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: May defeated in Commons as MPs vote to limit Treasury's powers in no-deal scenario - as it happened

Yvette Cooper in the Commons on Monday evening
Yvette Cooper in the Commons on Monday evening. Photograph: Parliament TV

Closing summary

We’re going to close this live blog down now – at the end of another damaging day in the Commons for the prime minister. Here’s a summary of the latest events:

  • The prime minister suffered a humiliating defeat as 20 of her own MPs voted against the government over an amendment to the finance bill that will curb some of the government’s tax administration powers in the event of no deal. Their number included six former cabinet ministers and 11 former junior ministers.
  • May’s opponents said the defeat meant a no-deal Brexit was unworkable and that May should explicitly rule it out. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said the vote was an “important step to prevent a no deal Brexit”.
  • Three Labour MPs rebelled against their own party and sided with the government.

You can see a summary of the day’s earlier events here. Thanks for reading this live blog. For those who want more, the Guardian has set out its view on the process of exiting the European Union this evening:

The Lib Dems’ Brexit spokesman, Tom Brake, has a similar view to Lammy, insisting the prime minister must now rule out a no-deal Brexit:

The Conservative government’s defeat this evening shows Parliament’s rejection of a no-deal. This amendment goes some way to taking no deal off the table, but it is crucial it is removed as an option entirely.

Theresa May must stop gambling with our future. It is entirely within her power to take no deal off the table, however she is recklessly keeping it there as a scare tactic due to the lack of support for her deal.

The only real alternative to get us out of this mess is to legislate for a people’s vote, with the option to remain in the EU.

There were some rumours around earlier about an incident on the Parliamentary estate. The Metropolitan police have said the following:

At around 7.20pm on Tuesday, 8 January, a man was arrested on suspicion of trespassing on a protected site as he tried to gain entry to the Palace of Westminster via Carriage Gates. He has been taken to a police station. No officers were injured.

The incident is not being treated as terror-related.

A little more detail on those Tory rebels – from the Daily Telegraph’s chief political correspondent, Christopher Hope:

Labour’s David Lammy, who campaigns for the pro-remain Best for Britain group, says the prime minister’s Commons defeat means she must now rule out a no-deal Brexit.

No-deal would be catastrophic for the country and Theresa May’s fourth defeat in four weeks shows a majority in Parliament will do all it can to block it.

No-deal is now no option and the prime minister must rule it out. If the government is defeated again next week in the meaningful vote on her deal, the question of EU membership has to be handed back to the people. The government will have failed and the 2016 mandate will have expired.

Updated

The People’s Vote campaign has put out this statement about the result, from the Labour MP Ian Murray.

The threat of a no deal Brexit has cynically used by the government for many months as part of their campaign to bully and intimidate parliament into voting for a bad deal that would leave us worse off and offers less control.

Parliament has now asserted its authority and sovereignty and effectively exposed the threat of no deal as an empty one.

The real choice facing parliament and the country is now clear. We can leave the EU under the terms of some version of the prime minister’s bad deal or we can keep all our rights, powers, influence and op-outs in our current deal as full members of the EU.

Parliament remains gridlocked between these two choices, but, and as today has demonstrated, it can still act decisively. What it now must do is hand the decision back to the people.

That’s all from me for tonight.

My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is picking up the blog now.

Updated

My colleague Polly Toynbee wonders whether Theresa May might secretly be relieved by that defeat.

How MPs voted on no-deal amendment, party by party

And here are the figures showing how MPs voted on amendment 7, party by party. I’ve taken then from the very useful CommonsVotes app.

For the amendment

Labour: 229 (out of a potential 257 MPs)

SNP: 35 (out of 35)

Conservatives: 20 (out of 317)

Lib Dems: 11 (out of 11)

Plaid Cymru: 4 (out of 4)

Independents: 3 (out of 7)

Greens: 1 (out of 1)

Against the amendment

Conservatives: 282 (out of a potential 317 MPs)

DUP: 10 (out of 10)

Labour: 3 (out of 257)

Independent: 1 (out of 7)

You can find a full voting list here.

The 3 Labour MPs who rebelled by voting with government on no-deal amendment

And here are the three Labour MPs who voted with the government against amendment 7.

Ronnie Campbell

Kate Hoey

Graham Stringer

The 20 Tory MPs who rebelled on the no-deal amendment

Here is the full list of Conservative MP who voted for amendment 7 - the no-deal amendment tabled by Yvette Cooper.

Heidi Allen

Guto Bebb

Richard Benyon

Nick Boles

Ken Clarke

Jonathan Djanogly

Sir Michael Fallon

George Freeman

Justine Greening

Dominic Grieve

Sam Gyimah

Phillip Lee

Sir Oliver Letwin

Nicky Morgan

Bob Neill

Antoinette Sandbach

Sir Nicholas Soames

Anna Soubry

Ed Vaizey

Sarah Wollaston

These are from the Times’ Henry Zeffman.

After the vote Jesse Norman, a transport minister, rose on a point of order. Referring to Sir Vince Cable’s comment earlier about the possibility of part of the M3 being closed in the event of a no-deal Brexit (see 6.26pm), Norman said that Cable was wrong and that there were no plans to do this.

The Tory MP Marcus Jones also rises to make a point of order. He says his name has been wrongly included on a letter signed by MPs who say they would vote against a no-deal Brexit.

The result of the third vote in this group of amendments has been announced. It was on an amendment tabled by the Labour MP Chris Leslie, saying some powers in the finance bill should not be used without there being a vote in the Commons. It was defeated by 303 votes to 292 - a majority of 11.

Here is Sky’s Faisal Islam on the significance of the vote.

Here is Labour’s Yvette Cooper on her victory in the vote.

This is from the Press Association’s Alain Tolhurst.

Corbyn says government defeat will help prevent no-deal Brexit and urges May to rule one out for good

Jeremy Corbyn has welcomed the result and, in a statement, urged Theresa May to now rule out a no-deal Brexit. He says:

This vote is an important step to prevent a no deal Brexit.

It shows that there is no majority in parliament, the cabinet or the country for crashing out of the EU without an agreement. That is why we are taking every opportunity possible in parliament to prevent no deal.

Theresa May must now rule out no deal once and for all.

May defeated on Brexit as MPs vote to limit Treasury's powers in no-deal scenario

Theresa May has lost. The amendment was passed by 303 votes to 296 - a majority of seven.

Here is an extract from Sir Oliver Letwin’s speech earlier. (See 6.02pm and 6.08pm.)

I have been in awesome detail through the papers produced. I have listened to the briefing for the privy council. I have consulted senior officials across Whitehall. I know that the RAG ratings of green and yellow and red mean. I know that it is actually to have prepared for dealing with the gas interconnectors, the electricity interconnectors, the many other details that are of concern.

Now, some of my honourable friends, and some others in the country, believe that they can be sure that under circumstances where they wreck the deal, we refuse to make all payments to the EU that are expected, we falsify their expectations of a reasonable departure, that they will then very reasonably set out to work with us in a calm and grown-up way to ensure a smooth departure.

It may be so. I’m in no position to deny that it will be so. I don’t make lurid predictions. Anybody who believes they know it will be so is, I think, deluded.

You can watch the full speech here.

Updated

The government has won the first vote, on the Labour amendment (see 6.29pm), by 314 votes to 292 - a majority of 22.

MPs are now voting on the no-deal amendment.

MPs are now voting.

But the first vote is on new clause 3, a Labour amendment calling for a review of the economic impact of the clause 89 no-deal powers in the bill to be carried out before they can be used.

The vote on amendment 7 will probably come next.

Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, says his own “more brutal” amendment on this, which would have limited the ability of the Treasury to levy income tax in the event of a no-deal Brexit, was not called. But he backs amendment 7, he says.

He mentions his visit to Portsmouth this morning. (See 3.34pm.) He says the police told him that a stretch of the M3 between Winchester and Basingstoke would have to be closed in the event of a no-deal Brexit to create space for lorries held up by delays at the port.

Ken Clarke, the Tory former chancellor, also intervenes. He asks Jenrick if the Treasury has an assessment of how much it will lose in tax revenues in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Jenrick says the government is planning for all eventualities, but he won’t go into details of the tax impact.

Jenrick says, if there is no deal, the UK will leave the EU on 29 March without one.

That is what MPs voted for when they backed the article 50 bill.

Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative who has backed amendment 7, asks Jenrick if going ahead with a no-deal Brexit will be the government’s policy if it loses the vote next week.

Jenrick says he is just explaining the position.

All this amendment would achieve would be to make make the government “somewhat less prepared” for a no-deal Brexit if it were passed, he says.

Sir Oliver Letwin intervenes. He says Jenrick is right to say a no-deal Brexit would happen by default under the law. But MPs have the power to change the law, he says.

Robert Jenrick, a Treasury minister, is winding up for the government now.

He says it is neither the government’s “preference or expectation” that it will leave the EU without a deal.

But it has to prepare for all eventualities, he says.

He says the finance bill gives the government the power to make minor amendments to tax law in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Nick Boles, another Conservative supporter of amendment 7, is speaking now.

He says he will join Letwin in saying he will vote for any amendment, to any legislation, proposed by anyone, to ensure that the UK either leaves the EU on 29 March with a deal or not at all.

Oliver Letwin has now finished. As he spoke, at times he seemed almost tearful. Whether that was prompted by the prospect of having to vote against his own government, or just his horror as he contemplated a no deal Brexit, was not clear. But it was a highly effective and memorable speech. Letwin is reputed to be one of the cleverest people in the Commons, he is the ultimate policy wonk, and having looked in detail at the implications of a no-deal Brexit, he appears to be petrified.

Former Tory cabinet minister urges MPs to keep backing amendments opposing no-deal Brexit

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister, is speaking now.

He is sitting alongside Sir Nicholas Soames. He says between them they have been in the Commons for 56 years. Between them, they have only voted against the government once, he says.

But they are both backing the amendment.

He says the amendment will not have a significant impact on what the government can do. But it will set a precedent. It will shows how MPs can attach amendments to other pieces of government legislation stopping powers being exercised in a no-deal situation. And he goes further.

It is my proposal that we should indeed do that.

  • Oliver Letwin says MPs should attach no-deal amendments like this more government bills.

He says for five years as a minister he was in charge of resilience on government. He says two years ago he argued that the government should seriously prepare for a no-deal Brexit. But that was not done, he says.

He says he has been through the briefings in “awesome detail”. He has attended the privy council briefings.

  • Letwin says the government ignored his call two years ago for it to prepare properly for a no-deal Brexit.

He knows exactly what the problems are with things like gas connectors, he says.

He says some people assume that, if the UK goes for no-deal, the EU will then cooperate on managing a no-deal Brexit.

That may be so, he says. But nobody can know that it will be the case, he says.

  • Letwin mocks claims that the EU would definitely want to cooperate with the UK to mitigate the risks of a no-deal Brexit.

He says it would not be acceptable to submit the country to that.

He says he will vote for amendment 7 tonight. And he will go on voting for amendments like this if necessary until March 29.

UPDATE:

Updated

Cooper says this amendment will not lead the Commons to the best way forward. But it will allow them to rule out the worst way forward, she says.

Cooper says some people argue that the threat of a no-deal could persuade MPs to back Theresa May’s deal. But that is irresponsible, she says.

This is too serious for us to play a massive game of Brexit chicken. The country cannot afford to wait to see who blinks first.

So I hope ministers, as has been rumoured, will accept this amendment and I hope they will accept the principle behind it that either the government should get agreement on a deal before March 29, or get explicit agreement to no deal before March 29.

Or if that fails, commit to seeking an extension to Article 50 so there is time to sort things out.

Updated

John Bercow, the speaker, urges Cooper to wind up. He says he needs to call at least four more MPs, and there are only 31 minutes left before the vote, he says.

Sir John Redwood, the Tory Brexiter, intervenes. He says under a no-deal Brexit the UK could set zero tariffs. That would make things cheaper for consumers.

Cooper says she does not see how that would help the UK secure good trade deals. But conceding zero tariffs, it would have given up its negotiating leverage, she says.

She says, under a no-deal Brexit, the police would lose powers to arrest and extradite foreigners.

John Baron, a Conservative Brexiter, says there were predictions about unemployment soaring if the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. They did not materialise. So why should MPs believe what Cooper is saying about the impact of a no-deal Brexit?

Cooper says she is not talking about macro-economic forecasts. She says she is quoting what actual manufacturers have told her about how they would be affected by a no-deal Brexit.

MPs have a duty not to make life harder for manufacturers and consumers, she says.

Crispin Blunt, a Conservative, intervenes. He says Cooper cited Nestle. But Nestle is a Swiss company, and an agreement has been reached with the Swiss saying trade could continue after Brexit.

Cooper says people like Blunt displayed the same “cheery optimism” about the prospect of getting a good deal. But that did happen, she says.

Marcus Fysh, a Tory Brexiter, asks Cooper what her amendment will achieve. He says he does not see how it will stop a no-deal Brexit.

Cooper says what her amendment does is provide a parliamentary safeguard.

This amendment provides a parliamentary safeguard, so this amendment doesn’t in itself actually solve any of the many Brexit issues that we’ve got, but what it does is it provides an additional parliamentary safeguard that says the government cannot use the powers in clause 89 to implement no deal without coming back to parliament to ask permission and support for no deal first.

She addresses some objections to her amendment.

People say it might stop the government functioning. But it would only stop the government using clause 89 powers under the finance bill in the event of a no-deal Brexit. And, if the government wanted to use those powers, it could - provided it got MPs to vote for a no-deal Brexit.

People say a no-deal Brexit would be acceptable, she says. But she rejects that argument. She says one factory told her the cost of their imports would double under a no-deal Brexit. Another told her it would have to move production to the continent.

Updated

Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the home affairs committee and the person who tabled amendment 7, is speaking now.

She says MPs should rule out a no-deal Brexit, because that would be the worst way forward.

I’ve laid this amendment because I am really worried that delays, drift or brinkmanship mean that there is now a serious risk we will end up crashing out of the EU with no deal in just 80 days’ time and I’m worried that we could come to the crunch and parliament wouldn’t have the powers to stop it happening.

And I think we have a responsibility not to just stand by. I believe the government should rule out no deal, but I think if it won’t then parliament must make sure that it has the powers to do so if it comes to the crunch.

Charlie Elphicke, a Conservative, asks Cooper if he will support Theresa May’s deal to avoid a no deal.

Cooper says she will vote against it. She explained why in her speech in the debate in December, she says. She says the deal amounts to a blindfold Brexit.

Yvette Cooper
Yvette Cooper Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Morgan says a no-deal Brexit would be a very bad deal. She says MPs should make it clear to the government that a no-deal Brexit is totally unacceptable.

Many of the MPs who have signed the amendment are select committee chairs, she says.

She says her own committee has investigated this. A no-deal Brexit would reduce GDP by 7.7%. That would be worse than what happened during the financial crisis, she says.

The 10 Tory MPs backing the no-deal amendment

Nicky Morgan, the Conservative chair of the Treasury committee, is speaking now. She and Labour’s Yvette Cooper are the lead signatories of amendment 7.

There are 10 Conservatives in total who have signed the amendment. The others are: Sir Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles, Jonathan Djanogly, Ed Vaizey, Heidi Allen, Sarah Wollaston, George Freeman, Sir Nicholas Soames and Dominic Grieve.

Theresa May is facing defeat because, even with the DUP voting with the government, she only has a majority of around 13. If all 10 Tories who have signed the amendment actually vote for it, and all the opposition parties join them, then that should be enough to ensure a government defeat.

(But it doesn’t always work like that, which is why at this point it is not yet clear what will happen.)

Jonathan Reynolds, a shadow Treasury minister, is opening the debate. Amendment 7 is not an official Labour amendment, but Labour is supporting it. Reynolds says the opposition is doing so because it thinks a no-deal Brexit should not be seen as an acceptable option.

To leave the EU having not secured a deal - essentially an acrimonious departure - would damage our relationship with our most important trading partner for years to come and, as well as that, fundamentally undermine our credibility on the world stage.

I cannot think how any serious-minded member of this House would understand that that would not be something of severe consequence in the history of the UK.

Therefore, I believe, that’s why it’s so important this House makes a clear statement today on the dangers of a no deal.

He says there have been rumours that the government might accept the amendment. [There were this morning, but government sources are now saying Tory MPs will be told to vote against. See 1.21pm.)

If the government were to accept the amendment, he says, that would be worrying because it would show the government has no strategy apart from trying to survive.

Updated

You can read all the amendments to the finance bill here (pdf).

The Cooper/Morgan no-deal amendment, amendment 7, is (conveniently) on page 7.

Here is the “explanatory statement” saying what it would achieve.

This amendment would prevent the government implementing the “no deal” provisions of clause 89 without the explicit consent of parliament for such an outcome. It would provide three options for the provisions of clause 89 to come into force: if the House of Commons has approved a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for the future relationship; if the government has sought an extension of the article 50 period; or the House of Commons has approved leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement and framework for the future relationship.

MPs debate no-deal amendment to finance bill

MPs are now starting the debate on the no-deal amendment to the finance bill. (See 9.11am.) It is being debated along with various other amendments during a report stage devoted to amendments related to Brexit. Under the terms of the programme motion, this section of the debate has to end at around 6.20pm, when the votes will take place.

The government will oppose the amendment although Downing Street has suggested that it won’t matter too much if it loses. (See 2.36pm.)

Others, of course, may take a different view. In truth, any whip who’s honest will tell you that there’s no such thing as defeat on legislation that does not matter. If the government loses tonight, that will be seen as clear evidence that the Commons will do what it can to stop Theresa May taking the UK out of the EU without a Brexit deal.

At one point it was thought that Brexit would encourage other countries to leave the EU. Michael Gove, who is now environment secretary, even implied as much in a prominent speech in 2016, saying Brexit could lead to “the democratic liberation of a whole continent”.

In fact, it may be having the opposite effect. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform and one of the most informed EU-watchers, has posted an interesting Twitter thread on lessons learnt from the Brexit process so far. It starts here.

And here is is conclusion.

These are from ITV’s Robert Peston on today’s cabinet.

Theresa May is meeting some of the MPs who have signed a cross-party letter urging her to rule out a no-deal Brexit later this afternoon, the Times’ Sam Coates reports.

Brendan Cox, whose Labour MP wife Jo was murdered by a far-right terrorist shortly before the EU referendum in 2016, has written an article for the Guardian saying what happened to her should not cited as a reason why MPs should be silenced.

Here is an excerpt.

Terrorism only succeeds when we let it. To act differently because of the actions of an extremist would be to vindicate their act. To say that politics can be shaped by violence.

I don’t care what you think about Brexit – whether you support no‑deal, another referendum, the prime minister’s deal – but whatever you back do it because you deeply believe in it. And please do not use Jo’s name as a threat.

If Jo’s name is to become a synonym for anything, it should be for her kindness, generosity, optimism and her fundamental belief that we have more in common than that which divides us. That’s what sums her up, that captures who she was and the spirit we’ll need more than ever when the current political decisions have played out.

And here’s the full article.

The DUP are planning to vote with the government against the Cooper/Morgan no-deal amendment to the finance bill, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.

The Home Office has doubled the charge for migrants to use the NHS, Sky reports. The standard immigration health surcharge (IHS) will today double from £200 to £400, it says.

Since I’ve posted some copy about warnings about what might happen to Portsmouth in the event of a no-deal Brexit (see 3.34pm), Andy Fidler in the comments BTL suggests that, in fairness, I should flag up this story about Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, saying Southampton could benefit from a trade bonanza after Brexit. It’s in the Southampton Daily Echo.

HuffPost’s Arj Singh says a cross-party group of MPs wants to amend the business motion for the Brexit debate starting tomorrow so that the vote is hold on Thursday. Here’s an extract from his story.

The group, led by Labour’s Chris Bryant and Conservative Dominic Grieve, are planning amendments to force a vote on Thursday, to block May from delaying it again, and to force her to return to the Commons within three days of her deal being rejected, as is expected, rather than the three weeks currently set out.

It is the latest move in a campaign of what sources called “guerilla warfare” designed to stop a “catastrophic” no-deal Brexit, following Yvette Cooper and Nicky Morgan’s move to change the finance bill on Tuesday to make such an outcome more difficult for the government.

However, MPs fear the government may try and duck the battle by putting down an un-amendable business motion for the Brexit debate, which begins on Wednesday. Downing Street has said the motion would be tabled by “close of play” on Tuesday.

Tobias Ellwood, the defence minister, told the World at One that he was worried a clash between protesters outside the Houses of Parliament could escalate into something much more serious. He said:

It is orchestrated intimidation that is playing out under the very shadow of Parliament which is such an iconic symbol of democracy.

My concern is not just what has been expressed today, but ... that a minor clash could escalate into something far more serious and that would all [be] played out in front of the world’s media.

Anti-Brexit protester Steve Bray (left) and a pro-Brexit protester arguing as they demonstrate outside the Houses of Parliament today.
Anti-Brexit protester Steve Bray (left) and a pro-Brexit protester arguing as they demonstrate outside the Houses of Parliament today. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Council bosses have been warned that a 20-mile stretch of motorway could be closed to cope with backed-up lorries at Portsmouth’s ferry port in the case of a no-deal Brexit, the Press Association reports. The “worst-case scenario” was revealed to Sir Vince Cable, leader of the Liberal Democrats, as he visited Portsmouth International Port to learn of preparations for the UK’s departure from the European Union.

As the Press Association reports, the Hampshire port currently handles 500 lorries a day, but this is set to at least double in the case of a no-deal as it is set to relieve some of the burden faced by Dover. Port director Mike Sellers said the distance from the freight gates to the motorway network was only 13 lorry lengths, and the introduction of any delays to processing vehicles on to ferries could lead to lorries backing up on to the motorways. He warned this could cause major traffic problems for the city, including the naval base and hospitals. He said:

Portsmouth is seen as one of the high-risk ports that could be impacted from the no-deal and we want to be Brexit-ready even in a no-deal.

There is an awful lot of infrastructure that needs to be put in place, and the cost, and whether that will be in place by the end of March is another question, and who is going to pay for it.

If the M275 motorway is blocked with lorries, this is the main route into the city, it does impact on people getting in and out of the city, this is a naval port as well, you have the Royal Navy, people getting into work, the hospitals, it would very quickly impact on the whole of the Portsmouth city area.

Sir Vince Cable (centre) at a briefing with Portsmouth International Port director Mike Sellers (left) and the leader of Portsmouth city council Gerald Vernon-Jackson.
Sir Vince Cable (centre) at a briefing with Portsmouth International Port director Mike Sellers (left) and the leader of Portsmouth city council Gerald Vernon-Jackson. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images

Updated

UK 'in complete denial' about likely need to extend article 50, EU source claims

An EU source has rejected reports that British officials are putting out the feelers for an extension of article 50. An official said:

We are really not getting any signals that they are considering an extension.

I would describe them more in complete denial about the likelihood of an extension and that matters, because if the UK is in denial about extension, it is not going to ask for one.

The EU’s 27 countries would have to agree unanimously on an extension of Brexit talks, but will only consider the question if the UK requests more time under article 50.

The Telegraph’s Steven Swinford has more on how the Brexit debate will be structured.

In the Commons Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, has just finished responding to an urgent question about his decision to award a no-deal planning contract to Seaborne Freight, a firm that has no ferries. Andy McDonald, the shadow transport secretary, condemned the decision. He told MPs:

This is a shoddy and tawdry affair and the secretary of state is making a complete mess of it. This contract is very likely unlawful and violates every current best practice guidance issued by Whitehall.

When will he realise that this country cannot continue to suffer the consequences of his gross incompetence, why is this calamitous secretary of state still in post?

In response, Grayling accused McDonald of “idiocy”. He went on:

This government has let a contract for which we will pay no money until and unless ferries are running, that is responsible stewardship of public money.

Earlier I said the vote on the Cooper/Morgan no-deal amendment to the finance bill would take place after 7pm. (See 1.21pm.) Sorry, that’s a mistake. Instead it should be between 6pm and 7pm.

Downing Street lobby briefing - Summary

Here are the main points from the Number 10 lobby briefing.

  • Theresa May will not open the Brexit debate when it starts tomorrow, the prime minister’s spokesman revealed. Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, will open the debate and May will close it, meaning that she will be the final speaker before MPs vote early on Tuesday evening. But the spokesman would not give further details about the procedure for the debate (in particular, whether MPs will be debating a new motion, or just resuming the debate started in December), saying this would be set out in the business motion (which will be laid tonight).
  • The spokesman refused to say when the government would update MPs on the fresh assurances about the withdrawal agreement it is seeking. “In terms of the assurances that we are seeking from the EU, that work is ongoing,” he said. But he suggested that MPs would get details before the PM winds up on Tuesday, so that they can be discussed during the debate.
  • The spokesman insisted that government officials have not been asking the EU about the possibility of extending article 50. He suggested that today’s Telegraph story saying that they have been “putting out feelers” on this could be based on what EU officials think might happen. (Adam Fleming, the BBC’s Brussels reporter, was interesting on this topic on the World at One. He said that, while in London it is assumed that, if there is no deal, the default would be for the UK to leave the EU with no deal, in Brussels it is assumed that the default would be for article 50 to be extended.)
  • The spokesman said that the main focus at today’s cabinet was on how the government might win the vote next week. But he refused to say whether there was an discussion about what might happen if the government loses.
  • The spokesman refused to rule out the UK leaving the EU with no deal. But he stressed that this is not what May wants. She “believes it is in the best interests of the UK to leave with a deal”, he said.
  • The spokesman dismissed David Davis’s claim that the EU would be willing to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement if pushed. (See 11.36am.) Asked about Davis’s comments, the spokesman suggested that what Davis was saying was not consistent with “the public statements that the EU have made on that matter”.
  • The spokesman said the government was opposed to the Cooper/Morgan amendment to the finance bill (see 9.11am) but that, if passed, it would not cause significant difficulties for the government. Asked about it, he said:

The amendment is not desirable. The effect of the amendment on no-deal preparations would be inconvenience, rather than anything more significant.

He said, if passed, all the amendment would achieve would be to stop the government making minor changes to tax law in the event of a no-deal Brexit (unless one of three conditions was met - see 9.11am). For example, it might stop the government replacing a reference to the EEA with a reference to the UK in tax legislation. The amendment would not prevent the government from preventing tax, he said.

  • At cabinet May condemned the harassment suffered by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry as she was being interviewed outside parliament, the spokesman said. He said May told colleagues that “this is not how debate should be conducted in our country”.
  • Sajid Javid, the home secretary, told cabinet that the government should uphold the principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first country they reach, the spokesman said.
10 Downing Street.
10 Downing Street. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

Updated

Policing outside parliament to be 'enhanced' ahead of Brexit vote, Met says

Speaking outside Scotland Yard, Laurence Taylor, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, said that officers would be expected to intervene if protesters tried to stop MPs going about their daily routines. Asked if the Met would take specific action over John Bercow’s concerns about the safety of MPs outside parliament, Taylor said:

It’s one of the allegations that we are assessing at the moment to determine whether any criminal activity has taken place.

We’ve given a very clear direction to our officers on the ground that if they witness criminal behaviour then there is an expectation that an arrest will be made.

And also if they witness any behaviour that is intimidating, or to an extent that it is obstructing somebody going about their normal daily routines, then we would expect an intervention to be made according to what’s happening at the time.

Taylor said the policing operation near Parliament would be “enhanced” in the run-up to the Brexit vote next week. He went on:

From a policing perspective, policing Brexit is always going to be very challenging. It’s a very contentious issue, and it’s going to bring out people with opposing views.

Obviously politicians are part of those arguments, and our role as a police service is to make sure that people are able to voice those views in an appropriate manner without causing stress or criminal behaviour.

We’ve reviewed our policing plan on the back of incidents yesterday. You will see a visible policing presence (near parliament). We’ve had a policing presence there for a number of months with ongoing protest.

We recognise the challenges there at the moment and certainly leading up to the vote next week we will be enhancing the policing presence and we will ensure that we have appropriate measures in place to attempt as far as possible to reassure people that they can go about their lives without fear of harassment or alarm.

Greg Clark says no-deal Brexit 'should not be contemplated'

Greg Clark, the business secretary, told MPs during business questions earlier that a no-deal Brexit “should not be contemplated”. He said:

I’ve always been very clear, representing the views of small business and large business, that no deal should not be contemplated.

Conservative MPs are being told to vote against the Cooper/Morgan amendment to the finance bill intended to make implementing a no-deal Brexit harder (see 9.31am), my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.

But, as Jessica points out, at the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman made it clear that the government won’t regard it as the end of the world if it loses the vote. I will post more on that, and what else was said at the briefing, shortly.

UPDATE: The vote should take place between 6pm and 7pm. Earlier I said it would be after 7pm, but I misread the timetable.

Updated

Bercow says abuse of MPs outside Commons by pro-Brexit campaigners 'a type of fascism'

In the Commons, when the Labour MP Stephen Doughty asked about the “racist” abuse being directed at people by pro-Brexit campaigners outside the Houses of Parliament, John Bercow, the speaker, described this behavour as “a type of fascism”. He said:

It’s a type of fascism. Let’s be quite clear about that, it’s a type of fascism.

Women and ethnic minority citizens in particular are being targeted.

I don’t say that they’re the only people on the receiving end of this completely unacceptable behaviour but they have been and are being deliberately and disproportionately targeted.

That is not acceptable and we have to ensure that something is done about it.

John Bercow
John Bercow Photograph: House of Commons/PA

Bercow tells Met treatment of MPs by protesters outside Commons 'intolerable'

Here is an extract from the letter John Bercow, the Commons speaker, has written to the Metropolitan police about campaigners intimidating MPs outside parliament. (See 12.52pm.)

I would like to ask for your help in addressing, as a matter of urgency, a number of incidents of aggressive, threatening and intimidating behaviour towards MPs and journalists in the vicinity of Abingdon Green.

The issue was raised with me in the House of Commons yesterday by colleagues who are concerned for their personal safety when they go to and return from media interviews. I am also adding my support to the growing call for police action by at least 60 members, who I believe have already submitted letters to you on this matter.

It is frankly intolerable if members of parliament and journalists cannot go about their lawful business without being ritually insulted, abused, intimidated, threatened and harassed.

There seems to be a pattern here of a regular coterie of burly white men who are effectively targeting and denouncing members whom they recognise and dislike - most notably female and those from ethnic minority backgrounds.

One report I have is of a member being surrounded by individuals who hurled abuse at her as she walked back to parliament. I have also been warned that school children visiting the estate are at risk of witnessing these toxic attacks.

Naturally I recognise that you and your officers have a difficult job striking the balance between allowing peaceful protests and intervening when things turn sour. There is of course a right to protest and that is important. However, it’s one thing demonstrating from a distance with placards, or calling out slogans - and another, where the protester invades the personal space of a member, subjects him or her to a tirade of menacing, racist, sexist and misogynistic abuse, and follows them back to their place of work.

I politely suggest that the present situation is not only intolerable but untenable. Matters cannot stand as they do today. A change in policy is required. I would therefore ask you and your officers to do your utmost to increase security for members, journalists and visitors to the parliamentary estate, and ensure there is safe access to and from Abingdon Green.

Bercow says he has written to Met asking police to tackle campaigners intimidating MPs outside parliament

In the Commons John Bercow, the speaker, has just told MPs that he has written to Metropolitan police commissioner Cressida Dick asking for help to tackle “aggressive, threatening and intimidating behaviour” against MPs and journalists outside parliament.

I’m just back from the Number 10 lobby briefing. The highlight came when the prime minister’s spokesman was asked about these tweets from the Times’ Sam Coates.

“I suspect the [cabinet] minute will not reflect that,” said the spokesman, when asked about Michael Gove’s alleged “swingers” analogy. But the spokesman did not dispute Coates’s report of what was said.

(Reminder: these people actually run the country.)

Here are more of Coates’ tweets.

Scarlett Johansson - an unlikely subject of discussion at this week’s cabinet, where Michael Gove (clearly an admirer) used her as an analogy for an ideal Brexit
Scarlett Johansson - an unlikely subject of discussion at this week’s cabinet, where Michael Gove (clearly an admirer) used her as an analogy for an ideal Brexit Photograph: Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP

Updated

Alex Salmond has won his legal challenge against the Scottish government’s investigation into claims he sexually harassed two women, after the government admitted its processes were unlawful, my colleague Severin Carrell reports.

I’m off to the lobby briefing now. I will post again after 12.30pm.

David Davis claims EU would be willing to renegotiate withdrawal agreement

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, was interviewed on the Today programme this morning. He is the one who resigned over the Chequers Brexit plan in the summer, remember, not the one who resigned over the actual withdrawal agreement (Dominic Raab). Davis got the main 8.10 slot on the programme, outranking the current Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, who was on a bit earlier.

Here are the main points.

  • Davis claimed that the EU would be willing to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. He said:

[The claim that the deal on the table is the only deal available] will not prove to be true. The government is running out the clock, but actually now there are already signs - the taoiseach’s comments [see 9.48am] being one of them - that the European Union knows it needs a deal, and it will come back ...

What is going on at the moment is they’re testing the mettle of the British government ... The simple truth is that they will hold fast to the line - this is the traditional approach of the European commission, the European Union - until the last possible minute. And then, if we hold fast to our line, then they will actually come back and renegotiate.

Davis also claimed that today’s Telegraph story, saying EU sources are saying British officials have been “putting out feelers” about extending article 50 (a story played down by the Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay, but not categorically denied) confirmed his theory. He said:

What actually is going on is that the Europeans are thinking about the next stage. And the next stage is another round of negotiations. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. That [Telegraph] headline does not make sense.

Asked what the EU would offer in a future negotiation, Davis said: “It will be what we demand.” Those demands would included legal assurances on the backstop, and some undertaking on free trade, he said.

Davis could theoretically be right, although a very large number of senior EU figures have said, repeatedly and categorically, that they are not willing to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. Nathalie Loiseau, the French Europe minister, said that again only this morning. (See 10.30am.) And, as my colleague Lisa O’Carroll reports, Ireland’s deputy prime minister Simon Coveney has said that Brexiters like Davis are guilty of “wishful thinking” if they think the EU is willing to make new compromises.

  • Davis claimed the British press was ignoring all the work being done on the continent to make a no-deal Brexit manageable. He said:

The French are moving heaven and earth. They have found places outside Calais to have their inspection regimes. The head of French customs has said they are going to facilitate and accelerate through-put. Indeed, other ports are saying the same; Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, Rotterdam, all saying the same. And they are taking on thousands of people.

When it was put to him that a no-deal Brexit would inevitably cause delays at the ports, he replied:

That is why the French are taking all the action they’re taking. This does not get reported in the British press, but they are taking loads of actions to ensure that it’s dealt with quickly.

He also said that French lorry drivers had blockaded ports before, without the British economy grinding to a halt.

Denis MacShane, the former Labour Europe minister and a fervent pro-European, claimed later that Davis was talking “nonsense”.

  • Davis rejected government claims that, even if the UK left the EU without a deal, it would still have to pay most of the £39bn it has agreed to hand over. When this was put to him, he said:

No, no. That’s a false assertion, I’m afraid ... The best guideline on this is the constitutional committee of the House of Lords right back at the beginning of this process who looked at all [arguments] ... they said, ‘No, this is a matter of negotiation’.

Davis was actually referring to a report from the Lords European Union committee (pdf) published in 2017 which concluded:

Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all.

But Geoffrey Cox, the Brexiter attorney general, challenged this when asked about it in the Commons in December. He said:

The view of the government, and my view, is that we would have obligations to pay a certain amount of money were we to leave the European Union without a deal. The House of Lords European Union committee concluded that there would be no obligation under EU law. That is a stronger argument—not necessarily an incontestable one—as to our obligations under EU law, but the committee also concluded that we might have obligations under public international law, and with that I agree. There is an argument that we would not have an obligation under public international law, but it is an argument unlikely to be accepted by any international tribunal.

My view is therefore that we would owe a presently unquantifiable sum were we to leave the European Union without a deal. It is impossible at this stage to say how much. It is true that the European Union is not a member state and is not a state, and therefore it is unable to take the case to the international court of justice. It might therefore be difficult to enforce the public international law obligation that existed. However, I ask the House to reflect on the fact that if this country, acknowledging that such obligations probably exist or do exist, did not pay them, it would be likely to cause the deepest resentment, just as it would to any of us who were unpaid a debt. If we leave a club, we pay the bar bill. If we do not pay the bill, we are not likely to get a lot of consideration from the other side.

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary. Photograph: Henry Nicholls/Reuters

Today the government is launching a radio advertising campaign intended to give people information they might need in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But the government does not seem to be very keen on publicising its own publicity drive, according to the BBC’s Norman Smith and the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope.

'There is nothing more we can do' - French Europe minister rules out EU offering UK changes to deal

Nathalie Loiseau, the French Europe minister, told reporters this morning as she arrived at the EU’s general affairs council that the Brexit withdrawal agreement will not be renegotiated. Asked how the EU could prove to British MPs that it does not want to use the backstop, she said:

We have said it repeatedly. The president said it at the end of the previous European council. Indeed, we all want to have a fruitful, profitable relationship with the United Kingdom in the future. So the backstop is just a last resort solution.

Asked if that meant no new reassurances would be offered, she said:

These are political assurances. But there is nothing more we can do. The withdrawal agreement is indeed a good agreement, both for the UK and the European Union. We should stick to it.

Asked about extending article 50, she says she did not want to discuss “hypotheticals”. But she said the prospect of raising it had not been raised with France.

Nathalie Loiseau, the French Europe minister.
Nathalie Loiseau, the French Europe minister. Photograph: EU

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, was also on Sky this morning. In that interview he claimed that some Tory MPs were now “much more open” to supporting Theresa May’s Brexit deal.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, has been giving media interviews this morning. As my colleague Rajeev Syal reports, he dismissed reports that the government is contemplating asking the EU if it can extend article 50.

As PoliticsHome reports, Barclay also angered anti-Brexit MPs by arguing that the intimidation of Anna Soubry by pro-Brexit campaigners outside the House of Commons showed why a second referendum would be a bad idea.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, arriving for cabinet this morning with Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, arriving for cabinet this morning with Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Varadkar says EU willing to give UK new 'written guarantees' about Brexit deal

Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, has said the EU is willing to give written assurances about the withdrawal agreement ahead of next week’s vote at Westminster. Speaking to reporters during a trip to Mali, the taoiseach said:

The summit conclusions at our last meeting in December provided written assurances, but what’s happening at the moment is there is close contact between the UK and EU institutions as to whether a further set of written guarantees, explanations and assurances could make a difference.

Our intent, once the withdrawal agreement has been ratified by Westminster and the European Parliament, is to get into talks on the future relationship on the new economic and trade treaty with Britain, on the new security partnership with Britain.

We don’t want to trap the UK into anything - we want to get on to the talks about the future relationship right away.

I think it’s those kind of assurances we are happy to give.

The EU has repeatedly said that any assurances of this kind would not amount to a renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement. Instead, they would take the form of a clarification.

But Varadkar also said he could not satisfy the DUP or Brexiters. He said:

It’s impossible for me to speak on behalf of the DUP or on behalf of the Brexiteers.

I can’t say what would or would not satisfy them. What I can say is that Ireland set out its objectives from day one. We regret the UK is leaving the EU, but they are.

Leo Varadkar
Leo Varadkar Photograph: Philipp Guelland/EPA

Business minister says he would resign if May opts for no-deal Brexit

On Newsnight last night Richard Harrington, a business minister, said he would resign if the government went ahead with a no-deal Brexit. He told the programme:

We will not be leaving with no deal. We’re going to leave with the prime minister’s deal. And I think people are beginning to realise that it’s the prime minister’s deal or there may not be a Brexit.

Asked if he was prepared to resign to stop a no-deal Brexit, Harrington replied: “Definitely, I would.”

Harrington also said his view was “not an uncommon one”. It is thought that some of the pro-Europeans in cabinet, like Greg Clark, the business secretary, and David Gauke, the justice secretary, would also quit if Theresa May decided to take the UK out of the EU without a deal. Gauke has effectively said as much in public.

Fox says backing amendment designed to make no-deal Brexit harder would be 'irresponsible'

The main Brexit event in the Commons today will be a debate on the finance bill which may see MPs voting on a cross-party amendment that would make it harder for the government to implement a no-deal Brexit. My colleague Jessica Elgot has previewed it here. I say “may” because a) there is no 100% guarantee yet that the amendment will get “called” (ie, selected for debate and a vote), although it is very likely that it will; and b) the government could decide to accept it anyway rather than go down to inevitable defeat.

At the weekend the Sunday Times (paywall) rather ingeniously suggested that this amendment was could “derail a no-deal Brexit this week by starving the government of cash and creating a Donald Trump-style shutdown”. In truth, it is nowhere near as significant as that (although a second amendment, tabled by the Lib Dems, would be much more likely to hamstring the government in the event of a no-deal Brexit, although that is much less likely to get called”). The Daily Mail quotes a Treasury source saying the government is “pretty relaxed” about the amendment because it would only “stop us doing some little things to make the tax system work better”, suggesting that around lunchtime we could well get an announcement saying the government will accept the amendment.

But that would still be awkward for the government because the amendment, tabled by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and the Conservative Nicky Morgan, effectively provides a template for stopping the government exercising all manner of powers in the event of a no-deal Brexit. (It says certain no-deal related powers in clause 89 of the finance bill could only be exercised if there is either a) a deal; b) an extension to article 50; or c) a Commons vote authorising a no-deal Brexit. It is easy to imagine more amendments being tabled attaching these three conditions to a huge range of government bills.)

And Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has said it would be “irresponsible” for the government to have its hands tied in this way. Speaking in California, where he is on a trade trip, he said the amendment would not stop a no-deal Brexit. As the BBC reports, he went on:

The government has to ensure that all eventualities are covered. It maybe that we cannot get agreement with the EU and that we have to leave without an agreement in which case the UK has to be prepared.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

11am: Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, speaks at the publication of a Shelter report saying England should launch the biggest council and social house building drive in its history to rescue millions of people from a future in dangerous, overcrowded or unsuitable homes.

12pm: Downing Street lobby briefing.

After 12.45pm: MPs debate the finance bill. At some point there may be a vote on an amendment intended to make it harder for the government to implement a no-deal 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. 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

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
RaKai banned from Twitch streaming again for 30 days after livestream accidentally reveals NBA star LaMelo Ball phone number
Streamer RaKai has been banned from Twitch for 30 days after revealing NBA star LaMelo Ball’s phone number during a livestream. The clip spread quickly online and led Twitch to suspend his channel for sharing private information. The incident adds to RaKai’s past bans, including a June 2025 suspension linked…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Harry Styles addresses ‘queerbaiting’ criticism in SNL opening monologue
Singer hosted the long-running variety show following the release of his new album
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
So, what happens during a gas crisis, anyway? Your older relatives have a reason to bring up what could come next
With gas prices up 11%, rationing being debated in California, and a dozen countries already restricting fuel, the 1970s playbook is back. Here's what it looked like then, and what it could look like now.
Fortune
Fortune
‘Small, plump, gooey … marvellous’: the best supermarket tortilla, tasted and rated
Which supermarket Spanish omelette seems as if it’s served plump from the pan, and which is a soggy flop?
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Planned Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot cancelled, says Sarah Michelle Gellar
Streaming platform Hulu decides ‘not to move forward’ with reboot of hit 90s series, according to actress
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
"I was a single guy on tour, in a band, and I met a lot of girls and I apologise if I hurt her." Sebastian Bach sorry for relationship with 17-year-old Christina Applegate
Skid Row and new Twisted Sister singer Sebastian Bach famously derailed Christina Applegate and Brad Pitt's union
Metal Hammer
Metal Hammer
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play