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 (earlier) Jedidajah Otte (later)

Brexit: MPs table flurry of alternative proposals for Commons - as it happened

Theresa May speaking in the Commons yesterday ahead of the vote that saw MPs voting to try to take control of the Brexit process.
Theresa May speaking in the Commons yesterday ahead of the vote that saw MPs voting to try to take control of the Brexit process. Photograph: UK Parliament/Mark Duffy/PA

Summary

I am wrapping this up now. Tomorrow is set to be another incredible day potentially bearing a number of surprises.

Here the key developments at a glance:

  • At least 16 proposals have been submitted by MPs for votes in the Commons tomorrow. Whether the parties will whip for or against some of them remains largely unclear at this point, though Labour is likely to whip for its own proposal - a close economic relationship with he EU in the shape of a comprehensive customs union, with a UK say on future trade deals, an idea EU law currently doesn’t allow and repeatedly has ruled out.
  • Labour MP Emily Thornberry has hinted that Labour might support a “confirmatory public ballot”, which the Kyle-Wilson amendment calls for, regardless of which deal is passed.
  • Proposals tabled include a UK-EU customs union, a second referendum, EFTA, “common market 2.0”, and no-Brexit via the revoking of article 50
  • It is likely that various so-called “unicorn” proposals, motions and amendments that won’t be workable, will nevertheless attract much support. The Prime Minister has not committed to honouring successfully passed proposals, and might simply press on with a third meaningful vote on her twice-rejected deal.
  • The Brexiteer and chair of the European Research Group Jacob Rees-Mogg has confirmed that he would now back Theresa May’s withdrawal deal. The DUP has reiterated that it will reject it if it comes back for another vote.
  • Borins Johnson has indicated that he might vote for the deal if the PM quits.

That’s all from me for tonight. Thanks for following.


Updated

The Sun’s political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn, reports that loyalist ministers have urged the PM to suspend all Conservative MPs who won’t vote for her deal, which would be a “nuclear move”, he writes.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has written an article in the Daily Mail, confirming that he intends to back May’s deal.

He writes:

I apologise for changing my mind. Theresa May’s deal is a bad one, it does not deliver on the promises made in the Tory Party manifesto and its negotiation was a failure of statesmanship.

A £39 billion bill for nothing, a minimum of 21 months of vassalage, the continued involvement of the European court and, worst of all, a backstop with no end date.

Yet, I am now willing to support it if the Democratic Unionist Party does, and by doing so will be accused of infirmity of purpose by some and treachery by others.

Updated

Labour MP Danielle Rowley has told Emily Maitlis on BBC Newsnight that she believes whipping MPs tomorrow would mean simply that Labour is sticking to its values.

Update from the BBC’s Nick Eardley:

Updated

This from the Daily Mirror’s Pippa Crerar:

Although Boris Johnson indicated earlier that he would consider voting for May’s deal if the PM stands down, his language has become gentler, much like the remarks of Ian Duncan Smith earlier at a Brexit discussion hosted by the Times, and those of Jacob Rees-Mogg this morning.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg describes his choice of words as “not v subtle code”.

Updated

My colleagues Rowena Mason and Peter Walker have written a story on the escalating infighting within the Conservative party. According to one Brexit-backing Tory MP they spoke to, “everyone is turning on each other.”

Updated

The shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, said in an interview with Channel 4 that Labour hadn’t made up their minds yet regarding whipping arrangements, but that the party “will be making sure” that a number of motions tabled for tomorrow will “remain in play” until Monday, when motions will have been narrowed down to just a few.

Asked whether Labour would support a Norway-style Brexit, also called “common market 2.0”, Thornberry said it was “not entirely in line” with Labour’s stance on Brexit, and that the party “would have some reservations about it”.

“And then there is the amended Kyle-Wilson amendment as well,” Thornberry added, but refused to confirm whether Labour would whip to support a confirmatory referendum.

Updated

Labour to support "confirmatory public ballot"

Labour appears to be backing the Kyle-Wilson amendment tomorrow, which would mean support for a confirmatory second referendum, according to Sky’s political editor Faisal Islam.

Updated

Labour tables plan for close economic relationship with EU

This is the alternative Brexit plan tabled by the Labour party for tomorrow’s indicative votes in Parliament.

The plan includes:

· a comprehensive customs union with the EU, with a UK say on future trade deals;

· close alignment with the single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;

· dynamic alignment on rights and protections;

· commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation; and

· clear agreements on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases.

Here Jeremy Corbyn’s statement:

“The government’s approach to the Brexit negotiations has been an abject failure and this House must now come together to find a way forward.

Labour’s credible alternative plan can be negotiated with the EU and bring people together, whether they voted leave or remain.

I urge MPs across the House to support our motion, deliver on the referendum result and negotiate a plan to protect manufacturing and jobs, guarantee rights and end the chaos that the government is inflicting on our country.

The full text of Labour’s motion reads:

leave out from “House” to end and add:

“requires ministers to:

(a) negotiate changes to the draft Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration so as to secure:

(i) a permanent customs union with the EU;

(ii) close alignment with the single market underpinned by shared institutions and obligations;

(iii) dynamic alignment on rights and protections;

(iv) commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation;

(v) agreement on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant and vital shared databases; and

(b) introduce primary legislation to give statutory status to the objectives set out in subsection (a).”

Updated

The Independent’s John Rentoul shares the government’s concern that unworkable or unrealistic proposals could get large amounts of votes tomorrow.

Updated

Labour considers Norway-style soft Brexit

Jeremy Corbyn is considering to support a Norway-style soft Brexit proposal, a motion tabled by the Labour MPs Stephen Kinnock and Lucy Powell, and signed by several Tories, including Robert Halfon.

Here the full story by my colleagues Heather Stewart and Jessica Elgot.

This is the no-Brexit proposal that was earlier submitted for the Commons votes tomorrow:

And the sponsors:

Times RedBox editor Matt Chorley has tweeted that arch-Brexiter and ERG member Ian Duncan Smith just told a Times Plus audience this:

Updated

Negotiating trade deals seems to be a rather lucrative endeavour. Read my colleague Rupert Neate’s fascinating story on a multi-million dollar penthouse the government has bought for a civil servant who is tasked with signing post-Brexit trade deals.

Updated

Labour’s Hilary Benn just tabled a motion seeking to include a customs union in the withdrawal deal. A unicorn, as the EU has repeatedly stated it won’t reopen the deal.

This from my colleague Heather Stewart:

This just in from ITV’s Robert Peston, who predicts the DUP and most Brexiters will vote for the Malthouse amendment tomorrow, still unimpressed by the fact the EU has repeatedly refused to budge on the backstop issue.

Updated

The Labour MP Gareth Snell has tabled a motion aimed at negotiating “a new UK-EU customs union” for when the UK has left the bloc. Snell defied the Labour whip yesterday and voted for the Beckett amendment, which narrowly failed by 314 votes to 311.

Earlier, Snell suggested he does not believe the indicative votes will be very constructive.

Updated

My colleague Rajeev Syal has written a brilliant explainer for tomorrow’s indicative votes in parliament.

Updated

The Conservative peer and Times columnist Daniel Finkelstein just hypothesised at a Brexit-themed Times event that the Tories never thought Euroscepticism could lead to leave winning the referendum.

Updated

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has written a piece on tomorrow’s votes in the Commons, saying a source told her “19 ministers are ready to quit” if the PM does not allow free votes.

Updated

Boris Johnson is still talking, it seems, and starts to sound a bit like a Game of Thrones script:

Updated

Some photoshop editing Joseph Stalin might have been proud of has just happened on the Instagram account of the defence secretary, Gavin Williamson, who has edited the Welsh Conservative MP Alun Cairns out of the shot. Liz Truss MP left him in, as the Times’s Sam Coates points out with relish:

Updated

The “Boris Live” event is seemingly still ongoing. The Telegraph’s Christopher Hope says Johnson just “hinted” that Theresa May should resign.

Chuka Umunna MP, the spokesman of the fledgling Independent Group, has just announced that the group’s 11 members will support a cross-party amendment calling for a “confirmatory public vote” tabled by Margaret Beckett.

Updated

Boris Johnson’s remarks are coming from an event the Telegraph is hosting. This is from its audio producer Theodora Louloudis:

This rather subtle from the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges:

Updated

Boris Johnson suggests he might back deal if May steps down

This from the Daily Mirror’s Pippa Crerar on the Boris matter:

Updated

Boris Johnson appears to just have indicated his support for May’s deal if a third meaningful vote goes ahead, in what people on Twitter are describing as “Boris’s Judas moment”. Isn’t it great to have Marina Hyde predict practically everything?

This from The Daily Telegraph’s Tim Stanley:

Updated

Conor McGinn, the Labour MP for St Helens North, has published a statement about his hopes for tomorrow’s session in the Commons.

He seems to be saying that he might support a second referendum of some sort “whatever parliament decides” and appears to emphasise that in doing so, he is fulfilling his representative duty as an MP, representing leave- and remain-voting constituents.

An excerpt below:

The prime minister has shown that she is unwilling to listen, so now parliament has taken control. Tomorrow night, MPs will undertake a series of indicative votes stating their preferred options to try and find a way forward. I hope we can find a consensus. But I am increasingly of the view that whatever parliament decides, or if it can’t agree, we may still need to go back to the people for a final say.

Finally, it is my job to represent everyone in St Helens North. Not just leave voters, not just remain voters, not just those who voted for me or the Labour party, but everyone. I will keep doing that as best I can over the coming critical days and weeks.

Updated

My colleague Marina Hyde has written a piece on the effects of the indicative votes on the ERG, predicting that its members are about to turn on each other.

Here is an excerpt:

Inevitably, then, the Brexit ultras are turning on each other, with Arron Banks’s Leave.EU outfit furiously reminding Rees-Mogg that he recently said the deal made the UK a “slave state”. It does make you wonder whether Rees-Mogg really knows what a “slave state” historically is. Then again, perhaps he does, as the ERG were informally nicknaming themselves the Grand Wizards on Monday night. “I’m sorry, is this for real?” inquired George Osborne on Twitter. “No it’s not,” shot back Steve Baker.

Read it in full here:

Updated

The government has responded to the “Revoke article 50 and remain in the EU” petition and has announced that it will debate it in Westminster on Monday.

The petition has so far garnered more than 5.7m signatures.

Here is the full text of the response by the Department for Exiting the European Union:

This government will not revoke article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.

It remains the government’s firm policy not to revoke article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to leave or to remain.

Revoking article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in government.

The government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK government.

British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 general election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.

This government stands by this commitment.

Revoking article 50 would break the promises made by government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the prime minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

Updated

A motion that Conservative MP Nick Boles will table tomorrow has appeared. Here the full text from the Telegraph’s Anna Mikhailova, for those who fancy a headache:

Updated

This from Sky’s Faisal Islam:

The letter of the ERG to the PM, signed by Sir Bill Cash MP, David Jones MP, Suella Braverman MP and Michael Tomlinson MP is, over the course of three pages, expressing concern that May is “unlawfully seeking to extend the UK’s membership of the EU” by having agreed to abandon the original exit date of 29 March with the EU. Oh dear.

Updated

James Forsyth, political editor of The Spectator, has just suggested that May’s hopes for a successful third “meaningful vote” on her withdrawal deal might not be dead yet.

Jonathan Isaby, editor at Brexit Central, just tweeted however that the ERG appears to have thrown another spanner in the works:

Paul Brand, political correspondent at ITV News, has provided a handy summary of what the indicative votes in the Commons are expected to look like tomorrow:

Although Jacob Rees-Mogg seems to have come out in favour of May’s deal after all, haunted by the prospect of no Brexit, some pundits remain sceptical about the nature of his remarks earlier.

Here the take of Alex Barker, the Financial Times’ Brussels bureau chief:

Updated

Hello everyone. As my colleague Andrew Sparrow has explained in great detail below, parliament’s Brexit tug of war has entered the next round ahead of tomorrow’s session in the Commons, where MPs will be having indicative votes on where this nation is headed.

More details regarding how these votes might look like can be expected tonight - such as the proposals that might be tabled and indications on which way the parties might whip tomorrow. It certainly never gets boring on this isle.

Updated

Afternoon summary

  • Sammy Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman, has said that accepting a one-year Brexit delay would be better than agreeing to back May’s deal. (See 2.38pm.) His stance puts him at odds with Tory Brexiters like Rees-Mogg, who fear a substantial delay would lead to Brexit being shelved.
  • Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has warned MPs that the Easter recess will be cut short so that they can work “flat out” on Brexit. (See 1.58pm.)
  • MPs backing the Letwin indicative votes plan have published details of how they expect the debate to be run tomorrow, and revealed that they also plan to take control of the Commons business on Monday next week. (See 4.12pm.)

That’s all from me for today.

My colleague Jedidajah Otte is taking over now.

The Tory Brexiter Daniel Kawczynski, a member of the European Research Group, which represents Conservatives pushing for a harder Brexit, has said a “trickle” of ERG members supporting the Theresa May’s deal on Tuesday has become a “flow”. He said:

I addressed the ERG last night, as did some of my other fellow Tory MPs, and we basically said to them the time has come now to back the prime minister’s deal.

The prime minister’s deal turns out to be the least worst option out of all the options which parliament are now putting forward.

We were very concerned about aspects of it but frankly it’s a dream compared to a full blown customs union, another referendum or a single market agreement with the European Union that doesn’t fulfil what our constituents voted for.

I think when we debated this issue last night, it was six of one and half a dozen of the other when it came to the speakers, both for and against.

There is definitely a palpable shift. It was a trickle, now it’s a flow.

We Brexiteers are playing with fire, and we could get very, very burnt if this deal doesn’t get through.

This is from the Institute for Government’s Joe Marshall on the business motion for tomorrow’s indicative votes debate. (See 4.12pm.)

The next meaningful vote on Theresa May’s deal could take place on Friday, the Financial Times’ George Parker reports.

MPs to vote to also take control of Commons business on Monday next week

Here is the business of the house motion tabled for tomorrow (ie, the motion that will determine how the indicative votes process is run).

And this is what it means.

  • MPs will debate the various indicative vote proposals from 3pm at the latest until 7pm. Before that, up to one hour has been set aside for a debate on the business motion (ie, the process).
  • John Bercow, the Speaker, will select which proposals get put to a vote.
  • At 7pm MPs will vote on the proposals on paper, saying yes or no to all of the various proposals. They will have half an hour to vote. Although they will be voting on paper, it will not be a secret ballot, and votes will be recorded.
  • After 7.30pm MPs will debate the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act. That could take up to 90 minutes, and there will be a vote at the end.
  • At some point in the evening – probably not before 8.30pm, possibly after the SI division at 9.15pm – the Speaker will announce the results.
  • Monday 1 April will be set aside for another indicative votes debate (presumably the run-off between the most popular options). In other words, for a second day the government will lose control of the Commons timetable.

Updated

Some more answers to questions from readers.

When will the votes take place?

User avatar for PlainBearing

Andrew, yesterday before indicative votes debate it was considered likely MV3 would be today. What is a likely MV3 date? (extension to 22nd of May depends on MV3 pass this week).

And when is a likely date for parliament to vote on extension to 12th of April or 22nd of May?

I am most grateful for your comprehensive Brexit blogs.

Ministers would still like to be able to hold another meaningful vote on Thursday, but that will not happen unless something persuades Number 10 it has a chance of winning – and the latest DUP statement suggests that moment is still a long way off. (See 2.38pm.)

And the vote on the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act will take place in the Commons tomorrow, probably at around 7pm. There will also be a vote in the Lords before the end of the week.

If the SI is voted down, will the UK leave the EU on Friday?

User avatar for SybilSanderson

@Andrew
Sorry, I lost a bit of track. If the SI is voted down ( not that I expect it), do we leave on the 29.03 or 12.04 (no deal)

No. Under international law, because of the agreement with the EU, Brexit day has been postponed until 12 April. But the SI is required because otherwise large chunks UK law will detach from the EU on Friday night, while the UK remains a member, creating potentially all manner of legal confusion.

What will happen tomorrow?

User avatar for 7cesarcoelho7

@Andrew

1. Should MPs at the indicative votes discuss the process for Brexit, rather than Brexit options?
There appears to be 4 broad options:
a) no deal (Brexit)
b) May's WA & PD (Brexit)
c) 'Closer relationship' revised WA & PD (Norway+, CM2.0,etc) (Brexit)
d) revoke A50 (no Brexit)

Individually no option appears to gather a majority in Commons. BUT most likely, if a 2nd vote is attached to any of the options (or all of them), a majority would arise easily?

2. Would it be possible (assuming Commons would progress it) to have a '2-stage 2nd Vote': all four options above put to vote in stage 1, if there is a majority for one option then the process ends, otherwise the two most voted options in stage 1 would go to votes in stage 2 (possibly holding each stage in consecutive weekends)? Would this in your view be an elegant solution?

3) How could this process in #2 be considered as not delivering the result of the 2016 referendum?

4) Do you think that this could appeal to ERG & DUP, as it would still offer a no deal possibility, and so avoid the most likely scenario which will for them to agree to May's deal after the indicative votes tomorrow point to softer Brexit or 2nd vote?

We don’t know for sure yet, but...

1) Yes, those are the four main options. And, on second preferences, you would expect one option to get a majority – although that might not happen if MPs refuse to give second preferences.

2) Yes, this is the sort of thing we expect. See 9.30am.

3) Brexiters argue that anything that would keep the UK in the single market or the customs union contradicts what people thought they were voting for in 2016.

4) No, because the ERG know that there is more support for a softer Brexit than for no deal.

Could the ERG try to obstruct tomorrow’s votes by abstaining?

User avatar for Pylos3

Dear Andrew,
A question from a longtime reader (always thankful for the high quality reporting on these live pages) who has just registered.

Is it not possible for the ERG (or any other organised group of MPs) to obstruct the indicative vote process by abstaining? If their 80 MPs refuse to participate, the House might be unable to demonstrate a majority for any option. E.g. if something wins out 300 to 250 in the end, those 300 votes are clearly not an actual majority of MPs.
Such an approach might serve their goal of steering things towards a no deal as much as they can. I have not seen this possibility discussed or even raised.

They could, although I have not heard any suggestion that they will. Equally the government could try to same tactic to delegitimise the result. It would be like boycotting an election that you know you might lose. At the morning lobby briefing I asked the prime minister’s spokesman if this was something the government might try. He said he had not heard that suggestion, but said Theresa May told MPs yesterday she wanted to engage with the process (implying she would not be going for a boycott strategy.)

How would MPs behind the Letwin amendment legislate to force the government to comply?

User avatar for Richard Russell

Andrew,

You say "To force the government to comply with indicative votes, Oliver Letwin and his colleagues would probably need to pass legislation."

What is the process for such legislation to be passed? Examples could be legislation to hold MEP elections, to hold a second referendum, to revoke article 50, or to leave with no deal (God forbid!).

Thanks

Earlier in the Brexit process the MPs Nick Boles and Yvette Cooper came up with a plan to force the PM to extend article 50 by getting MPs to vote for an amendment allowing them to take control of the Commons agenda on a given day, and then using that day to pass a bill requiring the PM to extend article 50. Once a bill becomes law, it is binding, unlike a normal Commons motion. But the Boles/Cooper plan was never tried.

There is a theory that Oliver Letwin and his allies could try the same thing to make indicative votes binding. But it is not clear how this would work. Even if the MPs commandeered the Commons timetable again, and put a bill through the Commons in a day, it would still have to pass the Lords, where it could easily be held up.

What Conservative manifesto commitments have already been abandoned?

User avatar for Matt Wood

@Andrew, May, Leadsom and others keep talking about respecting the Tory manifesto, but they didn't win the election, so just as with the Coalition it's not unreasonable for them to abandon commitments if they can't get it through Parliament. Are there any manifesto commitments that they've abandoned since 2017?

Quite a few. There is a list here.

Updated

This is from the FT’s Laura Hughes.

To be fair, Sammy Wilson (who is actually the DUP’s Brexit spokesman), wasn’t actually saying there should be a one-year Brexit extension; he was just saying that would be better than the PM’s deal. (See 2.38pm.)

Nadhim Zahawi, the leave-voting children’s minister, has told the BBC that he thinks the government will have to offer a free vote during the indicative votes process tomorrow. He said:

I suspect it must be because if the will of parliament is to have free votes, indicative votes, then that will be it.

Updated

DUP says one-year Brexit delay would be better than agreeing PM's deal

Brexiters like Jacob Rees-Mogg are opposed to a long extension to article 50 because they fear that could lead to no Brexit. “If we remain, we will never leave,” he said last week. But his allies in the DUP seem to take a different view. In an article in the Daily Telegraph (paywall), which seems to have been written in response to Rees-Mogg today hinting that he will back Theresa May’s deal (see 10.36am), Sammy Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman, says he would be happy with a one-year delay. He says:

There are some colleagues who I admire greatly and who have stood firmly with us in defending Northern Ireland who now take the view that the withdrawal agreement, even though it is a rotten deal, is better than losing Brexit. To them I say that, if the deal goes through, we have lost our right to leave the EU. If we sign up to it, we give away our right to leave to the whim and dictates of the EU. That is not Brexit.

Even if we are forced into a one-year extension, we at least would have a say on the things which affect us during that time and would have the right to unilaterally decide to leave at the end of that one-year period through the simple decision of not applying for a further extension. Surely this is a better strategy than volunteering to be locked into the prison of the withdrawal deal with the cell door key in the pocket of Michel Barnier? Besides, the fact remains that Brexit can only be lost if the government decides to abandon pursuing negotiations to leave the EU.

Sammy Wilson
Sammy Wilson Photograph: Sky News

Updated

Leadsom warns MPs their Easter recess will be shortened or cancelled

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has just dropped a strong hint in the Commons that the Easter recess will be cancelled, or at least shortened. She told MPs:

I have announced the dates for Easter recess. But, as is always the case, recess dates are announced subject to the progress of business. We will need time in the house either to find a way forward or to pass the Withdrawal Agreement bill, and I think the country will rightly expect parliament to be working flat out in either scenario. So further announcements on future recess dates will be announced in due course in the usual way.

The Easter recess was due to start on Thursday 4 April, and run until Tuesday 23 April.

Here is some more on cabinet.

This is from the Times’s Sam Coates.

And this is from the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford.

Suella Braverman, the Conservative former Brexit minister, is speaking this afternoon at a Bruges Group event. My colleague Peter Walker is there, and he says, unlike her Brexiter colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg, she does not sound as if she is minded to abandon her opposition to the PM’s Brexit deal.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart asks Leadsom to confirm that, if MPs vote for a new approach to Brexit, the government will respect that decision.

Leadsom says at this stage we do not know what options will be voted on tomorrow, let alone which will be passed.

And she says any options passed by the Commons will have to be “negotiatible” with the EU. And the amount of time they would take would be a factor, she says.

She also says MPs will have to consider whether any plans are consistent with party manifestos.

Leadsom tells MPs that the statutory instrument being voted on tomorrow features two dates, depending on whether or not Theresa May’s Brexit deal gets passed.

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is making a business statement.

She says the first business of the Commons tomorrow will be the indicative votes process. After that, MPs will vote on the statutory instrument changing Brexit date in the EU Withdrawal Act.

Vast majority of remainers and leavers now think government has handled Brexit badly, research suggests

Theresa May has often spoken about how she would like to heal the divisions created by Brexit. In one respect, she has achieved her wish. Today NatCen, the social research organisation, has released some new research looking at public perceptions of the Brexit process and it turns out that remainers and leavers are united in thinking it is going badly.

Polling on Brexit
Polling on Brexit Photograph: NatCen

The full report is here (pdf). In a commentary on the What UK Thinks website, the polling expert John Curtice says people have got more negative about the process the longer it has gone on. He says:

The longer the Brexit process has gone on, the more critical and pessimistic voters have become. This trend is in evidence, above all, among those who voted in June 2016 to leave the EU. Indeed, leave voters have emerged from the process almost as critical of its handling and of the outcome as those who voted to remain.

Many voters lacked confidence in the government’s handling of Brexit from the beginning. Back in February 2017, shortly after the prime minister’s Lancaster House speech in which she set out her vision of how Brexit should proceed and not long before the UK gave formal notice of its intention to leave the EU, only 29% felt that the UK government was handling Brexit well, while as many as 41% reckoned it was doing so badly. However, much of the criticism came from those who voted remain. Among those who actually voted to leave the EU, rather more felt the government was handling Brexit well (42%) than believed it was doing so badly (27%).

But now, two years later, there is almost a consensus that the government has been handling Brexit badly. Among voters as whole, just 7% believe that the government has handled Brexit well, while 81% reckon it has done so badly. The 85% of remain voters who now think Brexit has been handled badly are joined in that view by 80% of leave supporters. Indeed, just how profound the loss of confidence among leave voters has been is indicated by the fact that they are now as critical of the UK government’s handling of Brexit as they are of the EU’s role in the negotiations.

One of the problems, he says, is that “the kind of deal that many voters wanted to emerge was never going to be on offer”.

According to Sky’s Faisal Islam, Curtice has also said that public opinion has shifted to such an extent that it is now longer obvious that leaving represents the majority view of the public.

Updated

I’m back from the Downing Street lobby briefing, but it wasn’t a very fruitful trip. There was a long discussion on the votes last night at cabinet, the prime minister’s spokesman said, but he had almost nothing to say about the substance of what was said, and would not say how the government would engage with the indicatives votes process, or even whether government MPs will get a free vote.

The spokesman also refused to say whether the government would schedule another meaningful vote on the PM’s Brexit deal this week. The government would only timetable a vote when it thought it had “a realistic prospect of success”, he said.

What happens next? A Q&A

There are lots of good questions BTL. Here are some I think I can answer helpfully.

Why are the European Research Group so influential?

User avatar for JetexJim

Andrew
Why do the ERG exert so much power over the PM?

We know TM cut a deal with the DUP (bought them off to buy support) but why does the ERG have similar power?

Because they represent up to around 80 Tory MPs (they don’t release precise membership numbers, and some MPs are more fully aligned with them than others anyway) and Theresa May needs their support to win votes. All political parties are coalitions, and all party leaders need to take account of what their MPs. What makes the ERG unusual is that they are particularly well organised; they run an effective press operation, and they operate an informal ERG whip. They are also extremely committed to their cause. Or fanatical, as their critics would claim.

Does parliament have to approve a decision to hold European elections?

User avatar for octaari

@Andrew please could you tell us whether the MEP election requires a vote in Parliament to trigger it? If "exit day" is pushed back, but Parliament is given no time to allow it, will the civil servants be able to continue to prepare for and hold the election?

One of the SIs to avoid having the elections is SI 2018 No. 1310, "These Regulations may be cited as the European Parliamentary Elections Etc. (Repeal, Revocation, Amendment and Saving Provisions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and come into force on exit day."

For the European elections to take place, returning officers would have to publish notice of the poll by 12 April, and the government would have to name the date of the poll by order (ie, by a piece of secondary legislation that would normally get approved without a division.) That is why the EU has only agreed an extension until 12 April, unless the withdrawal agreement gets passed. It will not allow the UK to extend beyond that point unless it agrees to participate in the elections.

Could the EU negotiate with parliament instead of Theresa May?

User avatar for FBPEFBPE

Andrew, could the EU go over PM May's head and deal only with parliament?

No. It has to negotiate with a prime minister and a government. It cannot negotiate with Oliver Letwin, or John Bercow, or Yvette Cooper, not least because they cannot sign international agreements on behalf of the UK state.

Is there enough time for parliament to find a plan B?

User avatar for akdalby

Andrew, if the House of Commons isn't going to decide anything much before next week (see Hilary Benn, 09:30) the EU's deadline will have been missed, won't it? That leaves only three choices: out on 12 April, ask for a long extension very quickly, or revoke article 50 very quickly.

Good question. There is not much time. Under the article 50 extension agreed by the EU last week, if the PM’s deal does not pass this week, the UK has until 12 April to come up with a new plan or face no deal.

Could the indicative vote process produce an answer before 12 April. In theory, yes, although there is no guarantee that it will?

And would any softer Brexit automatically involve a longer extension? Not necessarily. If the Commons, and then the government, were to agree a Norway-style Brexit, that could be facilitated through changes to the political declaration that would be drafted very quickly. The withdrawal agreement would not need to change. So it is possible that the Commons could vote before 12 April, and it is possible that the EU could then reactivate its offer of an extension until 22 May.

But there are a lot of ifs in this proposition. Despite what Jacob Rees-Mogg is saying (see 10.36am), no deal by accident must remain a possibility.

Could the government be held in contempt of parliament if it ignores the indicative votes?

User avatar for ollib

@Andrew

Is there scope, should the Government ignore the indicative votes of parliament, for them to subsequently be held in contempt of parliament? Or would this not be considered as preventing/hindering parliament from doing their work?

The government cannot be held in contempt of parliament just for ignoring a motion passed by parliament. It happens quite often these days, when opposition day motions get passed. (In the past the government always used to contest these, but now it often abstains, and chooses to take no notice.) The issue of contempt only comes into play if the government ignores a motion specifically requiring it to do something, such as the motion calling for Brexit legal advice to be published.

But, as part of the indicative votes process, a motion could be passed requiring the government to respond. Ministers would be in contempt if they ignored that, but that might just lead to a motion being passed finding the government in contempt that would have no automatic practical impact. To force the government to comply with indicative votes, Oliver Letwin and his colleagues would probably need to pass legislation.

Who would benefit most from a general election?

User avatar for HistoryOfRob

Hi Andrew,
Say Parliament decides to rally around a Labour customs union soft Brexit and May decides that this isn't acceptable to the Conservative Party and we end up with No Deal and an election - who would come off better? The Conservatives, who, whilst delivering a No Deal Brexit, are directly responsible for any chaos that comes with this i.e. huge traffic jams, food and medicine shortages etc., or Labour/SNP etc. who whilst not fulfilling the end of free movement, did attempt to pass some kind of Brexit deal to avoid the chaos of No Deal, and can then explicitly blame the Tories for not reaching out when there was a majority for a deal and causing the chaos of No Deal?

This is a very good question which I have included not because I know the answer – I’m not sure anyone does – but because HistoryOfRob frames it well, and it is a query preoccupying a lot of people at Westminster. My assumption would be that, if no deal really is a disaster, the government will get the blame. Some polling supports that. But, given the large number of people who favour no deal, who can be sure?

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

Updated

The Tory Brexiter John Baron has said he thinks a general election is becoming more likely. He explained:

A snap general election is becoming more likely. Whatever the outcome of the votes on Wednesday, the numbers inside the current remain-dominated House of Commons will not change.

It may be that an election is necessary to redress the balance in favour of MPs willing to implement the referendum result, for history suggests it is unwise for any parliament to distance itself from the people. The events of the next few weeks will be critical.

A no-deal Brexit would put up to 80,000 jobs in Ireland at risk, a new report by the government’s department of finance and the Economic & Social Research Institute has found.

It found deep and damaging impact of a crash-out caused by the impact of tariffs on exports and other barriers to trade with the UK, Ireland’s second largest export market.

The study finds that GDP in Ireland 10 years after Brexit will be around 2.6% lower in a deal scenario, 4.8% lower in a no-deal scenario (a bare bones deal with a managed period of adjustment) and 5% lower in what it describes as a “disorderly no-deal” scenario.

Adele Bergin, lead author of the report, said:

The impact of each Brexit scenario is considerable and will have negative effects throughout the economy on the household sector, the labour market, firms and the public finances. However, the negative impact on Irish output in the long run in the deal scenario is approximately half that of the no-deal scenario.

The report’s assessment was guided by the conclusions of 15 different reports on the impact of Brexit on the British economy and Irish economy.

The report found that in each scenario some of the negatives would be offset by increased by relocation of foreign direct investment (FDI) to Ireland such as banks and other financial services.

It cites studies that have shown that the UK could lose around a quarter of its FDI in no deal Brexit.

Economic & Social Research Institute (Ireland) study on Brexit March 2019
Economic & Social Research Institute (Ireland) study on Brexit March 2019 Photograph: Economic & Social Research Institute (Ireland) study on Brexit March 2019al Research Institute (Ireland) study on Brexit March 2019/Economic & Social Research Institute (Ireland)

Updated

Theresa May planning to address Tory MPs tomorrow, Sky reports, as speculation grows about her future

This is from Sky’s Aubrey Allegretti.

And this is from the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.

Updated

Michael Fabricant, the Tory Brexiter who voted against Theresa May’s deal in the first two meaningful votes, says he agrees with Jacob Rees-Mogg about MPs having to decide between May’s deal and no Brexit. (See 10.12am.)

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is due to make a business statement at 12.30pm. Presumably this will cover the topic of indicative votes.

Rees-Mogg says it is 'very, very difficult' to see UK leaving EU without deal

Here are some more quotes from Jacob Rees-Mogg in his ConservativeHome podcast explaining why he thinks MPs will face a choice between Theresa May’s deal and no Brexit. (See 10.12am.)

  • Rees-Mogg, the chair of the ERG, said it was “very, very difficult” to see the UK leaving the EU without a deal because of opposition from government and parliament. He explained:

From a Eurosceptic point of view, from the point of view of somebody in my position, as one of the minority of MPs who really want to leave, we have to recognise that what we want and what we can deliver is not necessarily the same because of our lack of numbers. The ERG and other Eurosceptics in parliament cannot win any vote on our own ...

The prime minister does not want to leave without a deal. And the cabinet does not want to leave without a deal. And if parliament does not want to leave without a deal, it is therefore very, very difficult to see who you get to leaving without a deal, even though that is the law of the land.

  • He said that Number 10 could have chosen to leave the EU without a deal, but that the opportunity to do so had now been lost.

I think Downing Street has lost the opportunity to leave without a deal. I think that was a mistake. It seemed last week as if Downing Street was going to take that opportunity, and that would have been on 29 March, on Friday, at 11 o’clock at night, and it has now been pushed into the long grass.

And why do I think that was an error? Well, the legal position was leaving. It was what people voted for, effectively. It was what the government was pretty clear would happen. The prime minister said 100 times or more from the dispatch box that we would leave on 29 March. So I think there’s a feeling that political trust is not what it ought to be.

Updated

MPs will have to choose between May's deal and no Brexit, Rees-Mogg says

Is the European Research Group, which represents up to around 80 Tory MPs pushing for a harder Brexit and which has led opposition to Theresa May’s deal in the Conservative party, running up the white flag? Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG chair, has tweeted this, promoting his latest ConservativeHome podcast (or “Moggcast”, as they call it.)

Rees-Mogg told the podcast:

The prime minister will not deliver a no-deal Brexit.

Asked if that meant the options were now “deal or potentially no Brexit”, he said:

That, I think, becomes the choice eventually.

Whether we are there yet is another matter, but I have always thought that no deal is better than Mrs May’s deal, but Mrs May’s deal is better than not leaving at all.

He added that “leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards is better than not leaving at all”.

Brexit may now need to be viewed as “a process rather than an event”, he said. It was, he said, a “process of unravelling and diverging which will take time”.

It is worth stressing, of course, that the ERG is divided over tactics and, although Rees-Mogg might be gearing up to vote for May’s deal, some of his ERG colleagues are likely to oppose it to the bitter end.

Jacob Rees-Mogg
Jacob Rees-Mogg Photograph: Simon Dawson/Reuters

Updated

Last night the government claimed that allowing MPs to take charge of the Commons timetable would set a “dangerous, unpredictable precedent”.

But, in an interesting Twitter thread, Holger Hestermeyer, an academic, points out that it is quite normal in other countries for parliament, not the executive, to decide what it debates. His thread starts here.

Updated

While parliament might be deadlocked by Brexit, other political imperatives have not disappeared, and some MPs are trying to make sure they are not forgotten.

On Tuesday the Green MP Caroline Lucas and Labour MP Clive Lewis are publishing a private member’s bill for a so-called Green New Deal, intended to introduce a radical, decade-long shift to move to low-carbon energy, with wider environmental protections.

The idea has been in the news recently due to efforts by Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others to push it in the US. But the concept has been around for longer – Lucas co-founded a UK group dedicated to the idea 10 years ago.

Taking its name from Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s, the Green New Deal would similarly seek to boost prosperity through government spending and intervention, in this case in areas such as more sustainable energy, homes and transport.

This is, Lucas and Lewis say, the first bill to reach the UK parliament, and they hope to gain some cross-party support. Lucas said: “We need to do what is required of us – not simply what is seen as politically possible.”

Updated

Matt Hancock, the health secretary, arriving for cabinet.
Matt Hancock, the health secretary, arriving for cabinet. Photograph: Leon Neal/Getty Images

Alistair Burt, who resigned as a Foreign Office minister so that he could vote for the Letwin amendment last night, has issued a statement explaining his decision. Here is an extract.

Despite the best and determined efforts of the prime minister, her agreement with the EU continues to be rejected by parliament. We are running out of time for an alternative, and the risk of leaving without a deal, and continuing serious and disruptive uncertainty is affecting the UK profoundly.

Parliament should seek urgently to resolve the situation by considering alternatives freely, without the instruction of party whips, and government should adopt any feasible outcome as its own in order to progress matters. I did not believe the government was prepared to do that, so had to vote to ensure this happens.

Alistair Burt
Alistair Burt Photograph: James Drew Turner/The Guardian

Updated

Richard Harrington, who resigned as a business minister yesterday so he could vote for the Letwin amendment, told the Today programme this morning that the government should have held some sort of indicative votes process much earlier. He said:

It’s absurd that now we are in a position of political impasse and parliament hasn’t actually talked about it on the floor of the House of Commons. That’s what I call a democratic deficit. And parliament has got to talk about it.

Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit spokesman, has welcomes the result of last night’s Commons vote.

Verhofstadt and other MEPs have for a long time been urging the UK to develop a cross-party approach to Brexit. Their stance reflects that fact that, in most continental countries, cross-party cooperation is much more common, and seen as much more desirable, than it is in the UK, where first-past-the-post and the adversarial nature of the House of Commons makes it a rarity.

Steve Brine, who resigned as a health minister last night to vote for the Letwin amendment, told the Today programme this morning that he thought the prospect of the Commons taking control of the Brexit process could persuade some Tory Brexiters to back Theresa May’s deal. He explained:

Maybe what last night will do is focus some minds ... Those on my side who don’t like the deal, maybe they will realise that the House of Commons is prepared to act. And, anything from here, as far as they are concerned, gets softer in terms of Brexit.

Brine also said that, if the Commons could not come up with a way forward, then “everything is on the table”, including a referendum and revoking article 50.

Steve Brine
Steve Brine Photograph: BBC

On the Today programme this morning Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee and a supporter of the Letwin amendment passed last night, said that he thought the indicative votes debate tomorrow would have to be followed by another next Monday. He explained:

The first time round it will just be ‘here are the propositions’ and you vote for as many as you would like. And then we will see the results from Wednesday night.

The motion that we will move tomorrow suggests that we go through a similar process next Monday.

There will obviously be discussions between MPs looking at the results of what has happened on Wednesday night. Which are the most popular options?

We may then change the system for next week as we are trying to narrow it down.

Government may ignore result of indicative votes process, says Hancock

Last week Theresa May suffered the indignity of seeing the EU take control of the article 50 extension process. And last night she suffered a further blow, as MPs voted to start a process that could see them seizing control of the Brexit process. In practice the amendment tabled by Sir Oliver Letwin just involves MPs taking control of the Commons timetable tomorrow afternoon, when in fact it is normally the government that decides what gets debated, but that is the start of a process that could go much further.

(Or perhaps not. See here for more. At this stage no one knows.)

Here is our overnight story.

This morning Matt Hancock, the health secretary, was on the Today programme responding for the government. He made two important points.

  • Hancock said a no-deal Brexit won’t be allowed by the Commons. He explained:

If anything, yesterday in the House of Commons demonstrated that the option of no deal simply won’t be allowed by the Commons and the best way through this impasse is the one deal that has been negotiated with the EU, that can be delivered quickly now ...

The Commons is now absolutely clear it won’t allow [a no deal] and will legislate against if necessary.

And that means that the options are narrowing and that demonstrates that if you want to deliver on the result of the referendum – and I think we must – and in a way that supports the economy and keeps the stability for people’s jobs, then vote for the prime minister’s deal. Because the idea of voting against it in the hope of getting no deal is clearly now not going to happen.

Hancock ignored the fact that MPs last night actually voted against an amendment tabled by the Labour MP Dame Margaret Beckett designed to ensure that MPs could block a no-deal Brexit. It said, if the UK were seven days away from no deal, there would have to be a vote in the Commons either approving no deal or calling for an article 50 extension. It was rejected by a majority of three.

  • Hancock said the government might ignore the result of the indicative votes process. He explained:

Clearly we have got to listen to what the Commons says… but we can’t pre-commit to following whatever the Commons votes for because they might vote for something completely impractical, they might vote for two things that are incompatible, or vote for nothing at all. We cannot say – absolutely, whatever they pass.

If the Commons voted for the sun to rise in the West, the government would not be able to implement that. This whole debate has been characterised by people coming in with ideas which we now call unicorns in the political debate.

This Hancock argument is also open to challenge. It ignores the fact that the government backed the Brady amendment, approving the deal subject to the backstop being replaced with “alternative arrangements”, even though many people dismissed that as a “unicorn”.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

12pm: Downing Street lobby briefing.

1pm: Suella Braverman, the former Brexit minister, and Sir Christopher Chope, another Tory Brexiter, speak at a Bruges group event.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, but I expect to be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another when I finish, at around 5pm.

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
“Melania Trump Clone”: Heidi Klum’s Outfit At The Oscars After Party Triggers Explosive Reactions
“Thought it was Melania for a moment,” said one user.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
German tourist sues New York City taqueria over salsa so spicy ‘it was a very big shock physically and mentally’
Faycal Manz sought $100,000 in damages after claiming that Los Tacos No.1 had failed to warn him about the spiciness of its green salsa
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
How should a woman dress in her 50s? Gwyneth Paltrow just changed the game
The red carpet raises all kinds of questions, writes Zoe Williams. What is the age range of a feather boa? Sequins: mutton or lamb? In the face of the carping and scrutiny, Paltrow has issued a bold sartorial retort
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
The Real Reason Sean Penn Missed The 2026 Oscars Despite Winning Best Supporting Actor
Sean Penn won Best Supporting Actor at the 2026 Oscars but was absent due to an unexpected reason.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
What ‘gooning’ reveals about intimacy in a world cordoned off by screens
Four years ago, I started a class at Temple University titled, “Social Perspectives of Digital Pornography: The Other Sex Ed,” centered on porn literacy, or what young people learn – or don’t learn – from digital porn.
The Conversation
The Conversation
What bite marks on a dinosaur fossil tell us about the T. rex’s eating habits
For decades, dinosaurs, especially the Tyrannosaurus rex, have captured the imaginations of the public and paleontologists alike. In many instances, pop culture has depicted the T. rex as the giant and fearsome hunter that lorded over other dinosaurs.
The Conversation
The Conversation
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play