah! On 17 May 1870, Mr Torrens wanted to relieve poverty by enabling the poor to emigrate to the colonies. On 9 May 1882, Henry Labouchère wanted to allow MPs to declare, rather than swear, an oath so as to take their seats. On 27 January 1891, Mr Leng wanted to limit railway workers’ very long hours. On 21 May 1912 – this one would probably have the support of every member – George Lansbury wanted to allow women to vote.
On every single occasion, the Speaker—Speaker Brand, Speaker Peel, Speaker Denison and Speaker Lowther – said, “No, you can’t, because we’ve already decided that in this session of parliament.”
That’s all from me for tonight.
My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is now taking over.
Updated
From ITV’s Daniel Hewitt
Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay leaves Downing Street, on Bercow he says “it is an important ruling and requires detailed consideration.”
— Daniel Hewitt (@DanielHewittITV) March 18, 2019
Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, asks Kwarteng what length of article 50 extension the government will request, and what reason for it will the government give?
And he asks if MPs will get a vote on the article 50 extension agreement.
Kwarteng says, if the government passes the meaningful vote, it will ask for a short extension. But if it does not get the vote through, it will request a long extension.
Greening asks what the government will do to ensure there is no no-deal Brexit.
And she says it is not appropriate for Stephen Barclay to be involved in negotiating Brexit, given that he voted against extending article 50 last week.
Kwarteng says he also voted against extending article 50. But it was a free vote for Tories, he says.
May to write to Tusk requesting article 50 extension, Brexit minister tells MPs
We are now on the urgent question about Brexit.
Justine Greening, the Tory pro-European, asks for a statement about the article 50 extension procedure.
Kwasi Kwarteng, the Brexit minister, says the government will seek to negotiate an article 50 extension.
He says, although article 50 does not say how a country should seek an article 50 extension, Theresa May will write to Donald Tusk, the European council president, with a request.
It is expected the European council will discuss this at the summit later this week.
If it agrees an extension, a statutory instrument will be laid next week. It will have to be passed by MPs and by peers, he says.
This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.
Sense of absolute shock among ministers - no idea what to do. "There's no plan yet, everyone is just trying to come to terms with it," one says.
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) March 18, 2019
My colleague Rafael Behr has written a good column on John Bercow’s ruling. Here is an extract.
The relevant procedural scriptures seem pretty clear on the matter, so the Speaker is well within his rights to interpret them as he has done. But it is still a matter of interpretation and so unavoidably a heavily political action. It blasts the prime minister’s plans for the week off course. It transforms the calculations that MPs make about what should happen next. It also retrospectively casts a darker, more terminal shadow over the decision a majority of them made to reject the deal last Tuesday. Might some Tories or members of the DUP have acted differently had they known it was May’s last shot at getting her deal through?
Certainly the prime minister’s strategy has depended on eliminating options, so that eventually MPs would conclude that the only feasible Brexit on the table was hers. For that to work, she needed to keep bluffing and keep raising the stakes. She didn’t realise that ultimately, in parliament, it’s the Speaker who runs the game. And now all bets are off.
And here is the full article.
Bercow's ruling - Summary and Snap analysis
Brexit never loses the capacity to surprise. When it was suggested last week that John Bercow could end up blocking a third Commons vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal, many MPs and observers (including me) were sceptical that it might come to this, not least because the then clerk of the Commons, Sir David Natzler, told MPs last year that he did not think the “no repeat votes” rule would apply in this case. But we probably should have learnt by now that it is always an error to underestimate Bercow’s capacity to surprise.
Here is a summary of what has just happened, and what it means.
- Bercow has said the government cannot bring the meaningful vote back to parliament again unless there has been substantial change to the Brexit deal. He made the announcement in a surprise statement to MPs, giving Downing Street no advance warning. (See 4.17pm.) Crucially, in response to an question from Labour’s Hilary Benn, Bercow also suggested that the EU would have to change what it has agreed with the UK for a further vote to be allowed. (See 4.08pm.) He said a change would have to be “not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance”. But he also stressed that he would consider any proposition on its merits, and that what he was saying today did not mark his final word on the matter.
- Bercow’s ruling must make the prospect of a another vote on the deal this week - meaningful vote three, or MV3 - even slimmer than it already was. (Even before Bercow stood up, there were reports saying that MV3 was almost certain to be delayed - see 3.33pm.) One possibility is that Theresa May will go to the EU summit asking for a long article 50 extension, and that she will return to the Commons next week to give MPs one final chance to pass her deal (ie, MV3), before holding a vote on the long Brexit deal. Bercow’s ruling also makes this option much more problematic, because an MV3 next week would still be much the same as the MV2 last week - although perhaps, if it were tied to a short article 50 extension, you could argue that that was a new proposition.
- Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, has said the UK is in a constitutional crisis. (See 5.02pm.) He has also said parliament might have to prorogue - ie, wrap up the current session of parliament, hold a mini recess, and then return for a new session. (The rule about “no repeat votes” only applies during a single parliamentary session.) However, this would create two significant problems. First, it would take time. Proroguing parliament would take a few days, at best. And, second, any bill currently going through parliament would be lost unless subject to the carry-over procedure.
- Bercow also suggested that his ruling could prevent some of the amendments already considered during Brexit debates, such as the one suggesting MPs take control of the parliamentary timetable, could be disallowed if brought back. (See 4.42pm.)
- Bercow managed to unite Brexiter and opposition MPs, who both welcomed his ruling. For example, this is from the Tory MP Owen Paterson.
I spoke to @BBCNews welcoming the decision that the same deal cannot be voted on for a third time. It will concentrate minds and encourage MPs to consider Malthouse Plan B to deliver Brexit on time and in full. pic.twitter.com/M5o193LuhL
— Owen Paterson MP (@OwenPaterson) March 18, 2019
And this is from the Lib Dem MP Ed Davey.
Speaker Bercow right to rule out a 3rd “meaningful” vote, unless significant changes to the deal.
— Ed Davey (@EdwardJDavey) March 18, 2019
I urged him to consider a Speaker’s Conference to bring all political parties together given the gravity of our national crisis.https://t.co/6XZadbzlqL
But the government is furious. These are from the justice minister Rory Stewart.
There are stronger and weaker parts of this argument from the speaker - but the idea that debating the deal is not a good use of parliamentary time - is not a good argument.
— Rory Stewart (@RoryStewartUK) March 18, 2019
In the normal course of events, as the speaker says, parliament says no, and the issue is dropped. But in this case, this is not an option, because these votes respond to an instruction in a referendum, endorsed by parliament, which rules out dropping back to the status quo.
— Rory Stewart (@RoryStewartUK) March 18, 2019
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean." pic.twitter.com/UlRAKLbGqN
— Rory Stewart (@RoryStewartUK) March 18, 2019
Updated
Solicitor general says UK is in 'major constitutional crisis'
This is from Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, on Bercow saying he might not allow a repeat vote on the Brexit deal. Buckland told BBC News:
We are in a major constitutional crisis here.
There are ways around this - a prorogation of parliament and a new session. We are talking about hours to March 29. Frankly we could have done without this.
Now we have this ruling to deal with, it is clearly going to require a lot of very fast but very deep thought in the hours ahead.
Sturgeon accuses May of giving 'disproportionate influence' to DUP in Brexit process
Nicola Sturgeon has written an open letter to Theresa May to complain about suggestions she will allow the Democratic Unionist party a seat in any Brexit trade talks, after refusing for months to give Scotland a direct role.
The first minister said giving the DUP a role in trade talks would breach the prime minister’s promises there would no different treatment and powers for different parts of the UK after Brexit. May made that offer in part to assuage DUP fears the Northern Ireland backstop would result in Northern Ireland having different treatment than the rest of the UK.
But Sturgeon said May was breaching her own pledges: if the DUP were allowed influence policies in its favour at the cost of other parts of the UK, that clearly breached that protocol, Sturgeon said.
It would be a “serious curtailment” of the Scottish parliament’s powers over EU policy areas such as farming and fishing if the Scottish government had no power to influence post-Brexit trade policy but Northern Ireland did have that power, through a sweetheart deal with the DUP.
The first minister said:
By according the DUP disproportionate influence, it seems clear that maintaining your majority in the UK parliament comes before respect for the properly constituted governments across the UK.
[There] must be no question of one political party – the DUP – being represented in talks on the future trade relationship between the UK and EU when other political parties and devolved governments are not.
Updated
In his final response to a point of order, Bercow stressed that what he said earlier was not his final word on the matter. He would have to make any specific ruling at the time, he suggested.
Bercow says MPs could vote to change Commons rule preventing repeat votes on same motion
Alex Burghart, a Conservative, asks if the house can suspend the standing orders preventing a motiong being brought back for a repeat vote.
Bercow says the house is the custodian of its own standing orders, and so the answer is yes.
- Bercow says MPs could vote to change the Commons rule preventing repeat votes on the same motion.
Updated
Labour’s Geraint Davies asks if a meaningful vote would be different if it included provision for a confirmatory second referendum. Davies is one of those MPs backing the idea that the deal should be subject to one.
Bercow says he would have to look at the details at the time.
Andrea Leadsom has just hit back at Bercow. He was responding to a question about whether he would chair a speaker’s conference on Brexit. In response, Leadsom rose to make a point of order, and said that she would not trust him to chair it because he did not have a good record of showing respect to colleagues.
John Bercow is on particularly waspish form at the moment. This is what he said about Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, a moment ago.
I hope the government would feel that respect for procedure does matter. I note that as [SNP shadow Commons leader MP, Pete Wishart] asks his question and I respond, the leader of the house is playing with her electronic device, and so is the deputy chief whip. I didn’t include him in the category of very senior people in the house but that’s a debatable proposition I readily grant.
Updated
This is from Henry Newman, director of the Open Europe thinktank.
Given Parliament has voted against -
— Henry Newman (@HenryNewman) March 18, 2019
Brexit deal
2nd referendum
EEA
Customs Union
Indicative votes etc
*On multiple occasions*
Mark Francois point absolutely killer.
How can Bercow reject MV3 but take votes on those options ?
How 1948 provides a precedent for how government could prorogue parliament to get its way
Responding to Jacob Rees-Mogg about whether the government could get round the bar on repeated votes on the same issue in a single session of parliament by simply starting a new session of parliament, John Bercow confirmed this could happen.
There is a part-precedence for this in the passage of the 1949 Parliament Act, which reduced the powers of the House of Lords in delaying certain legislation. The law was blocked by the Lords twice, over two parliamentary sessions.
Since the existing law which the new act was replacing – the 1911 Parliament Act – required three parliamentary sessions to pass before the Commons could overturn the Lords, the Attlee government prorogued parliament – ending the session - and began a new special session lasting from 14 to 26 September 1948, complete with its own King’s speech.
Could something similar happen again? Labour MP Stephen Doughty asked Bercow if this could happen. The Speaker said this would be “an unusual step”, but he had no idea whether the government had such plans.
Updated
Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks about rumours (see 4.14pm) that the government could prorogue parliament to get round this ruling.
Bercow confirms that, if the government were to do this, legislation not subject to the carry-over procedure would fall.
Sky’s Lewis Goodall has posted on Twitter the relevant passage from Erskine May.
Here is the relevant passage from erskine May. Last time the power was used was in 1943. But as one parliamentary source said, “that’s because since the rule was implemented properly, governments and MPs don’t bother to try it, so it’s never usually needed.” pic.twitter.com/DWvnGU0SeM
— Lewis Goodall (@lewis_goodall) March 13, 2019
James Cleverly, a Conservative, says if Bercow had made this ruling earlier, MPs might have realised that last week was their last chance to vote for the Brexit deal. They might have voted differently, he says.
What Bercow said about how he will not allow another vote on exact same Brexit deal
Here is the key quote from John Bercow’s opening statement.
If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the house on March 12, this would be entirely in order.
What the government cannot legitimately do is resubmit to the house the same proposition – or substantially the same proposition – as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.
This ruling should not be regarded as my last word on the subject. It is simply meant to indicate the test which the government must meet in order for me to rule that a third meaningful vote can legitimately be held in this parliamentary session.
Updated
The SNP’s Pete Wishart says Bercow has made a substantial ruling, and “a correct ruling”.
According to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, the solictor general, Robert Buckland, is saying the government may have to prorogue parliament to get round the ruling by John Bercow (because Erskine May says MPs should only vote on the same motion once per parliamentary session).
Meanwhile solicitor general, Robert Buckland says Parliament night have to prorogue - ie pack up and start again in another session - says speaker is ‘interventionist’ and ‘tensions of brexit’ are starting to bite
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) March 18, 2019
Number 10, as you would expect, is not at all happy, Good Morning Britain’s Anne Alexander reports.
Number 10 are not happy re Speaker statement in the Commons that he may possibly block a third vote on May’s Brexit deal unless it is “substantially” different . No10 Spox: “The Speaker didn’t give forewarning as of the content, or indeed the fact he was making one “
— Anne Alexander (@Annemariealex) March 18, 2019
Bercow suggests he will not allow another Brexit deal vote unless EU agrees further changes
Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, asks if Bercow’s statement means the government would have to get the EU to agree to changes to the agreement. Or would it be enough for the government to offer concessions to a party in the Commons (ie, the DUP).
Bercow says, thinking off the top of his head, “in all likelihood, the answer to [Benn’s] question is yes”.
A change of opinion about something is not the same as a change to the offer, he says.
He says he would have to look at this.
Fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be fundamentally different.
Not just different by wording, he says; different by substance.
- Bercow implies he will not allow a new vote on the Brexit deal unless the EU agrees to further changes to it.
This takes Bercow’s ruling much further than his original words implied.
Given that the EU has said it will not make any further changes to the withdrawal agreement, Bercow’s answer to Benn may have killed off all prospect of a MV3 vote.
Updated
Bercow says part of his responsibility as Speaker is to “speak truth to power”. He will continue to do that.
I have never been pushed around, and I’m not going to start now.
Updated
Responding to Mark Francois, Bercow says everything depends upon the circumstances. He says he would have to consider very carefully whether a proposition was the same.
- Bercow suggests the “no repeat votes” rule could rule out further votes on some of the amendments championed by MPs who want parliament to take control of the Brexit process.
Mark Francois, the Tory Brexiter, asks if Bercow’s ruling applies to amendments like the Cooper/Boles one, allowing MPs to take charge of the Commons timetable. The Benn amendment debated last week was very similar. Francois suggests that, if the same idea were to come back, Bercow would have to rule it out.
The Labour MP Angela Eagle asks Bercow to confirm that the “no repeat votes” rule is designed to stop the executive bullying the legislature.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, says he is delighted to see Bercow following precedent. There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who has repented, he says, alluding to a ruling from Bercow a few weeks ago that ignored precedent and infuriated Brexiters.
Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, says what Bercow has said makes an enormous amount of sense.
Bercow rules out another vote on May's Brexit deal unless details change
Bercow says it has been rumoured third, or possibly fourth, votes may be scheduled.
So he is setting out his views.
If the government brings forward a new proposition, that would be in order.
But the government cannot bring back “the same proposition”, or “substantially the same proposition”.
He says this is not his final ruling on the matter.
He is just setting out the test the government must meet.
- Bercow says he will not allow another vote on May’s Brexit deal unless the details have changed.
Updated
Bercow says the vote last week did not go against the “no repeat votes” (my paraphrase) rule. There had been changes to the legal agreement. And three new documents had been published, he says.
He says in procedural terms it was quite proper that the debate and second vote took place.
The government responded by scheduling debates on a no-deal debate and on an article 50 extension.
Updated
Bercow wants to summarise the chronology of events.
He says the EU withdrawal agreement was published on 14 November.
The agreement was endorsed by the European council on 25 November.
The first scheduled vote on the deal was due to take place on 11 December.
But, on 10 December, the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had been made over three of the five days alloted for the debate.
That postponement was not caused by me, nor the house, but by the government.
Bercow says he said at the time MPs should get a vote on the postponement. But they did not get one.
The first meaningful vote was on 15 January. It was lost by 230 votes.
The next one was due in February. It was postponed, and the vote took place last week. That vote was lost too.
Bercow says ultimately it is for the chair to rule on this.
This convention dates back to 1604, he says.
He says Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, gave examples in a speech last week examples of speakers ruling a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided.
Erskine May refers to 12 such rulings before 1920.
This is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time, and proper respect for what it decides.
He says the absence of rulings since 1920 is due not to the lapse of the convention, but to compliance with it.
John Bercow's statement
John Bercow, the Common speaker, is making a surprise statement to MPs.
He says there has been much speculation about another meaningful vote.
On 13 March Angela Eagle, the Labour MP, asked if it would be proper for the government to keep putting the same motion to a vote.
He says MPs from both sides of the House, and from both sides of the argument, have expressed their concerns to him their concerns about MPs voting on the same thing over and over again.
Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, says an issue that has been decided in substance cannot be brought back to the Commons.
ITV’s Robert Peston says it is now highly likely that the next vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal - the third meaningful vote, or MV3 - won’t take place until next week.
happening next week now looks highly likely https://t.co/D3YNHfs18l
— Robert Peston (@Peston) March 18, 2019
The EU is not likely to refuse a request from the UK for an extension of article 50, Hans Dahlgren, the Swedish EU affairs minister, has told The Local, an English language Swedish news website. Dahlgren said:
If there is a well argued reason [for an extension] that the UK presents, then I don’t think anyone really wants to resist such a request.
The decision needs to be taken by the European council unanimously, but I think as Donald Tusk [the European council president] said, we should be open for a longer extension if there is an argued reason for doing so. And if they want to remain in the European Union for a longer period they also have to elect members of the European Parliament, so this must be part of the whole plan, because the elections are in May.
But just to have the process going on and on and on without any plan for what the options on the table would be, that’s not very attractive.
What happens next? - A Q&A
A lot of you have been asking process questions about what happens next. I have answered quite a few of them BTL, but it is probably helpful to readers to pull them all together.
Doesn’t May have to call a vote this week?
No. The government motion passed on Thursday last week did not say a new vote on the deal - meaningful vote three, or MV3 - would definitely take place this week, only that it might take place.
Will the MV3 motion be amendable?
Yes. At one point the government was attracted to the idea of making the vote on the Brexit deal a straight yes/no vote on an unamendable motion, but the government has long since given up on this idea, partly because of protests from MPs, but partly because John Bercow, the Commons speaker, has made it clear that he is willing bend parliamentary rules to ensure that votes on amendments do take place if that is what MPs want.
If there is no MV3 debate this week, can the opposition, or backbenchers, force a vote?
@Andrew
Has anyone discussed what will happen in Parliament if May doesn't bring the vote back this week?
Is there any mechanism by which someone other than the government can push for a vote on something? Because I don't know if anyone in Westminster has noticed, but we're really running out of time.
No. There are only limited opportunities for the opposition, or for backbenchers, to hold debates in the Commons. The opposition is allocated a set number of debates, but the government gets to decide when they take place. MPs can demand an emergency debate on a topic under standing order 24, but that would be on a neutral motion. It would not be an MV3 debate under the EU Withdrawal Act, which is what is required for the deal to pass.
What happens to the amendments if there is no MV3 vote?
Andrew@ Question. We’re are we if May decides not to bring back the MV? What happens to all the amendments?
If there is no MV3 debate this week, there will be no vote on the amendments.
If there is no vote this week, will the UK fall out without a deal?
Andrew... can you answer this question please?
So all the ERG has to do now is continue making negative noises... so May keeps on waiting for the 'right' moment to reintroduce her MV3 and this continues until we fall out of the EU with no deal.
Is there anything that could stop this from happening?
Theresa May has said, if her deal does not pass this week, she will ask the EU for a long extension to article 50 and, assuming her request is granted, ask MPs to vote to approve this next week.
If the Kyle/Wilson amendment, making deal subject to a second referendum, gets passed, will May whips Tory MPs to vote against the deal as a whole?
Thanks.
I also asked on Twitter: if MV3 goes ahead and Kyle/Wilson is passed, do you think May will whip against her own deal again so as to avoid facing (losing) a referendum?
Good question. We don’t know. This would be a huge U-turn, because it would mean May embracing the no-deal option that she has recently rejected. But we also know that she is very, very firmly opposed to a second referendum, and that her party would split if she ever accepted the idea.
Will some Labour Brexiters support the deal?
@Andrew
How likely is it that (some of) the Labour Brexiters will support the withdrawal agreement?
It is possible that, at the last possible moment, some will. That is certainly what Number 10 is assuming, or at least hoping. But it is by no means a certainty. There are some Labour MPs who do not want to be seen as voting against Brexit. But backing a Tory PM when she is facing defeat is quite an ask, particularly if it is likely that a defeat would lead to MPs being given “indicative votes” (May’s plan if her deal gets defeated again), which would make a softish, Labour-type Brexit much more likely.
Would an extension stop the UK being able to revoke article 50?
Andrew is there a chance that the right to revoke A50 will be affected with an extension?
No. Even if article 50 were extended, the UK would still have the right to revoke it unilaterally.
As the Observer reported at the weekend, the European commission’s secretary general, Martin Selmayr, has been worrying about this. He has been asking what would happen if the UK got a short extension, chose not to take part in the European elections (on the assumption it would leave by the end of June, only for new PM to take over and revoke article 50 after the elections had taken place. If the UK were still in the EU, but not represented in the European parliament, it would not be legally constituted.
Perhaps one solution might be for any article 50 extension to come with a condition ruling out revocation?
Does anything else have to happen for the withdrawal agreement to be approved?
ANDREW,
As a matter of interest is there an additional formal process for ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement?
Or
Does a 'meaningful' vote for May's agreement mean that it is ratified?
The meaningful vote on its own is not enough. Parliament also has to pass the EU withdrawal implementation bill. And, for the treaty to be ratified, the negative parliamentary consent procedure also applies (although this will just be a formality).
Updated
23 Brexiter Tories say they won't vote for May's deal just to avoid no Brexit
In his LBC phone-in this morning Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter and chair of the ERG, indicated that, if it came down to a choice between Theresa May’s deal and no Brexit, he would vote for the deal. (See 10.25am.)
But there are at least 23 Tory Brexiters who are saying that they reject Rees-Mogg’s “lesser of two evils” argument (my paraphrase, not his). In a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph (paywall), they say they will vote against May’s deal regardless.
Here is the letter in full.
We believe that, if Britain leaves the European Union as planned on March 29, “no deal” will prove to be the precursor to a very good deal indeed.
At the time of the 2016 referendum, the choice was between leaving the EU (Brexit) and remaining within it. After remainers lost the referendum, they set up a new choice between “hard” and “soft” Brexit – in reality, between real departure and leaving in name only. Now, “hard/real” Brexit has been redefined as a “catastrophic no-deal Brexit” and purportedly removed from the table by a parliament of remainers who hold a country with a majority of Leavers in contempt.
Charles Moore concludes (Comment, March 16) that Brexiteers like us now face only the “two wretched options” of Brexit in name only or the indefinite postponement of any Brexit, and says that he does not envy our dilemma in choosing between them. Yet our moral course is clear: it is not our fault that we are confronted by two unacceptable choices, but it will be our fault if we cast a positive vote in favour of either for fear of the other.
The letter implies a no-deal Brexit is still an option. But it does not explain how, given that the vote last week showed a majority of MPs oppose no deal and that Theresa May intends to ask MPs to vote for a long article 50 extension if her deal does not get passed this week.
Presumably the Tories who signed the letter think that vote would not pass, and that the UK would leave the EU on 29 March by default. But that is quite a questionable assumption. Rees-Mogg was more honest on LBC, openly admitting that it is not clear whether or not a no-deal Brexit is still a realistic prospect. (See 10.25am.)
Here are the names of the 23 Tories who signed the Telegraph letter: Adam Afriyie, Lucy Allan, Crispin Blunt, Peter Bone, Andrew Bridgen, Richard Drax, Mark Francois, Marcus Fysh, Chris Green, Adam Holloway, Philip Hollobone, Ranil Jayawardena, Andrea Jenkyns, David Jones, Dr Julian Lewis, Craig Mackinlay, Sheryll Murray, Owen Paterson, Sir John Redwood, Andrew Rosindell, Ross Thomson, Michael Tomlinson and Anne-Marie Trevelyan.
Updated
There are three Commons urgent questions today, one of which is on the the procedure for an article 50 extension. It will probably start after 4.15pm.
2) @JustineGreening to ask @theresa_may to make statement on the Article 50 period extension procedure the Government will follow in relation to the Written Ministerial Statement made by her in relation to Section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 18, 2019
This is from Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, commenting on the Evening Standard report that No 10 is telling Tory Brexiters that Olly Robbins might step down as the PM’s chief Brexit adviser if her deal is passed.
A little disingenuous on No 10's part since it's widely rumoured that Mr Robbins asked to leave many months ago. #andwhocanblamehim https://t.co/oqOuqPZkfh
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) March 18, 2019
If MPs do not agree a Brexit deal this week, Theresa May expects to be offered a nine-month article 50 extension by the EU, ITV’s Robert Peston reports.
Minister tells me @theresa_may expects EU to grant nine month Brexit delay. What would that mean for when (or indeed if) we leave the EU? https://t.co/D3YNHfs18l
— Robert Peston (@Peston) March 18, 2019
Downing Street lobby briefing - Summary
Here are the main points from the Downing Street lobby briefing.
- Downing Street has said it won’t hold another vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal this week unless it has a “realistic prospect” of success. (See 11.56am.) But Number 10 has not ruled out a vote this week either. With Wednesday the deadline for a debate, the government would have to decide by Tuesday evening (when the motion would have to be tabled) whether or not it will go ahead.
- The prime minister’s spokesman would not comment on an Evening Standard story saying Brexiter Tories are being told that Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit adviser, could be replaced if her deal gets passed.
Exclusive -- No 10 is telling MPs that Olly Robbins will go once they pass her deal. By @nicholascecil and me.
— Joe Murphy (@JoeMurphyLondon) March 18, 2019
https://t.co/h60qwUujkH
Robbins is a hate figure amongst Brexiters who blame him for pushing May towards a softer Brexit. In his Telegraph article this morning Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, says her Brexit negotiating team has “obviously failed this country at every level” and needs to be replaced. (See 9.05am.)
- Downing Street dismissed calls for May to renegotiate the backstop at this week’s EU summit. Boris Johnson proposed this in his Telegraph column this morning. (See 9.05am.) But the spokesman said that there would be no further negotiations on the backstop and that May and Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, were both very clear on this when they met in Strasbourg last week.
- The spokesman said that talks with the DUP were continuing today. But he would not say who was involved in those discussions, or how they were going.
- The spokesman confirmed that, if MPs did not pass the Brexit deal this week, the prime minister would be seeking a “long” article 50 extension from the EU at the summit starting on Thursday. But he would not say what length extension May would propose.
- The spokesman played down suggestions that, if there were a long article 50 extension, there could be some alternative to the UK electing new MEPs. In the Commons last week the Labour MP Yvette Cooper quoted a leading EU lawyer who thinks the UK participating in the elections might not be necessary and that UK MEPs could just stay on, or that MEPs could be nominated. But the spokesman said that he was not aware of anyone in government who thought that there might be an adequate alternative to the UK holding the elections. He said, if there were a long article 50 extension, the European elections would have to take place.
The European Union needs to know the next move from Westminster, before deciding on a Brexit extension, EU foreign ministers have said.
Belgium’s foreign minister, Didier Reynders, said the EU was awaiting a clear signal from London:
We are not against an extension in Belgium, but the problem is to do what?
Of course, if it is possible to avoid a no-deal situation it would be better. We are sure that a no-deal would be a lose-lose situation for both sides, but we are prepared.
Lithuania’s foreign minister, Linas Linkevičius, regretted that there was “no vision, no clarity” from the UK on Brexit, just three days ahead of a crucial summit, where EU leaders will take a decision on a Brexit delay. He added that it was “really important for our UK colleagues to reset [the] mindset and to look for exit from this stalemate situation because it is really not good for all”.
EU foreign ministers, including Jeremy Hunt, are holding one of their monthly meetings in Brussels. Brexit is not on the agenda, which is devoted to the EU’s approach to China, as well as the conflict in Yemen. But it is never far away.
The Estonian foreign minister Sven Mikser said the EU was ready to consider an extension, but the decision would depend very much on British domestic politics: “The ball at the moment is firmly in the UK side of the court,” he said.
Austria’s foreign minister, Karin Kneissl, pointed to the risks facing the EU from a chaotic Brexit extension. If the EU granted the UK an extension for one year without requiring British participation in European elections, the bloc would “end up in a big dilemma, a real quagmire in terms of democratic legitimacy”.
Updated
No 10 says it won't call Brexit vote this week unless it has 'prospect of success'
I’m just back from the Downing Street lobby briefing. And it was a good illustration of the old rule that the length a briefing is in inverse proportion to its usefulness. (That’s because, if the reporters get a story, they want to wrap up quickly so they can file. If the briefing drags on, that’s because people keep asking questions in the hope that they might eventually get a useable reply.)
Here is the main takeaway.
- No 10 won’t yet commit to holding another vote on the Brexit deal this week, saying it will only call one when if it thinks it has a “prospect of success”.
I will post more from the briefing soon.
Hunt says there are 'cautious signs of encouragement' for government in terms of getting Brexit deal passed
Arriving at the EU foreign affairs council in Brussels this morning, Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, said that he hoped there would be a third vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal tomorrow. But, he added, “we need to be comfortable that we’ll have the numbers.”
He said there were “some cautious signs of encouragement” in that Tories who have opposed the deal up to now, like Norman Lamont and Esther McVey, now want to see it passed. “But there is a lot more work to do,” Hunt added.
I’m off to the lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
But another Tory Brexiter, Sir John Redwood, told the Today programme that Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement was “a very expensive invitation to more talks about possibly getting out with a sensible trade agreement, or perhaps not, with the ultimate problem that Northern Ireland might not be allowed out at all”. He went on:
It violates the Conservative manifesto in many important ways. The manifesto is very clear that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Redwood said that “a lot” of Conservative MPs shared his concerns, but declined to estimate how many of them would vote against May’s deal for a third time.
Explaining why he was now reluctantly backing Theresa May’s deal, after previously opposing it, the Tory Brexiter Daniel Kawczynski told the Today programme his constituents in Shrewsbury were “getting tired of the impasse and the imbroglio that parliament has got itself into”. He went on:
They feel that although the deal isn’t optimal, now is the time to support it, otherwise we could lose Brexit.
Those of us who campaigned for Brexit cannot put Brexit in jeopardy, and that’s why we are going to have to, I’m afraid, vote for the deal.
Rees-Mogg says he and ERG colleagues will back May's deal if they conclude no-deal Brexit no longer possible
Here are the main points from Jacob Rees-Mogg’s LBC phone-in. Rees-Mogg is only a backbencher, but he is chair of the European Research Group, which represents up to 80 or so Tories most opposed to Theresa May’s Brexit deal, and so what he and his ERG colleagues decide ahead of the next Commons vote will be crucial.
- Rees-Mogg hinted that, if the DUP could be persuaded to back May’s deal, he would back it too. Stressing that he had not yet made up his mind what he would do, he said:
I’m waiting to see what the DUP will do. The deal is still a very bad deal. It doesn’t deliver on the promises of the Conservative party manifesto, and it doesn’t deliver on the referendum result in full.
The question people like me will ultimately have to answer is, can we get to no deal instead? If we can get to no deal instead, that is a better option. It means that we will have left, and that we will have restored our nation’s independence.
But I’m concerned that the prime minister, in spite of her previous commitments, is determined to stop no deal, that she has come to the conclusion that it is either her deal, or some form of remaining. I think a two-year extension is basically remaining in the European Union. So those are the considerations people have to think through.
If we can get to no deal, that would be the best option.
- He said he and other ERG members would back May’s deal if they concluded there was no chance of getting no deal as an alternative. He explained:
I think many people think that this Brexit is better than a Brexit denied, but that they think we can still get to no deal. As long as people think we can still get to no deal, they will vote the deal down. And that’s my position too. So the debate is really, is no deal still realistic?
Last week the Commons voted to rule out a no-deal Brexit. But that vote was not binding, and the EU law will no longer apply to the UK after 29 March unless the exit date set out in the EU Withdrawal Act gets changed by parliament agreeing secondary legislation. May has said that she will change the date, for a short extension, if her deal, is passed this week, and she has implied that she will change the date for a long extension if her deal does not get approved, provided the EU agree. Opposition MPs would vote for an article 50 extension, but they might not agree to a very long one, or one subject to EU conditions. Rees-Mogg’s comments suggest a lot will hinge on what ERG members think will happen in those circumstances.
- Rees-Mogg said that he would have voted remain in 2016 if he thought Brexit would lead to Scottish independence. Explaining why the views of the DUP were so important to him, he said:
Ultimately the United Kingdom is more important to me than the European Union. So if the DUP felt the United Kingdom were being divided up in the deal, then that would mean it were impossible to vote for the deal under any circumstances. The one thing that would have changed my mind in 2106 would had I believed the scare stories that Scotland would leave the United Kingdom if we voted to leave. I did not think it was true, and therefore I was happy to vote to leave. But the United Kingdom is my county, and I don’t want to see my country chopped up. So the DUP’s position is very significant.
- He said that, if Brexit were blocked now, it might never happen. Arguing that a two-year extension would be the same as remaining, he said:
Mrs May’s deal, however bad it is, means that we are legally outside the European Union.
If we remain, we will never leave. We have got as close to leaving as we will ever get under these circumstances.
If it is thwarted now no one is ever going to allow us another chance to have a vote. The whole weight of British establishment opinion will prevent that ever happening again.
- He dismissed the notion that Italy or Hungary could veto an article 50 extension as “wishful thinking”. (See 9.14am.)
- He said that he had not personally profited from Brexit. (See 9.25am.)
Updated
On the Today programme this morning Ben Wallace, the security minister, said the security services would “despair” if parliament prevented a Brexit deal being agreed. He explained:
This morning I will meet the intelligence services and I will meet the police and all the people who protect us.
They want us to get on with delivering a Brexit.
They are professionals and they are looking after our safety, and if I were to look them in the eye and say ‘Should we just headlong fall into a collapse in government or a collapse in Parliament?’, they would just despair.
We are here to give them the support and resource they need as a government, and voting for the deal is the way we will continue to be able to do that and how we will break from Europe.
A senior Democratic Unionist has predicted that even if the party backs Theresa May’s Brexit plan in a third Commons vote it will be defeated because of the number of Conservative rebels, my colleagues Peter Walker and Heather Stewart report.
Q: Would you consider joining Nigel Farage’s Brexit party?
No, says Rees-Mogg. He says he is a Conservative.
He says, if the Brexiters formed a separate party and tried to support May on that basis in the Commons, all that would happen would be that May would look for coalition votes somewhere else.
Rees-Mogg says he has made no money out of Brexit.
He admits he has a fund in Dublin. But his company is a global investment firm, and it has a fund in New Zealand too, he says.
He says he does not expect Brexit to be bad for the economy. He says the CBI are opposed to Brexit. But they are not representative, he says. He claims that a third of their members are farmers and landowners.
Q: Do you agree with Boris Johnson that May should try again, at this week’s EU summit, to get changes to the backstop?
Yes, says Rees-Mogg. He says that would be sensible.
Q: And do you think the government needs a new prime minster?
Rees-Mogg says, having been involved in move to subject Theresa May to a no confidence vote at the end of last year, he does not want to comment on that. He says anything he will say might be interpreted as “sour grapes”.
Q: Do you think the speaker should rule out another vote in parliament, on the grounds that parliamentary rules say the same matter should not be voted on twice?
Rees-Mogg accepts that Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, does say that. But he says between the first vote and the second vote, the deal changed. And he says that, even if the deal is the same at the time of the third vote, you could argue that the circumstances have changed. If the alternative were a long extension, that would be a material change, he says.
Q: How many of your ERG colleagues think the same way as you?
Rees-Mogg says many people think May’s deal would be better than no Brexit. But the question is, is no deal still possible? If it is, he and ERG colleagues would vote for that, he says.
A caller, who says he is a passionate Brexiter, says the person he listens to most on this is Nigel Farage. Farage says the deal is terrible. So MPs should continue to oppose it, he says. He says he hopes the Italians or the Hungarians will veto an article 50 extension.
Rees-Mogg says he has spoken to ambassadors, and does not believe that will happen. The idea that Italy or Hungary could veto an article 50 extension is “wishful thinking”, he says.
Rees-Mogg says he does not think the UK will get another chance to leave the EU.
Jacob Rees-Mogg's LBC phone-in
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter and chair of the European Research Group, is hosting his LBC phone-in now.
Asked whether her will vote for Theresa May’s deal, he says he still thinks it is a very bad deal. But he will be influenced by what the DUP says.
He also says a lot will depend on whether he thinks no deal is an option. If that is available, he would prefer to leave the EU without a deal than back May’s.
But he says May has abandoned her belief that no deal would be better than a bad deal. So it is not clear that rejecting her deal will lead to no deal.
He also says that the UK union is more important to him that Europe. That is why, if the deal is acceptable to the DUP, that would make a difference.
Updated
Boris Johnson tells May to try again to get EU to change backstop
Good morning. And, yet again, we start the week with Theresa May trying to persuade Conservative MPs to back her Brexit deal.
Here is our overnight story on the state of play.
In the past it has been tempting to think of the Tory Brexiters as a unified bloc. But increasing they are fracturing. There are the soft hard Brexiters, like the 39 Tory MPs who voted against Theresa May’s deal in January changed their minds and voted in favour. Then there are the hard hard Brexiters, who where still opposed to May last week but who are now starting to wobble. And then there are the irreconcilables, who are likely to carry on voting against the deal to the bitter end.
One of the most influential Brexiter Tories is Boris Johnson, who resigned as foreign secretary because he was opposed to the Chequers plan, and he has set out his latest position in his Telegraph column (paywall). He is sounding like an irreconcilable, but if you read his article carefully you will see that, like some of the other wobbly hard hard Brexiters (Jacob Rees-Mogg and the DUP, for example), he is not ruling out the possibility that he could eventually be persuaded.
This is what Johnson says about May’s deal.
We will be legally and politically at the mercy of Brussels, since we will be obliged to accept all EU legislation, during the so-called implementation period: the first time since the Norman Conquest that a foreign power has passed the laws of this country.
Worst of all, the Irish backstop arrangement gives the EU an indefinite means of blackmail, so that they will be able to keep us locked in the customs union and large parts of the single market, unless we are prepared to abandon Northern Ireland; and they will use this blackmail to get their way throughout the negotiations, notably over the free movement of people.
If we agree this deal – and unless we have a radical change in our approach to the negotiations – we face an even greater humiliation in the second phase.
But Johnson also says the government should try one more time to get the EU to offer fresh concessions.
Is there a way forward? Perhaps. There is an EU summit this week. It is not too late to get real change to the backstop. It would be absurd to hold the vote before that has even been attempted.
And he also suggests that, if the government can provide some assurances about the next stage of the negotiation, he could be persuaded to rethink his opposition to the deal. One of the topics on which he says he wants reassurance is the composition of the UK negotiating team.
Are we going to make any changes whatsoever to a UK negotiating team which has so obviously failed this country at every level? After almost three years of humiliation, has the UK discovered some basic courage and belief in an open, independent, outward-looking and free-trading Brexit?
At present the answer to all those questions is a resounding “no”. We need some better answers and we need them this week.
Johnson does not say it explicitly, but it is hard not to read this a declaration that the person at the very top of the UK negotiating team, ie the PM, needs to go, and that any pledge on this front might be helpful in securing his support for the deal.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: The EU foreign affairs council meets in Brussels
9am: Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter and chair of the European Research Group, which represents Conservatives MPs pushing for a harder Brexit, chairs his regular LBC phone-in.
11am: Downing Street lobby briefing.
11am: Donald Tusk, president of the European council, meets the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, in Berlin ahead of the EU summit later this week. Later Tusk will meet the French president, Emmanuel Macron, in Paris.
2.30pm: Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
Also at some point today Jeremy Corbyn is due to hold talks with the smaller opposition parties to discuss a joint approach to Brexit.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, but I expect to be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another when I wrap up, at around 6pm.
You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s 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 it is 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 questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply ATL, although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
@Andrewsparrow Isn't the government obliged by her own motion from last thursday to put the deal to another meaningfull vote tomorrow?