Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow and Kevin Rawlinson

Brexit: Theresa May urges MPs to 'take a second look' at her deal – as it happened

Theresa May gives statement as parliament resumes Brexit deal debate - watch live

Closing summary

We’re going to close down this live blog now – thanks for reading it and for all the comments throughout the day. Here’s a summary of the afternoon’s events:

  • Theresa May urged parliament to give her deal a “second look” as MPs prepare to vote tomorrow. She acknowledged it represented a compromise but warned MPs the eyes of history were upon them and characterised rejecting it as refusing to deliver the result of the referendum.
  • The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said May had failed to get the deal she wanted and said that, as she headed for a Commons defeat, the prime minister must stop trying to force MPs to vote for the deal she had settled for. Corbyn said rejection of the withdrawal agreement in parliament tomorrow, should that happen, must lead to a general election.
  • While she insisted the government was committed to pushing through Brexit on 29 March, May refused to categorically rule out extending article 50.
  • The government whip, Gareth Johnson, resigned because he was unable to support May’s deal. Johnson said it would leave the UK “perpetually constrained by the European Union”.
  • The Speaker, John Bercow, attacked the government over delays to the implementation of proxy voting in the Commons. The criticism followed news that a Labour MP was considering delaying the birth of her baby to vote tomorrow.
  • Theresa May delivered a speech on Brexit in Stoke-on-Trent earlier in the day. You can read a fuller summary of that here.

And my colleagues Heather Stewart, Jessica Elgot and Dan Sabbagh, have the full story as May appears to be heading for a crushing defeat over her Brexit deal:

Updated

My colleague, Jessica Elgot, has a little more detail on those suggestions emanating from the PLP meeting tonight that a no-confidence vote might not be far off, should May’s deal – as is expected – be voted down tomorrow:

Updated

Barry Gardiner wraps up by saying he has been “genuinely torn apart” by having to choose between leaving the EU, when that might harm the UK’s economy, and backing a second referendum, when that may be seen as patronising the electorate.

He says the Labour party’s policy is to push through Brexit while protecting the existing rights and standards the country currently enjoys. He says the government should back the same and urges MPs to reject May’s deal.

Updated

The BBC’s Iain Watson has a little more detail on Jeremy Corbyn’s discussions with the parliamentary Labour party this evening:

Updated

The prime minister has concluded her meeting with the Tory backbench 1922 Committee. My colleague, Dan Sabbagh, has this:

And this comes from City AM’s Owen Bennett:

Updated

Addressing his MPs this evening, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has signalled his belief that, as many expect, Theresa May has fallen short of the necessary support for her deal to get it through parliament.

And he reiterated that Labour would see that as grounds for her to call a general election.

Theresa May’s deal is a bad deal for our country. It fails to meet the needs of millions of our constituents facing deep insecurity and stress from a lack of good jobs, inadequate housing and chronic under-investment in their communities and futures.

Theresa May has attempted to blackmail Labour MPs to vote for her botched deal by threatening the country with the chaos of no deal. I know from conversations with colleagues that this has failed. The Labour party will not be held to ransom.

When the prime minister’s deal is defeated, she will only have herself to blame. She has spent two years negotiating with her cabinet and her bickering backbenchers instead of the EU, shutting out trade unions, businesses and parliament from the process.

The Tory party’s botched deal will be rejected by parliament. We will then need an election to have the chance to vote for a government that can bring our people together and address the deep-seated issues facing our country.

Updated

The shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardiner, is responding to the Fox’s defence of May’s deal by saying the Leave vote was driven in part by falling living standards that, while they were in no way caused by the EU, took place during the UK’s membership of the bloc.

He says the vote was a cri de cœur and that the EU “did not present itself as a champion of the voiceless”. In response, he says Theresa May tried to appease her hard Brexit-supporting backbenchers, rather than unite the country.

Updated

As MPs go ahead with the fourth day of debate on Theresa May’s deal, my colleague Peter Walker has put together this ‘what happens next?’ guide:

While this debate is going on, the leaders of the two largest parties are meeting their backbenchers.

According to various Westminster-based correspondents, Theresa May has just arrived at the 1922 Committee, where she was welcomed with cheering and banging of desks.

We’ll have more information from those soon.

Updated

Fox has described the referendum as a “contract” with the British people that needed to be honoured.

For parliament to attempt in any way to thwart or block Brexit by any means would be an act of vanity and self indulgence that would create a breach of trust between parliament and the people, with potentially unknowable consequences.

Eighty per cent of the members of this house were elected on manifesto that said they would honour the result of the referendum and we have a duty to do so if we are to keep faith with our voters.

He was asked by the Labour MP Lucy Powell what progress he had made on the “dozens of trade deals” he claimed were awaiting sign-off after Brexit. Fox responded:

That process is going to the point where we are likely to be signing some of those agreements in the very near future, at which point we will put them to the House of Commons.

Updated

Fox is reiterating that the government’s view is that there are only three options: May’s deal, no deal or no Brexit. And he insists that, while the government will prepare for no deal, it does not want that outcome.

Fox also tells MPs he “shares many of the reservations” they have about the backstop arrangement.

But I believe they the construction of the backstop and the relationship that is set out in the political declaration means that the risk of getting to that backstop is much less than I fear the risk is of not being able to achieve Brexit. And, for me, that’s been one of the key political balances.

Updated

The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, is opening the EU withdrawal agreement debate after the Speaker, John Bercow, issued a stinging rebuke to the government, telling MPs:

I have no intention of taking lectures in doing right by parliament from people who have been conspicuous in denial of and, sometimes, contempt for it. I will stand up for the rights of the House of Commons and I will not be pushed around by agents of the executive branch.

Bercow had been asked by the Conservative MP Matt Warman about his decision to allow a debate on an amendment proposed by the Tory backbencher and former attorney general Dominic Grieve last week.

Updated

The May statement is over. A succession of Conservative MPs are now asking points of order inspired by the Sunday Times splash yesterday, suggesting that anti-Brexit MPs are plotting to change the parliamentary rules to allow motions proposed by backbenchers to take precedence over government business. John Bercow, the Speaker, is also being asked about reports suggesting that he conspired with Dominic Grieve ahead of the controversial procedural vote last week that will speed up any possible Commons vote on a Brexit plan B.

Bercow is broadly dismissing the reports, saying that the parliamentary rules on procedure are clear and that he is not involved in any plan to change them.

With regard to the meeting with Grieve, he says he meets MPs all the time.

That is all from me for today.

My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is taking over now.

Updated

Labour’s Mike Gapes says in the UK system no parliament can bind its successor. It was not this parliaement that promised to implement the referendum result, but the last one.

May says Gapes may not have noticed, but the Conservatives are in power. They will implement Brexit.

Bill Wiggin, a Conservative, asks May if she can assure him that she will continue to carry on with “British grit” if she loses the vote tomorrow.

May says she will carry on with determination.

I’m afraid comments will need to close at 6pm, because we are short of moderators tonight. I’m sorry about that.

Here is some comment on the May statement.

From CityAM’s Owen Bennett

From the Guardian’s Peter Walker

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

From the Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh

Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, says No 10 is indicating that it will support amendments to the motion tabled by Hugo Swire and Andrew Murrison. Yet the government used to argue (ie, here - pdf) that, if the motion were amended, then that might stop the government ratifying the withdrawal agreement. So why has the government changed its mind?

May says MPs still do not know what amendments will get called tomorrow. But if the government does support those amendments, it will be to give MPs more confidence about supporting the deal, she says. She says they would not impact on the ratification of the treaty.

Charlie Elphicke, the Conservative, asks May to confirm that leaving the EU with no deal would not be the end of the world.

May says it would be difficult, but the UK could recover from a no-deal Brexit.

Labour’s Rachel Reeves, the chair of the business committee, asks May to rule out a no-deal Brexit.

May says it is very simple: either you have a deal, her deal, the one on the table, or you have no deal.

John Baron, a Conservative, asks what assurances there are that the EU would not drag out the trade talks for years.

May says that would not be good for the EU. If the UK were stuck in the backstop, it would have tariff-free access to the single market, without having to pay any money or grant access to its fishing waters.

Luciana Berger, the Labour MP, asks why it was acceptable for May to vote against the Welsh assembly, after people voted for it in a referendum, when she is now saying the Brexit referendum result must be accepted.

May says parliament was clear; the referendum result must be accepted.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory chair of the European Research Group, says the EU will not agree an end date for the backstop. Does that make May doubt their sincerity when they say they don’t really want it?

May says the EU has been clear about not wanting the backstop

Sir Desmond Swayne, the Tory Brexiter, says that to guarantee Brexit, she should prorogue parliament until April. “Tempting, isn’t it?”

May jokes that it is tempting.

Kate Hoey, the Labour Brexiter, asks May to state categorically that the UK will be leaving on 29 March. May says the UK will be leaving then.

Greg Hands, the Tory former minister, says EU officials think the deal is a great deal for them. Matin Selmayr, the secretary general of the European commission, has said it will show that leaving the EU does not work.

May says she thinks the deal is a good one for the UK.

Labour’s Chris Leslie says May is asking MPs to trust her. Anything could happen in the next two years. Who will be her successor who will conclude the negotiations on the next stage after two years.

May says the EU cannot start trade talks with the UK until it has left. She ignores the question about her successor.

Mark Francois, a Tory Brexiter, says the withdrawal agreement will be an international agreement that will outrank any UK legislation. He asks May to confirm that the Tusk/Juncker letter does not over-rule the treaty. It is a small figleaf.

May says the assurances have standing in international law.

Labour’s Barry Sheerman says MPs need more time. Why can’t they have it?

May says by 29 March it will be almost three years since the referendum. MPs voted overwhelmingly for article 50, which set the date for Brexit.

Pro and anti Brexit demonstrators outside the Houses of Parliament
Pro and anti Brexit demonstrators outside the Houses of Parliament Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee, says May has worsened divisions by not consulting and by delaying votes. She asks May to confirm she has not ruled out delaying article 50.

May says she is clear the UK will leave the EU on 29 March. That is in legislation, she says.

David Jones, a Tory Brexiter, says the Tusk/Juncker letter could make MPs even more likely to vote against the deal.

Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, says May said this morning MPs should honour the result of the Brexit referendum, even though she voted against setting up the Welsh assembly and subsequently fought an election on a manifesto suggesting it could be abolished. Why should MPs listen to her on Brexit?

May says the Conservatives accepted the result of the referendum on Welsh devolution.

Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, said it is clear the EU will not offer the UK any further help. He invites May to commit to reaching out across the Commons to find a solution if her deal is voted down. And she should seek an extension of article 50, he says.

May says she is reaching out to MPs. She has been meeting Labour MPs, she says.

Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, asks why young people who could not vote in the 2016 referendum should not have a say on Brexit now. They are the people who will bear the brunt of it, she says.

May says the government said it would accept the referendum decision.

Owen Paterson, the Tory Brexiter, asks what meetings May has had with experts who can show how technical solutions can address the Irish border issue.

May says the plans that Paterson brought her on this (an ERG plan - available here) would not fully avoid the need for controls at the border.

Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, says the government is a servant of the Commons. If May loses the vote, she would let the Commons have its say.

May says the government is a servant of the people.

May again refuses to categorically rule out extending article 50

Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, asks May to confirm that she will “never” extend article 50.

May says the government’s intention is to leave the EU on 29 March. She says some people want to stop that. But the government is firm in its intention, she says.

She says “it remains the commitment of this government to leave the European Union on 29 March.”

  • May again refuses to categorically rule out extending article 50.

In response to Blackford, May says, if the SNP believe in listening to the people, they would drop support for Scottish independence.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, is speaking now. Is that it, he asks. He says May has failed to achieve what she set out to achieve. The voices of the people of Scotland are being ignored, he says. “This is a defining moment,” he says. Why is the PM continuing to ignore Scotland?

He urges May to extend article 50 and “let the people decide”.

What May said about how 'history books' will judge MPs after they vote tomorrow

Here is the final passage from Theresa May’s opening statement - her “hand of history” peroration. (Or not - it wasn’t exactly Churchill.)

So I say to Members on all sides of this House – whatever you may have previously concluded – over these next 24 hours, give this deal a second look.

No it is not perfect. And yes it is a compromise.

But when the history books are written, people will look at the decision of this House tomorrow and ask:

Did we deliver on the country’s vote to leave the European Union?

Did we safeguard our economy, our security and our Union?

Or did we let the British people down?

I say we should deliver for the British people and get on with building a brighter future for our country by backing this deal tomorrow.

May is responding to Corbyn.

She says Corbyn’s call for a general election shows he is just playing politics. Yesterday, when asked what he would say on Brexit in an election campaign, he refused five times to say, she says.

Jeremy Corbyn is responding to May.

He says May has failed to get the legal assurances she promised. The Tusk/Juncker letter contains nothing more than warm words.

He says the attorney general’s advice showed the UK could be locked into the backstop.

By the end of 2020, under May’s plan the UK will have to extend the transition, or enter a backstop that could last indefinitely.

He says Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has said that today’s Tusk/Juncker letter dos not alter his earlier assessment. (See 3.41pm.)

He says May must no longer run down the clock. She should stop trying to scare people into voting for the deal.

What MPs are voting on this week is the same deal MPs should have voted on in December.

May should be reaching out to MPs, he says.

But May is claiming that MPs who don’t support her are undermining faith in democracy. The person who is undermining democracy is May herself, he says.

He says May is facing a “humiliating defeat”. She will only have herself to blame, he says.

He says there is a deal that could command support in the Commons - staying in the customs union, and maintaining EU standards.

He says the government’s handling of the talks has been “shambolic”. We are now on our third Brexit secretary, and they have all been sidelined, he says.

He says the government is in disarray. If the government’s deal is rejected tomorrow, it is time for a general election and a new government.

Updated

May urges MPs to 'give this deal second look' and think how history will judge them

May says MPs should “give this deal a second look”, whatever they have previously concluded. “Yes, it is a compromise,” he says.

When the history books are written, people will ask if MPs delivered on the will of the British people, and if they secured the country’s economy, security and union.

May admits the EU would not agree to put a time limit on the backstop. Any attempt to reopen the negotiation would lead to other EU states seeking changes that would favour them, she says.

May says the backstop would involve the EU relying on the UK to police its own market. This would be unprecedented, she says. She says that is why the EU does not want it.

May says the EU has said that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration come together. Although the political declaration is not legally binding in the way the withdrawal agreement is, the EU has insisted they come “as a package”.

May says the EU has said that it does not see the backstop as the only mechanism that would avoid a hard border in Ireland.

May says, if MPs agree the deal tomorrow, the UK and the EU will have almost two years to negotiate the final trade deal (because the EU has offered to open talks before 29 March).

May says she has been clear that the UK would never allow any return to a hard border in Ireland.

But it is not enough to say this, she says. She says the government must ensure that happens. That is why the backstop is in place.

May's statement to MPs

Theresa May is now making a statement to MPs about the assurances received today from Donald Tusk, the European council president, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president.

Their letter to her is here.

Here is a summary of the speech she gave this morning, where she explained what she thought the significant new elements in the letter were.

And here is the attorney general’s assessment of its significance.

Updated

McDonnell welcomes fact government can no longer take parliament for granted

It has been rather overshadowed by everything else, but in his Today programme interview this morning John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, welcomed the fact that parliament is now flexing its muscles and trying to take control of the Brexit process. He explained:

I actually think this is most probably parliament at its best.

Individual MPs are behaving properly. They are listening to their constituents, they are exercising their own judgement about the interest of their constituency and the interests of the country. And they are coming to decisions based upon, not party advantage, not individual career moves, but actually on what is best for the people they represent.

I think, far from parliament being at its worst, as some people have accused it, I actually think this is parliament at its best.

It is forcing the executive, it is forcing the government, to actually not take parliament for granted anymore. It is redressing some of the imbalance between the executive and Parliament that has built up over decades.

Many parliamentarians would agree, although whether McDonnell will feel the same way if Labour wins an election and at that point the legislature starts defying the executive remains to be seen ...

Thornberry says May under 'constitutional obligation' to call election if she loses Brexit vote

In an article for the Guardian, Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, says that historical precedent dictates that, if Theresa May loses the Brexit vote tomorrow, she should call a general election.

Here is an extract.

In this week in 1910, the British electorate went to the polls. They did so because Herbert Asquith’s Liberal government had been unable to get Lloyd George’s famous People’s Budget through the House of Lords. Liberal posters defined the election as a choice between the peers and the people. They finally got their way after a second election that December.

So twice that year, and a number of other times, governments who could not get their flagship legislation through parliament, or who otherwise found their authority in the House of Commons exhausted, have been obliged to go to the country to seek a new mandate.

For Earl Grey in 1832, it was electoral reform. For Gladstone in 1886, it was Irish Home Rule. And for Clement Attlee in 1951 and Ted Heath in 1974, it was a last throw of the dice when facing parliamentary stagnation and national crisis ...

Theresa May said last week that our country would be in “unchartered territory” when MPs vote down her deal tomorrow. She is wrong. This is territory numerous previous prime ministers have walked through before.

She has a constitutional obligation to follow the only course of action titans like Gladstone and Attlee felt was practically and honourably open to them when their parliamentary authority fell away.

The prime minister must call an election. Anything else would not be stoicism or stubbornness, or whatever other qualities her admirers claim; it would just be sheer cowardice.

And here is the full article.

Conservative MPs have been told that Theresa May will address the party’s backbench 1922 committee at 7pm, after her statement to the Commons. And Jeremy Corbyn will be addressing the parliamentary Labour party meeting tonight too.

Bercow condemns government for delaying implementation of proxy voting in Commons

As Kate Proctor reports in today’s Evening Standard, the Labour MP Tulip Siddiq is planning to delay the birth of her baby by caesarean section so that she can be in the chamber tomorrow to vote on Brexit. According to the Standard, Siddiq expects to be the lobby in a wheelchair by her husband Chris.

In the Commons just now Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, raised this as a point of order. And, in response, John Bercow, the speaker, condemned the government for delaying the introduction of proxy voting for female MPs on maternity leave. He said that it was “uncivilised” for someone like Siddiq to have to be pushed through the lobby in a wheelchair and that the Commons had already twice in principle agreed in principle that proxy voting should be introduce. The first debate was around year ago, he said. But still nothing has happened, he said. He said this was “frankly lamentable” and “very disadvantageous and injurious to the reputation of this House”. If the government wanted to change Commons procedures to allow proxy voting, it could do so, he said. He implied that “reactionary forces” within government were dragging their feet because they were opposed to reform and he said he very much regretted this.

Bercow said he would like the situation resolved before tomorrow and that he would do what he could to help.

Anyone who thought that, after last week’s row about Bercow effectively rewriting Commons procedural rules, he might lose his appetite for taking on the parliamentary establishment will be disappointed. Instead his appetite for confrontation seems to be growing ...

Government releases new advice from attorney general welcoming Tusk/Juncker letter

Remember the days when the government used to say that it never revealed the legal advice it received from the attorney general? Well, now ministers seem to be publishing it proactively, before the opposition has even had time to say “humble address”. The Department for Exiting the European Union has published on its website the text of a letter (pdf), written today, from Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, to Theresa May assessing the significance of the Tusk/Juncker related about the Brexit deal sent earlier today.

Here is an extract. Cox said:

I agree that in the light of [the Tusk/Juncker letter], the council’s conclusions of 13 December would have legal force in international law and thus be relevant and cognisable in the interpretation of the withdrawal agreement, and in particular the Northern Ireland protocol [ie, the backstop], albeit they do not alter the fundamental meanings of its provisions as I advised them to be on 13 November 2018 ...

It is my opinion, based on the factors set out in my letter of 13 November 2018, reinforced by the joint response [the Tusk/Juncker letter], that the balance of risks favours the conclusion that it is unlikely that the EU will wish to rely on the implementation of the backstop provisions. It is therefore my judgment that the current draft withdrawal agreement now represents the only politically practicable and available means of securing our exit from the European Union.

Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general.
Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

This is from ITV’s Paul Brand.

Mel Stride, the Treasury minister, has been photographed coming out of a cabinet committee meeting with a note saying, in large handwriting, “No food” and “No channel tunnel”.

The Twitter consensus is that he’s winding us up ...

Theresa May will neither back nor reject the Andrew Murrison amendment to her Brexit motion (see 9.33am) saying the deal should be agreed “subject to a legal codicil being added to the withdrawal agreement treaty which specifies that the backstop solution shall expire on 31 December 2022”, my colleague Heather Stewart reports.

The Times’ Sam Coates says some government aides are encouraging Tory MPs to support it.

On the World at One Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative Brexiter, said he would be backing Theresa May’s Brexit deal because he was worried about what might happen if she lost. He explained:

What worries me is that if she (the PM) loses by over 100 the EU might offer her nothing and the remainers might take control completely.

He also denied that his decision to vote for the deal had anything to do with the fact that he was recently appointed a privy counsellor. He said the honour was awarded in recognition of his service as chair of the public accounts committee (between 2001 and 2010) and that it was originally proposed some time ago.

Boris Johnson rejects claim Jaguar Land Rover boss knows more about car industry than he does

In his LBC phone-in this morning Boris Johnson, the Brexiter foreign secretary, suggested that he knows more about car manufacturing that the Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) chief executive Ralf Speth.

Johnson dismissed claims that recent job losses at JLR were related to Brexit. When it was put to him that Speth said otherwise, and that Speth knew more about the car industry than he did, Johnson replied:

Well actually, it’s an interesting point. I’m not certain he does, by the way.

Johnson then cited a conversation he had with Speth when he was London mayor on the future of electric vehicles (EVs). He went on:

I mean, I do not claim superior knowledge of every aspect of car manufacturing, okay.

But, I simply said that I thought that EVs, electric vehicles, did represent the future, that we should be going down that road.

And he said, ‘no, no, no, diesel is great, and we will stick with this’. And I’m afraid, I hesitate to say this, but I think events have vindicated me on that point rather than him.

According to my colleague Heather Stewart, the Labour MP Hilary Benn is coming under pressure to withdraw his amendment to the Brexit motion.

On the Today programme this morning John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, made it clear that he did not like the amendment because it could stop MPs having a “straight vote” on Theresa May’s deal. (See 9.33am.)

Theresa May has come under further criticism from Welsh politicians over the claim, now retracted (see 10.25am and 12.39pm) that her party immediately accepted the result of the Welsh devolution referendum.

This is from Mark Drakeford, the Labour Welsh first minister.

One of the prime minister’s earliest actions as an MP was to vote against the formation of the national assembly.

Despite the majority vote in favour of Welsh devolution, the Conservative manifesto as late as 2005 committed the party to a second referendum on the matter.

The then-first minister Rhodri Morgan reacted to the closeness of the result by reaching out to those opposed to the creation of the national assembly and worked to establish its legitimacy in their eyes.

The success of that approach by Rhodri Morgan and Carwyn Jones was borne out in the emphatic majority to extend the National Assembly’s powers in 2011.

It’s hard to imagine a more different approach to that taken by Mrs May towards the EU referendum.

And this is from the Plaid Cymru leader at Wesminster, Liz Saville Roberts.

The prime minister’s Brexit desperation has led to her either having a selective memory, [to] deploy wilful hypocrisy or simply lie about the referendum on Welsh devolution.

The Conservative party campaigned against devolution and then promised a second referendum six years after it was established.

The prime minister herself voted against the legislation which created the national assembly for Wales, after the referendum.

Unlike the unicorns of the Brexit referendum, the 1997 devolution vote was a clear question, with a clear outcome and clear consequences. The only party to attack its legitimacy was her party - this is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Gareth Johnson’s departure takes the total number of Conservative government resignations over Brexit to 13, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says.

Raab sets out leadership credentials in speech calling for asbos for anti-competitive businesses

Dominic Raab has just finished a speech that can only be described as a leadership pitch, a carefully prepared address at a Centre for Policy Studies event that will have done his credibility within the Tory party no harm.

The former Brexit secretary argued that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell had “tapped a vein of public support in their accusations of crony capitalism and markets rigged by vested interests” and offered a prescription for free-market competition as an alternative.

The MP’s big idea was that there should be asbos for business: handing the Competition and Markets Authority a power to issue anti-competitive behaviour orders “against firms ripping off consumers, with large fines for breach”.

Raab is currently polling somewhere between third and fifth to become next Tory leader, according to ESRC and ConHome surveys. He may struggle to get ahead of Boris Johnson, but judging by the content of his speech, his real goal could be to become chancellor.

“That’s who the free market is there to serve; the student, the pensioner, the family buying foreign currency to go on a hard-earned holiday,” Raab added, framing his argument in a way intended to appeal to swing voters who he believes are at risk of falling into Labour hands.

Raab also confirmed that he would vote against May’s Brexit deal tomorrow, arguing that “the fundamental way we can get changes in the withdrawal agreement is to vote down the current bad terms” and then go back to the EU to renegotiate.

But Raab said there was no need to extend article 50, however, and argued that a no deal may be the only possible outcome. “If we can’t get a deal, we’d leave on WTO terms even if only transitionally,” he said.

And he even used a line once used by Theresa May, claiming that a no deal “won’t be a walk in the park, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world”.

Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary.
Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA

Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader, does not appear to have heard of Gareth Johnson, the latest Tory to join the rebellion against Theresa May’s deal. (See 1.23pm.)

Another question from BTL. This is from Trundler.

User avatar for Trundler

@andrew has anyone yet proposed a People’s vote where Remain is not an option? Honours the referendum result and would give ‘losers consent’ to the type and hardness of exit. No deal would not be an option as it is an absence of an option.

Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and Jeremy Corbyn’s most powerful ally in the union movement, has proposed exactly this. But at the moment no one in parliament actively pushing this idea (even though there have been reports that No 10 has toyed with the idea.) The obvious problem is that the government would have to legislate for a May deal v no deal Brexit referendum, and there would be a strong chance of MPs or peers amending the bill as it went through parliament to include a remain option.

Tory whip Gareth Johnson resigns from government because he's opposed to May's Brexit deal

Gareth Johnson has resigned as a Conservative whip today because he cannot support Theresa May’s Brexit deal. He says the deal “prevents us taking back control and instead could leave us perpetually constrained by the European Union”.

My colleague Simon Jenkins thinks that MPs who say there is a better form of Brexit available than the one set out in Theresa May’s plan are lying. He explains why here.

DUP questions May's claim 'everyday life' in Northern Ireland would change under no-deal Brexit

In her speech Theresa May said this about a no-deal Brexit.

With no deal we would have: no implementation period, no security co-operation, no guarantees for UK citizens overseas, no certainty for businesses and workers here in Stoke and across the UK, and changes to everyday life in Northern Ireland that would put the future of our union at risk.

In his press statement, the DUP leader at Westminster, Nigel Dodds, said May should clarify what she meant. He explained:

The prime minister must explain this comment. What exactly would the government be changing? If this is nothing more than scaremongering, then the prime minister should cease from such foolish talk. Indeed, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, has said that the Republic of Ireland is not making preparations for a hard border even in the event of no deal being agreed.

An anti-Brexit sign on the road outside Newry, Northern Ireland.
An anti-Brexit sign on the road outside Newry, Northern Ireland. Photograph: Paul Faith/AFP/Getty Images

DUP says Tusk/Juncker letter has heightened its concerns about backstop

Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Wesminster, has put out a statement saying he thinks the Tusk/Juncker letter, far from reassuring his party about the backstop, has exacerbated their concerns. He said:

Despite a letter of supposed reassurance from the European Union, there are no “legally binding assurances” as the prime minister talked about in December. In fact, there is nothing new. Nothing has changed.

Rather than reassure us, the Tusk and Juncker letter bolsters our concerns by confirming:

1. everything the attorney general said in his legal advice regarding the backstop, still stands;

2. there has been no change to the withdrawal agreement and:

3. Northern Ireland would be subject to EU laws with no representation in Brussels. We would rely on the Dublin government to speak up for us.

Instead of meaningless letters, the prime minister should now ask for and deliver changes to the withdrawal agreement.

Nigel Dodds.
Nigel Dodds. Photograph: Paul Davey / Barcroft Images

Updated

Theresa May's speech and Q&A - Summary

Here are the main points from Theresa May’s Brexit speech and Q&A. The full text of the speech is here.

  • May refused to firmly rule out extending article 50. Asked about today’s Guardian report saying EU leaders now expect that article 50 will have to be extended until July, and whether she was willing to “categorically” rule that out, she replied:

Look, we’re leaving on 29 March. I’ve been clear that I don’t believe we should be extending article 50 and I don’t believe we should be having a second referendum.

(May could have said “I am clear that I don’t believe etc”, but instead of using the present tense, she used the present prefect, “I have been etc”. That might just be a tic, but sometimes it is a sign that a politician realises that a position they have adopted until now might soon have to change.)

  • She admitted that the assurances received from the EU today about the backstop will not go far enough for some MPS. She said:

I fully understand that the new legal and political assurances which are contained in the letters from Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker do not go as far as some MPs would like.

  • She admitted the EU had rejected her demand to set a fixed end date for the backstop. She said:

I also pursued in these discussions [with the EU, over Christmas] a proposal for a fixed date - with legal force - guaranteeing the point at which the future partnership would come into force. Because that is the way to bring an end to the backstop – by agreeing our new relationship.

The EU’s position was that - while they never want or expect the backstop to come into force - a legal time limit was not possible.

We have secured valuable new clarifications and assurances to put before the House of Commons, including on getting our future relationship in place rapidly, so that the backstop should never need to be used.

We now have a commitment from the EU that work on our new relationship can begin as soon as possible after the signing of the withdrawal agreement – in advance of the 29 March – and we have an explicit commitment that this new relationship does not need to replicate the backstop in any respect whatsoever.

We have agreement on a fast-track process to bring the free trade deal we will negotiate into force if there are any delays in member states ratifying it, making it even more likely that the backstop will never need to be used.

We now have absolute clarity on the explicit linkage between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, putting beyond doubt that these come as a package.

And finally the EU have confirmed their acceptance that the UK can unilaterally deliver on all the commitments made in our Northern Ireland paper last week, including a Stormont lock on new EU laws being added to the backstop, and a seat at the table for a restored Northern Ireland executive.

The legal standing of the significant conclusions of the December Council have been confirmed. If the backstop were ever triggered it would only be temporary and both sides would do all they could to bring it to an end as quickly as possible.

The letters published today have legal force and must be used to interpret the meaning of the withdrawal agreement, including in any future arbitration.

They make absolutely clear the backstop is not a threat or a trap.

  • May retracted her false claim that the result of the referendum on Welsh devolution was accepted by both main parties. (See 10.25am.) In extracts from the speech released overnight she said:

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned.

After it was pointed out that the Conservative party did contest the result of the 1997 referendum, she instead said this morning:

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by parliament.

  • She said that, if MPs vote down her deal, she thought it was “more likely” that Brexit would be halted than that there would be a no-deal Brexit. She said:

While no deal remains a serious risk, having observed events at Westminster over the last seven days, it is now my judgment that the more likely outcome [if MPs reject her deal] is a paralysis in parliament that risks there‪‪ being no Brexit.

  • She reiterated her opposition to the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU for good (which is one of Labour’s key demands). She said:

I have always been clear that we will not be in the customs union, because being in the customs union has with it other aspects which are not what people voted for.

  • She said she was committed to maintaining high standards on workers’ rights and environmental standards after Brexit.

I could not have been clearer that far from wanting to see a reduction in our standards in these areas, the UK will instead continue to be a world leader.

We have committed to addressing these concerns and will work with MPs from across the house on how best to implement them, looking at legislation where necessary to deliver the best possible results for workers across the UK.

Theresa May giving a speech on Brexit at the Portmeirion factory in Stoke-on-Trent.
Theresa May giving a speech on Brexit at the Portmeirion factory in Stoke-on-Trent. Photograph: POOL/Reuters

Starmer says Tusk/Juncker letter shows May has 'failed to deliver'

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has put out this response to the Tusk/Juncker letter. He said:

The prime minister has once again failed to deliver.

This is a long way from the significant and legally effective commitment the prime minister promised last month. It is a reiteration of the EU’s existing position. Once again, nothing has changed.

And that’s it. May has finished.

I will post a summary shortly.

May refuses to firmly rule out extending article 50

Q: The EU are willing to extend article 50 until July. Do you rule that out?

May says she does not believe the government should extend article 50 or have a referendum.
  • May refuses to firmly rule out extending article 50.

Updated

Q: Do you believe you can win the vote tomorrow?

May says she is working to get MPs to vote for the deal tomorrow. She wants to avoid a situation where parliament tries to frustrate Brexit.

May says no one in parliament has come up with an alternative Brexit deal that is negotiable and that delivers on the result of the referendum.

Q: [From the Daily Mail] Will you go further, on a customs union or anything else, to get the support of Labour MPs?

May says she is opposed to being in a customs union. The UK would not be able to run an independent trade policy if it stayed in the customs union, he says.

Q: [From ITV’s Paul Brand] You have had two years to reach out to MPs, and now you have nothing new to offer them. Why shouldn’t parliament take control?

May says she has been reaching out to MPs. She does not accept she has achieved nothing. The exchange of letters does does give further assurances.

She says the government must deliver on the result of the referendum. It has a duty to deliver Brexit. That is what she will do, she says.

May's Q&A

May is now taking questions

Q: [From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg] Do you really think you have a chance of changing MPs’ minds?

May says she has been speaking to MPs over the weekend, she will make a statement this afternoon, and she will close the debate tomorrow night. She says some MPs are changing their views. These assurances should give MPs more confidence that the backstop will not be implemented, she says.

May explains what new assurances on backstop she has received from EU

May says she has today published the outcome of her discussions with the EU about her concerns about the backstop.

She says the EU have said throughout they would not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

She says she pursued proposals for putting a fixed end date on the backstop.

The EU said that was not possible, she says.

  • May admits EU rejected her demand for fixed end date to backstop.

But she says she has secured “valuable new assurances”.

She says the EU has said work on the new relationship can start before 29 March.

She says the EU has agreed that the new relationship will not need to mirror the backstop.

She says there is now explicit clarity that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration will come as a package.

She says the EU has agreed that the plans for the “Stormont lock” published by the government last week (pdf) can be implemented.

And the EU has said the assurances on the backstop have legal force.

  • May explains what new assurances on backstop she has received from EU.

May says Brexit could be halted if her deal gets voted down

May says, in her judgment, if MPs were to vote down her deal, the most likely result would be a paralysis in parliament would “risk there being no Brexit”.

  • May says Brexit could be halted if her deal gets voted down.

Theresa May's Brexit speech

Theresa May is delivering her Brexit speech now.

She started by making the point about the need to honour the EU referendum result, citing the Welsh referendum example contained in the advance briefing (to Number 10’s embarrassment). (See 10.25am.)

Tusk and Juncker says EU will consider technological alternatives to backstop will be considered

As expected, the letter from Donald Tusk, president of the European council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the president of the European commission, does not contain anything substantially new on the backstop. Mostly it just amplifies the assurances about the backstop only being temporary that were set out by the EU 27 in the conclusions (pdf) to their summit in December.

But Tusk and Juncker do stress that they are serious about trying to find technical solutions to the border issue that would make the backstop redundant. (This is a preoccupation of Brexiters.) They say:

The European commission also shares your intentions for the future relationship to be in place as quickly as possible. Given our joint commitment to using best endeavours to conclude before the end of 2020 a subsequent agreement, which supersedes the protocol [ie, the backstop] in whole or in part, the commission is determined to give priority in our work programme to the discussion of proposals that might replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. In this context, facilitative arrangements and technologies will be considered. Any arrangements which supersede the protocol are not required to replicate its provisions in any respect, provided that the underlying objectives continue to be met.

The Press Association has snapped these on the Tusk/Juncker letter.

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and European council president Donald Tusk have released a letter offering “clarifications” to the UK’s withdrawal agreement, stating that Brussels “does not wish to see the backstop enter into force” and confirming its “determination” to see it replaced.

The letter to Theresa May from Juncker and Tusk states that “we are not in a position to agree to anything that changes or is inconsistent with the withdrawal agreement”.

No 10 releases exchange of letters between May and Tusk/Juncker over backstop

The government has now published an exchange of letters between Theresa May and Donald Tusk, the European council president, and Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president, about the withdrawal agreement and the backstop.

The letter from May is here (pdf).

And the response from Tusk and Juncker is here (pdf).

Boris Johnson says people will blame 'deep state' if Brexit gets blocked

Boris Johnson, the Brexiter former foreign secretary, told LBC this morning that any move by parliament to frustrate Brexit would be seen by voters as a “betrayal” by the “deep state”. Speaking about what would happen if MPs tried to stop Brexit happening, he said:

I think that people will feel betrayed. And I think they will feel that there has been a great conspiracy by the deep state of the UK, the people who really run the country.

He also said MPs involved in these manoeuvres were “playing with fire”.

Asked what would happen if MPs voted down Theresa May’s deal, he replied:

I think the deal goes down. I think, possibly, some colleagues are being scared by this idea that there might be no Brexit as a result of voting it down. I think that’s nonsense.

Britain will leave in March, absolutely, and that’s the bottom line.

Boris Johnson
Boris Johnson Photograph: Brian Lawless/PA

How many no confidence motions can Jeremy Corbyn table?

A question from Antecedent BTL.

User avatar for Antecedent

Does anyone know -- if there is a Confidence Motion moved and it does not pass, is there any Parliamentary convention for how long it can be before another is considered? Or can Corbyn keep moving them as long as May keeps losing votes?

Before Christmas some people seemed to think that, if Jeremy Corbyn lost a confidence motion, he would not be able to table one for another year. That is not correct. (Someone seems to have got this muddled with the Conservative party rules for no confidence votes in the leader.) There is no limit on how many no confidence motions Corbyn can table. By convention, the government has to allow time for them to be debated. But convention also dictates that the opposition should not table them casually, and the advice from Commons officials is that, if Corbyn were to table a second one when nothing much had changed since the first vote, the government would be entitled in thinking there was no need to put it to a vote. Obviously, if, for example, the DUP, or a cohort of Tory MPs, were to declare that they had changed their position, that would justify a second vote.

On the subject of Welsh devolution and Brexit, the Welsh academic Richard Wyn Jones has posted a fascinating thread on Twitter saying that there was a lesson for Theresa May to learn from what happened in Wales after 1997, but that it is not the one flagged up in her speech. (See 10.25am.) It is about the importance of “losers’ consent”. The thread starts here and it sums up what is probably the key flaw in May’s approach to Brexit superbly (although whether “losers’ consent” was ever possible in the context of Brexit is debatable).

And here are some of his tweets.

(“They” are the Labour politicians at the time pushing devolution, led by the then Welsh secretary, Ron Davies.)

May accused of 'utter hypocrisy' after citing Welsh devolution as example of why referendum vote must be honoured

Downing Street released overnight some extracts from the speech Theresa May will give later this morning. Here are the highlights.

  • May will claim that, if her Brexit deal is rejected, no Brexit would be more likely than a no-deal Brexit. According to the briefing, May will say “that, based on the evidence of the last week, she now believes that MPs blocking Brexit is a more likely outcome than leaving with no deal.” This is an argument that Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, was making on Friday. In the past May has at times argued that the rejection of her deal could lead to either a no-deal Brexit or to no Brexit, and at other times argued that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March regardless. For her to effectively concede that parliament would block a no-deal Brexit (which is the implication of the briefing, although the direct quotes from her on this point have not yet been released) is significant.
  • She will say MPs have a duty to honour the referendum result, citing Welsh devolution as an example of how even narrow referendum wins must be honoured. She will say:

In June 2016, the British people were asked by MPs to take a decision: should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or should it leave?

In that campaign, both sides disagreed on many things, but on one thing they were united: what the British people decided, the politicians would implement.

In the run-up to the vote, the government sent a leaflet to every household making the case for remain. It stated very clearly: ‘This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.’

Those were the terms on which people cast their votes. If a majority had backed remain, the UK would have continued as an EU member state.

No doubt the disagreements would have continued too, but the vast majority of people would have had no truck with an argument that we should leave the EU in spite of a vote to remain or that we should return to the question in another referendum.

On the rare occasions when parliament puts a question to the British people directly we have always understood that their response carries a profound significance.

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned ...

Imagine if an anti-devolution House of Commons had said to the people of Scotland or Wales that despite voting in favour of a devolved legislature, parliament knew better and would over-rule them. Or else force them to vote again.

What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?

Unfortunately for May, there is a glaring problem with the Welsh devolution analogy; the Conservatives, and May herself, did for some time refuse to accept the result. Politico Europe’s Jack Blanchard sums up the full awfulness of this error in his London Playbook briefing.

As history student Joe Oliver pointed out in this Twitter thread last night, the Tories argued vehemently against the creation of the assembly following the Welsh referendum. And among the hundreds of Tory MPs voting against the Government Of Wales Bill in 1997 was, erm, the newly elected member for Maidenhead, Theresa May. Indeed, as the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush points out, as late as 2005 the Tories were promising a second referendum — a People’s Vote, if you will — on whether to scrap the Welsh assembly. Which is all a bit awkward for No. 10.

My colleague Peter Walker has more on this gaffe here.

The Labour MP Jo Stevens has accused May of “utter hypocrisy”.

Earlier I said that, if Theresa May loses the vote tomorrow by more than 100 votes, it will be the biggest government defeat for almost 100 years. I’ve taken that from this Prospect article by the academic Philip Cowley setting out various benchmarks that can be used to establish how serious tomorrow’s defeat (assuming May does lose) will be. Here is an excerpt.

If, as is occasionally claimed, the government is looking at a defeat of by more than 100 votes, that will be something that has only happened three times in the last hundred years. All took place during the Labour minority government of 1924, when the government suffered three defeats of 166, 161 and 140.

But Labour then held under 200 seats, governed only with the tacit support of the Liberals, and knew it could suffer heavy defeat at any point.

Fox claims no deal 'survivable' as May launches last-minute bid to rescue her deal

Any MP who has been in parliament for a while will have lived through the odd crisis or two, but there is no precedent in recent times for anything quite as momentous as this. It is not just that, if Theresa May loses the vote on the Brexit deal tomorrow by more than a 100 votes (a distinct possibility), that will amount to the biggest government defeat for almost 100 years. It is not just that this is an issue that has polarised the country, and split both main parties (although particularly the Conservatives). It is not just that parliamentary conventions are being upturned, and that one possible outcome could involve economic catastrophe (although some people say otherwise - see below). What makes this situation particularly remarkable is that no one is even pretending to be able to predict with confidence what will happen.

There is almost too much news. Here are the key developments overnight and early this morning.

I don’t regard no-deal as national suicide. This is not Dunkirk, this is leaving the European Union.

We need to find ways if there is no deal, of mitigating that. But the best way to do it is to accept the deal that the prime minister has negotiated. It gives us a way of leaving the European Union with minimum friction.

I think no-deal would damage our economy - I’ve been frank about that - but I think it’s survivable.

I think no Brexit, politically, is a disaster from which we might not recover.

But Grieve told the Today programme that Fox was wrong to dismiss his claim about a no-deal Brexit being “national suicide”. Grieve said:

It would be national suicide. It will lead to the break up of the UK for starters. That seems to me to be a pretty clear indication of a form of national suicide.

The economic damage which it will do to us will be immense, so that the most vulnerable in our society will be those who suffer most as a consequence.

If you are going to head to a position where you are going to have an 8% cut probably in your GDP - which is a major recession - it is those with least in our society who will suffer most. I’m not prepared to see that happening.

  • Fox said May had been offered “assurances” from the EU about the backstop. They are expected to be published later today, in the form of a letter to May. Fox said:

The prime minister will seek to make a statement in the House of Commons today outlining the assurances she had had from the European Union following discussions over the last few days and I hope my colleagues will listen to those and recognise the best way forward is to support the government’s agreement because it delivers on the referendum result and does so in a way that minimises the risks to our economy.

  • Three Conservative former ministers have revealed details of a bill to allow the Commons liaison committee to produce a Brexit plan if May cannot get hers through the Commons. Nick Boles explained on the Today programme how the scheme, also backed by Sir Oliver Letwin and Nicky Morgan, would work. They have produced a EU withdrawal number 2 bill, he said. He went on:

This bill would do the following: it would give the government three more weeks to get a compromise deal, a plan B, through parliament so that we are leaving the EU on time on March 29 with a deal. If that failed, it would then ask the liaison committee, which is the committee of all the chairs of select committees and other parliamentary committees, it would give the liaison committee the responsibility to try and come up with its own compromise deal, which would have to go back to the House for a vote. If the House passed that compromise deal, then the Government would be legally required to implement whatever it was that they had.

Asked if the plan represented a “coup” by MPs, Boles told Today:

It’s a funny kind of coup which requires a majority vote of democratically-elected MPs before the tanks start rolling. So, no, it isn’t a coup, it’s an expression of parliamentary will.

But this morning the plan has been criticised by Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP who chairs the liaison committee (even though Wollaston, like Boles, Letwin and Morgan, is strongly committed to avoiding a no-deal Brexit. She posted these on Twitter.

In the light of Wollaston’s comments, the Boles plan may already be doomed.

  • The Conservative MP Andrew Murrison is tabling an amendment to the motion that would approve the Brexit deal, “subject to a legal codicil being added to the withdrawal agreement treaty which specifies that the backstop solution shall expire on 31 December 2022,” BuzzFeed’s Alex Wickham reports. This is the sort of ploy that will appeal to some in government because, if it were passed by the Commons, it would amount to an ultimatum to the EU, which would then have to decide whether to produce this codicil to make the deal acceptable to parliament.
  • Twelve Conservative former ministers have written to Tory MPs urging them to vote against the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal. As the Sun reports, “the dozen, including Boris Johnson, demand in their plan B letter that the PM issue the EU with a final ultimatum for a better deal when hers is voted down on Tuesday – and then leave without one.”
  • John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has suggested that Labour does not welcome the Hilary Benn amendment to the motion tomorrow night. Benn’s amendment rejects May’s deal and says the UK should not leave the EU without a deal. This is Labour policy but, if it gets pushed to a vote, it would mean there would be no yes/no vote on May’s deal on its own and although the Benn amendment would probably pass, the government defeat would look smaller than otherwise because there are some Tory Brexiters who would oppose May’s deal but who would not vote for the Benn amendment (because they would accept a no-deal Brexit). Hinting that Labour would like Benn to withdraw his amendment, McDonnell said it was “perfectly sound” but that he preferred a “straight vote” on May’s Brexit deal.
  • The Labour MP Sir Kevin Barron has declared he will back May’s Brexit deal. Writing in the Times (paywall), he said it was the only option that “truly enacts the promises that I made to my constituents and avoids the horror of a no-deal Brexit”.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Mid morning: Theresa May gives a speech on Brexit. As Peter Walker and Dan Sabbagh report, she will tell MPs that voting down her proposals on Tuesday would destroy faith in politics, and could mean that Brexit does not happen.

11.30am: Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary, gives a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies on the UK after Brexit.

After 3.30pm: May gives a statement to MPs about 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, although today I will be focusing almost entirely on Brexit. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another after May’s statement finishes, 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

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
‘Top Gun 3’ Officially Confirmed for the Third Time at CinemaCon
This was known?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
I Saw The First 18 Minutes Of Mandalorian & Grogu, And It Answered One Popular Question Star Wars Fans Have Had
It's back!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
“I was already a fan, but after that I just had so much empathy for her and her humanity and of course her talent”: Anne Hathaway on what changed her opinion of Taylor Swift – and how she inspired her while playing a “dominant pop presence” in Mother Mary
The movie's soundtrack includes songs written by regular Swift collaborator Jack Antonoff and Charli XCX
MusicRadar
MusicRadar
Did Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco Break Up? Truth Behind Viral Instagram Story Fueling Divorce Speculation
A viral Instagram post has sparked speculation about Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco's relationship, but no verifiable evidence supports claims of a breakup or divorce.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
ER visits for tick bites hit the highest level in nearly a decade. Here’s what to do if you find one
Some 31 million Americans are bitten by ticks each year
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Utah man goes to Lowe’s parking lot. Then he sees a truck selling 20 ribeyes for $39.99. Are they a ‘scam?’
A Utah man saw a strange deal in the Lowe’s parking lot. Curious, he ended up buying in, only to realize later that “Primehouse Direct steaks” may not have been worth the price. 
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play