We are now going to bring today’s live coverage of political developments to a close. Thanks for all the contributions. Here’s what happened:
- The Bank of England published its Brexit impact assessments. It found that in the event of a disorderly no deal Brexit, growth could fall by 8%, with the pound plummeting by 25%, while inflation surges.
- The shadow cabinet is split on whether Labour should back a second referendum, and there were a number apparently contradictory calls throughout the day.
- In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, the shadow chancellor John McDonnell suggested that Labour would “inevitably” back a second referendum in the event of the prime minister’s Brexit deal being defeated in the Commons, so long as the party is unable to force a general election.
- However, he later told ITV that Labour’s position on a people’s vote hasn’t changed, and that if it does eventually support another referendum it would be because the government has forced it.
- Theresa May then accused McDonnell of wanting to overturn the will of the British people at a press conference near Glasgow, while urging MPs of all parties to consider the “significant responsibility” of deciding whether to support her Brexit deal in the Commons early next month
His comments about the second referendum today show that what the Labour Party want to do is frustrate Brexit. They want to overturn the will of the British people. Parliament overwhelmingly gave the British people a vote. They voted to Leave. I think it’s a matter of trust in politicians that they actually deliver on Brexit for the British people.
- Earlier in the day, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman poured cold water on the idea that Labour could “seize upon” a second referendum, following John McDonnell’s comments at a Guardian Live event last night. Senior Labour sources also reportedly insisted that McDonnell’s words to Kuenssberg did not represent what he or the party thinks.
- Corbyn put May under some pressure at PMQs although it was one of her better recent outings. The Labour leader was particularly effective when he quoted what she said about Blair being obliged to publish the Iraq legal advice to highlight the hypocrisy of the government’s current position on publishing the legal advice it has received regarding Brexit.
-
“So why won’t she practise what she preached on Brexit?” asked Corbyn. “This is the most shambolic government in living memory.” May said the advice any client receives from a lawyer is privileged and that the government will publish a summary. Corbyn said MPs should see the advice, warts and all; and that 20 ministers have resigned. The speaker John Bercow later told ministers they could be held in contempt if they refuse to publish the Brexit legal advice in full.
- The SNP accused May of having her “head in sand” after refusing to agree with Hammond about Brexit making the UK poorer.
- The government’s official analysis of the impact of Brexit, the PM’s proposed plan, forecasted that the economy will be between 1 and 2% smaller after 15 years than it would be if the UK stayed in the EU.
- A former civil servant who now heads the UK Trade Policy Project said the government’s economic analysis was “fraudulent”
- The chancellor Philip Hammond conceded that there will be an economic cost to leaving the European Union, even under May’s plan – which aims to minimise the damage. In October 2016, he told the Conservative party conference: “It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer.”
Updated
Today’s editorial on Brexit and the economy:
A poignant part of the Treasury analysis is the observation of differential regional impacts. London, a remain stronghold, is relatively insulated from harm. The north-east of England and the West Midlands, with higher concentrations of leave voters, look most vulnerable. That disparity represents an opportunity and a challenge to pro-Europeans. They can reasonably point out that Brexit was mis-sold and that calling it off would serve those who voted for it more than those who didn’t. But that message carries a risk: many people who backed Brexit envisaging radical change would be insulted by the claim that their grievances can only be satisfied by refusing to do the thing they had so recently voted for.
In that sense, the chancellor’s joyless defence of the prime minister’s unloved deal illuminates a fundamental truth about the situation. The choice is not between good and bad Brexits but between different types of trauma. Leaving the EU is a painful procedure to which the only real upside is satisfaction of the powerful political demand that it be done. Whether meeting that test is reason enough to inflict the cost of leaving the EU is the real dilemma many MPs are weighing up but dare not express aloud.
John McDonnell has a plan, but he’ll need a movement too, writes the Guardian’s senior economics commentator Aditya Chakrabortty.
You can’t doubt the dedication of the crowd packing out this London concert hall on a Tuesday night. For an audience with John McDonnell, they have braved all the muck that a November evening can throw at them. They line up at the end for selfies and book signings. And the very mention of rent controls is greeted with an ovation.
Yet they’re here with good reason. Interviewing the shadow chancellor for this Guardian Live event, it strikes me that what he says and does over the next few weeks matters more for him and for the rest of the country than at any time during his previous 40 years in politics.
In just a few days, MPs vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal. Beyond that lies the very real prospect of a general election, or even a full-blown constitutional crisis. And in the background hangs a big question: how radical can any Labour government be? Given the keys to No 11, how far can McDonnell change Britain?
Read the full piece here:
The government has published the business motion for the “meaningful vote” on Brexit.
MPs will debate the prime minister’s Brexit deal for five days ahead of the main vote on December 11, with the speaker John Bercow permitted to select up to six amendments to the government motion.
These will be voted on before the Government motion, and the debate will last for up to eight hours a day.
Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh has more:
NEW: Govt business motion on Brexit just published. Allows amendments 1st then main motion afterwards. But Lab won't be pushing People'sVote until AFTER Govt defeated on main motion.https://t.co/WlhZR2V95d pic.twitter.com/5z2CUYNqyq
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) November 28, 2018
Updated
Donald Trump has been receiving Brexit briefings about Theresa May’s deal from none other than Nigel Farage, according to BuzzFeed.
The site reported that Farage “gave a withering assessment of the agreement May has struck with the European Union, which hardened Trump’s view that the UK has not achieved a good deal in the withdrawal negotiations.”
A source told BuzzFeed that Trump “regularly” speaks to the former UKIP leader, and that they have spoken on the phone recently.
News that the two remain in touch comes after Trump said May’s Brexit agreement “sounds like a great deal for the EU”, with Farage appearing on Fox News to describe it as “the worst deal in history”.
If you are just catching up with developments today regarding Labour’s Brexit positioning, here is a report from our political correspondent Jessica Elgot and joint political editor Heather Stewart.
Corbyn is reported to be far more lukewarm about a second referendum than his shadow chancellor, and party sources say McDonnell’s view does not reflect Labour’s policy on the matter.
The Harry Potter creator, J.K. Rowling, has suggested that some Brexit-supporters have always wanted a no-deal, with millions to be made when an economy collapses – a potential outcome if the UK exits the EU without a deal.
It has been reported that hedge funds used private polling to enrich themselves to the tune of millions, while Nigel Farage was forced to deny shorting the pound on the night of the Brexit vote
Plenty of Leavers have always wanted a no-deal Brexit, because there are millions to be made from a collapsing economy, as long as you've already got offshore bank accounts, plenty of money and the ethics of a hungry shark. https://t.co/3DNEDKztyh
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) November 28, 2018
Elsewhere on Twitter, the anti-austerity, anti-Brexit Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman reckons that the potential hit to GDP suggested within Bank of England’s no-deal Brexit scenario is “extremely high” and that “they’ve really gone pretty far out on a limb here”.
Another trade discussion where I would like to believe the worst but not convinced: Brexit. The Bank of England just released some very dire scenarios 1/ https://t.co/0DvoT45JsS pic.twitter.com/xAeNTD8P6l
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 28, 2018
Updated
Most Britons think Brexit is not worth the economic hit, poll finds
This Sky Data poll comes after figures released by the Treasury suggested that the economy could be 3.9% worse off by 2033 as a result of the government’s proposed Brexit deal.
In a response to the findings, ‘Best for Britain’ champion Layla Moran MP said:
The public know this deal is a bad deal and they do not want to be made poorer. The Treasury’s economic analysis today shows the grim reality of what lays ahead of us.
In 2016, I do not believe that people who voted leave or remain, voted to give their families less money at the end of the month.
This is why the Prime Minister is looking at a colossal parliamentary defeat. With Parliament so deadlocked we must pass this back to the people and give them a final say on the Brexit deal.”
Updated
Elsewhere in headaches for the prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn has written an open letter denouncing the scale of poverty in Britain following the United Nations’ report last week.
The scale of poverty in Britain shames this Tory Government. This is a national emergency which must no longer be ignored.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) November 28, 2018
My letter to @Theresa_May about the United Nations' report into poverty in the UK. pic.twitter.com/i7JdBmFySO
Acknowledging that Brexit is “understandably dominating media headlines”, the leader of the opposition said that the government is failing to address the “burning injustices” that the poorest people in the UK face.
Among other policy proposals, he announced that Labour would end the two-child policy in Universal Credit and would invest once again in the Blair-era Sure Start programme.
Here is our social affairs correspondent Robert Booth’s report:
Updated
Peter Mandelson, the remain-supporting Labour party grandee, has said that Brexit “scaremongering” isn’t scaremongering - and that there must be a people’s vote on the final deal.
In an interview with LBC’s Eddie Mair, he also declared that “the public have got to dig the government out of the hole .. with another vote on this whole thing”.
It’s not scaremongering, it’s analysis of actual proposals, actual conclusions that the government has reached and what we will all experience if we go forward with all this. I mean I would rather we didn’t, I feel that at the moment, we’re like a bunch of people driving towards er, Brexit, whatever the cost, without any idea of where we’re going to end up, but somehow, nobody wants to take the decision to take their foot off the accelerator because of how people voted in 2016. You know, because of the people’s will. Well, I think the only people who can determine what their will is now, are the people all over again. I just feel that the government’s dug themselves into a terrible hole, er, with this deal as they call it, erm if the deal goes down in the House of Commons, as people expect it will, then I think the public have got to dig the government out of the hole they’ve put themselves into er with another vote on this whole thing.
He then went on to criticise the prime minister for refusing to publish the government’s Brexit legal advice, calling on her to “come clean”.
I don’t see the logic of what she’s saying – I think she’s falling back on an old formula, what governments always say, but look, the whole Brexit thing was so badly mis-sold. The promises that were made, you know, two years ago, they haven’t been er delivered, I think it’s time for the government to come clean with people and publish the whole thing and let people, you know, judge it on its own merits or lack of them. I mean, they’ve gotta come clean with people that’s what people want because, you know, what they’re being offered now is not what they were promised originally, it’s a whole lot worse than we have now. We lose our frictionless trade with our nearest export market, but have to follow their rules with no say in making those rules, and let’s face it, the uncertainty will just go on forever because so many of the big questions remain unanswered by what Mrs. May is proposing. The argument isn’t going to stop and I say to business, people who say “oh let’s get behind Mrs. May because we want to end the uncertainty”, that forget it, this uncertainty is going to go on and on. This deal, certainty is the last thing this deal is going er, to give us, because as I say, all the main decisions are postponed and the argument inside the cabinet and the Tory party is going to go on and on if we were to leave next March.
And his take on McDonnell’s “breakthrough” shift in positioning, which he says signals that Labour is moving towards support for a second vote:
That’s quite a shift, that’s quite a breakthrough for him. I mean, the thing is though, surely, Eddie, we wouldn’t be contemplating either a general election or a People’s Vote, another referendum, unless, you know, Mrs. May’s deal goes down in the Commons. I think the Commons has got to have the first bite at it…
Oh I have no doubt that they’re moving in the direction of a second vote, but that’s because they’re following public opinion and they should respect public opinion, I mean, at the moment I think it was the Daily Mail today that had a poll which said that the public now want a second referendum, a People’s Vote, by a majority of 48% to 34% so it’s very clear where the public’s heading.
Updated
Here’s more from the Bank of England’s Mark Carney who is apparently seeking to downplay some of the doomsday scenarios that have been drawn from today’s Brexit impact analysis:
“These are scenarios, not forecasts,” he said. “They illustrate what could happen, not necessarily what is most likely to happen.”
He added that stress tests on the UK’s major lenders reveal that the “core of our financial system is strong”, with major banks having “capital ratios three and a half times higher than before the financial crisis”.
The Canadian emphasised that major British banks have “ample liquidity to withstand a major market disruption”.
“They hold more than 1 trillion of high-quality liquid assets and can access an additional 300 billion of liquidity through the Bank of England’s regular facilities.
“Major UK banks now can withstand many months without access to wholesale or foreign exchange markets.”
Updated
John McDonnell responds to the Bank of England’s Brexit forecasts:
“The Bank has confirmed what other independent reports this week have been telling us: a No Deal Brexit could be even worse than the financial crisis of ten years ago, and the country would be much worse under Theresa May’s deal.
“Instead of ploughing on with this discredited deal the Government should set new priorities that would protect jobs and the economy.”
Meanwhile, the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush has just filed this useful analysis of the shadow chancellor’s thinking.
May accuses McDonnell of wanting to overturn the will of the British people
Our Scotland correspondent, Libby Brooks, was at this evening’s press conference near Glasgow. She has just filed this report:
Theresa May has accused shadow chancellor John McDonnell of wanting to overturn the will of the British people, while urging MPs of all parties to consider the “significant responsibility” of deciding whether to support her Brexit deal in the Commons early next month.
McDonnell told the BBC that it was “inevitable” that Labour would back a second referendum if May’s deal is defeated but the opposition is unable to force a general election.
May said: “His comments about the second referendum today show that what the Labour Party want to do is frustrate Brexit. They want to overturn the will of the British people. Parliament overwhelmingly gave the British people a vote. They voted to Leave. I think it’s a matter of trust in politicians that they actually deliver on Brexit for the British people.”
May was speaking after meeting workers at the Scottish Leather Group in Bridge of Weir, near Glasgow, as part of a UK-wide publicity blitz to sell her Brexit deal to the public ahead of the meaningful Commons vote in less than a fortnight, which she looks set to lose by a significant margin.
She denied that she was scared of debating Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has said that she wants to be included in the televised head-to-head between the prime minister and Jeremy Corbyn, adding: “This isn’t a question about debating leave or remain, it’s about looking ahead to a vote that is taking place in the Commons when MPs will be looking at the deal that the government has negotiated. I think people should be aware of what the proposals from the leader of the opposition are. From everything I’ve seen and heard he doesn’t have a plan for Brexit”.
The prime minister was in Scotland for a matter of hours, travelling north after taking prime minister’s questions in the Commons and returning to London in the early evening.
Asked how she intended to pull together sufficient support for her deal in the Commons, she said: “People are making a lot of statements and assumptions about what will happen. What I’m saying to MPs is that the vote is a moment of significant responsibility when MPs need to consider the need to deliver on the Brexit vote in a way that protects jobs and livelihoods in the UK.”
She said that she had not yet seen the Bank of England’s analysis released on Wednesday afternoon, which suggested that the pound would crash and inflation would soar under a no-deal Brexit, but that the government’s own modelling of a range of scenarios for leaving the EU, released earlier today, “clearly shows is that the best deal available that honours the referendum is the Government’s proposal.”
“If you look at the analysis, what it shows is that we would not be worse off compared to where we are today, our economy will grow in all of the scenarios, the question is how far the economy grows in all of those scenarios and there are different figures. What it shows is that the best deal that delivers on the referendum, offers to opportunities of Brexit and also protects jobs and the economy is the government’s deal.”
Updated
Here we have reaction from pro-Brexit MPs following the publication of the Bank of England’s Brexit impact assessment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have cast doubt on the findings.
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP: “It is unusual for the Bank of England to talk down the pound and shows the Governor’s failure to understand his role. He is not there to create panic.”
In further remarks to BBC Radio 4’s PM programme, the ERG leader said: “Bear in mind the Treasury said we would lose 800,000 jobs, up to, simply by voting to leave the European Union. That was nonsense.
“It said we would have a punishment Brexit. That was nonsense .. The Treasury’s reputation has been for politicised forecasts which is why George Osborne set up the Office for Budget Responsibility to do it independently.”
Charlie Elphicke MP, (Treasury Select Committee): “The other day Dr Carney told the Treasury Select Committee that interest rates could go down in a no deal Brexit. Today he says they will rise. The Bank of England is all over the place. No wonder former MPC member, Andrew Sentence, questions whether this is political rather than economic forecasting.”
Simon Clarke MP (Treasury Select Committee): “The Bank of England produces forecasts modelling a wide range of possibilities, many of which they themselves say are extreme. This should not be read as a likely future forecast.
“Our country’s fundamental strengths are enormous - as the Chancellor often says - and we should have confidence that we will succeed in any scenario.”
Priti Patel MP: “The Bank of England is undermining its credibility and independence by giving such prominence to these extreme economic forecasts and scenarios.”
Marcus Fysh MP: “This is just the same old Bank of England stress testing. In no way a forecast.”
Ben Bradley MP: “The Bank of England models all sorts of options that even they say are not predictions, and are based on extremes of circumstances in order to ‘stress test’.
“The PM herself this week questioned the reliability of economic forecasting in the House, and we’ve seen practically every forecast about Brexit so far under-estimate the success of our economy.
“The bank doesn’t publish the assumptions that underly these forecasts, maybe we should be asking them why?”
Theresa May is giving a brief press conference at the Scottish Leather Group in Bridge of Weir, Renfrewshire.
She has reassured the country that the government has been mindful of Scotland’s interests during the Brexit negotiations, saying that the ability to do trade deals around the world is of particular importance for premium Scottish products enjoyed around the world.
The prime minister said: “Scotland’s interests have been taken into account throughout the negotiations we’ve been doing.
“For example, the free trade area that lies at the heart of our future economic partnership with the EU is crucial for employers here in Scotland and the opportunity to do trade deals around the world is important for those iconic Scottish products like smoked salmon and Scotch whisky.”
We’ll post more quotes from the presser as they come in.
Her comments come amid accusations that she has been “running feart” of The National, the independence-supporting Scottish daily newspaper.
“No 10’s press office said “limited capacity” meant they wouldn’t be able to extend an invite to The National,” the paper reported.
“It’s the second time in as many weeks that our reporters have been denied a chance to hold top Tory government officials to account.”
Updated
Thanks Andrew.
John McDonnell has elaborated upon his widely reported remarks from earlier today. In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg he suggested that Labour would “inevitably” back a second referendum in the event of the prime minister’s Brexit deal being defeated in the Commons, so long as the party is unable to force a general election.
The shadow chancellor has now told ITV that Labour’s position on a people’s vote hasn’t changed, and that if it does eventually support another referendum it would be because the government has forced it. Resisting the temptation to reject hypotheticals, he added that he would vote Remain in such an event (back in September he did not think Remain should be on any potential ballot paper).
NEW: @johnmcdonnellMP has told @itvnews he’s not giving up the demand for a general election if PM loses meaningful vote. Says Labour’s position hasn’t changed on a people’s vote and if it does end up backing one it’ll be because the govt forces it. He says he’d vote Remain. pic.twitter.com/No3H8IrTjj
— Daniel Hewitt (@DanielHewittITV) November 28, 2018
It is worth mentioning that PoliticsHome reported earlier that a senior Labour source insisted that McDonnell’s words to Kuenssberg did not represent what he or the party thinks. “Make up your own mind,” Kevin Schofield tweeted.
Senior Labour source insists John McDonnell's words to @bbclaurak do not represent what he or the Labour party thinks. Make up your own mind.https://t.co/8xVPzGPIPJ
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) November 28, 2018
Updated
And while we’re on the subject of a second referendum, in this week’s magazine James Forsyth, the Spectators’s political editor, speculates about Theresa May doing a U-turn and embracing the idea if she loses the vote on the Brexit deal. He says:
But what can May do, given that she wants her deal to pass? Well, there is one route that might work for her: a second referendum. If the Commons won’t back her deal, then maybe the country will.
This would require a massive volte-face from May, but it does offer a way to break the log jam in the way that another general election does not, given that two of the last three elections have delivered hung parliaments. Interestingly, a growing number of full-bore Brexiteers are optimistic that they could win a referendum in these circumstances, which means there might not be full-scale opposition to the idea of a three-question second referendum.
I’m finishing now. My colleague Mattha Busby is now taking over.
Is a second referendum "inevitable"?
Opinion is divided about the significance of John McDonnell’s comment about it being “inevitable” that Labour will end up backing a second referendum. (See 3.08pm.) The Labour peer Andrew Adonis thinks this is significant.
John McDonnell’s statement today on Labour moving towards a people’s vote is very significant
— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) November 28, 2018
Referendum next May
But Adonis is about the most diehard supporter of a second referendum in British public life, and so he would say this. (A colleague recently recommended, as a thought experiment, trying to find anyone who thinks a second referendum is likely who does not actually want one to happen; it’s almost impossible.) Others think McDonnell was effectively just restating Labour policy, and that nothing has changed. This is from PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield.
Senior Labour source insists John McDonnell's words to @bbclaurak do not represent what he or the Labour party thinks. Make up your own mind.https://t.co/8xVPzGPIPJ
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) November 28, 2018
One problem is that the Press Association reported McDonnell as suggesting that it was “inevitable” that a second referendum would take place. That is based on McDonnell replying “that’s right” when it was put to him that it would be inevitable that there would be another vote. (See 3.08pm.) But in covering politics it is always important to bear in mind what people mean as well as what they say, and it is clear from the context that McDonnell was not predicting a second referendum. He was just accepting that Labour would end up calling for one.
That is of interest in itself, because implicitly he was accepting that the Labour strategy of trying to engineer a general election will fail. That is not something that Jeremy Corbyn or his staff have admitted do bluntly.
But it is still a huge leap from Labour backing a second referendum to one actually taking place. Here are three reasons why.
1 - Jeremy Corbyn cannot be certain to win a vote on a second referendum by telling his MPs to support one in the Commons. Other opposition parties are in favour, around a dozen Conservative MPs have publicly backed the idea, and it is thought that dozens more are persuadable. But some Labour MPs are strongly opposed, and would vote against the party whip to oppose a second referendum. If Corbyn were to whip his MPs on this issue, he would probably win - but that is not inevitable.
2 - A second referendum would require legislation, and that would only happen if the government was led by a PM committed to making it happen. Yet McDonnell seems to be accepting that an early election is not likely to happen. Perhaps Theresa May will be replaced by a Tory leader backing a second referendum? Perhaps Corbyn, or someone else, will end up leading a coalition government committed to holding a people’s vote? Or perhaps May will perform one of the biggest U-turns in history and come out in favour? None of these options seems especially likely. But unless something likes this happen, a referendum bill will not get through parliament.
3 - The EU would have to agree to suspend article 50 to allow time for a referendum to be held. An excellent Constitution Unit paper (pdf) on this subject published last month concluded that passing the legislation and then holding the referendum would take 22 weeks. (See below.) EU leaders want the UK to stay, and article 50 can be suspended by unanimity. But European parliamentary elections are taking place in May and if the referendum were to take place after then (which would probably be inevitable, given the timetabling issues), then having the UK as a member of the EU but without MEPs starts to create enormous problems. As the Constitution Unit says:
While a short delay to the UK’s participation in the election of MEPs might be possible without causing huge problems, a lengthy delay would be more problematic. As the European Parliament does not sit in August, muddling through without UK representatives in July might be possible. A delay extending into the autumn would be more difficult to accommodate, and legal and political difficulties would mount.
All of which means a second referendum is anything but inevitable. A slim possibility would be a better description.
Updated
And here is more from the Press Association report about the Bank of England Brexit analysis.
In the event of a disruptive Brexit, where there is no change to border trade or financial markets, GDP may fall 3% from its level in the first quarter in 2019.
In this scenario, the unemployment rate will hit 5.75% and inflation rises to 4.25%.
House prices decline 14% and commercial property prices fall 27%. The pound would fall by 15% against the US dollar to £1.10.
However, major British banks have “levels of capital and liquidity to withstand even a severe economic shock that could be associated with a disorderly Brexit”, the Bank concluded from tests of banks’ financial resilience.
Britain’s banking system is “strong enough to continue to serve UK households and businesses even in the event of a disorderly Brexit”, the Bank said.
My colleague Graeme Wearden is covering the Bank of England announcement in more detail on his business live blog.
Growth could fall by 8%, pound fall by 25%, and inflation surge under disorderly no deal Brexit, says Bank of England
The Press Association has snapped these headlines.
The Bank of England has warned the pound would crash, inflation will soar and interest rates would have to rise in the event of a no deal disorderly Brexit.
In the event of a disorderly no deal, no transition Brexit, Britain’s GDP could fall by 8% from its level in the first quarter of 2019, according to analysis of a worst case scenario by the Bank.
The unemployment rate would rise 7.5% and inflation would surge 6.5%. House prices are forecast to decline 30%, while commercial property prices are set to fall 48%. The pound would fall by 25% to less than parity against both the US dollar and the euro.
Bank of England publishes its Brexit impact assessment
The Bank of England has now published its Brexit impact assessment.
Here is the 87-page report (pdf).
Here is a chart with the key findings.
MPs are debating the offensive weapons bill this afternoon. The government has just won a vote removing from the bill a section originally in the bill banning high-powered military-grade rifles. As we reported last week, the government backed down in response to pressure from Tory Brexiters and the DUP.
MPs are now voting on the Govt’s Amdt 26 which removes their own ban on .50 caliber rifles. This is a failure to act in the national interest. @UKLabour are opposing Govt’s u-turn on the ban of these powerful weapons which is supported by police & security services. Result 345
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2018
Govt pass Amdt to not ban .50 caliber rifles by 309 votes to 274. https://t.co/xzAUsOsLks
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2018
As the Evening Standard’s Kate Proctor reports, the government is proposing an alternative.
The Government has tabled an amendment that effectively reverses their proposed outright ban on these weapons. Instead they want to focus on their safe storage and security. There's not many of them - 159 licences for 0.50 calibre, and perhaps five of these anti-tank guns.
— Kate Proctor (@KateProctorES) November 28, 2018
And here is Business Insider’s Adam Bienkov with an assessment of what this means.
You know a government is in a weak position when it can't even ban the possession of *checks notes* "anti-tank guns." https://t.co/SIkZLifizy
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) November 28, 2018
A senior Airbus executive gave evidence to the Commons business committee this morning. As the Labour MP Rachel Reeves, who chairs the committee, reports, she said the company had had to spend €15m on no deal contingency planning.
"Airbus has spent 15 million euros on preparing for #NoDeal. I would much rather that money had been spent into research and technology or more skills..."
— Rachel Reeves (@RachelReevesMP) November 28, 2018
Katherine Bennett, Senior Vice-President of Airbus UK.@CommonsBEIS #Brexit #Aerospace pic.twitter.com/37ta4Yu0R5
This morning Politico obtained a copy of the Number 10 media grid for the fortnight running up to the meaningful vote - the diary of key issues that Downing Street was planning to highlight in between now and December 10, starting with today’s economic impact assessment.
Since then, it appears there has been some high speed reshuffling of the plans, on account of the the fact that was one rueful official admitted the grid “was accurate at the time it was leaked”. Somebody in Number 10’s will have had a busy morning to maintain an element of surprise in the coming days.
In case you missed it, this was the official Brexit issue by issue timetable, as of 7.30am.
SCOOP: No10’s new Brexit grid, seen by me:
— Tom McTague (@TomMcTague) November 28, 2018
Nov 28: Economy
Nov 29: Security
Nov 30: Int trade
Dec 1: Digital
Dec 2: The Brexit deal
Dec 3: Money
Dec 4: Immigration
Dec 5: Transport
Dec 6: Industrial strategy
Dec 7: Brexit for the whole UK
Dec 8: Consumers
Dec 9:
Dec 10: Ag & fish
McDonnell says it is 'inevitable' Labour will back second referendum
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has suggested it is “inevitable” that Labour will back a second referendum if Theresa May’s Brexit deal is defeated in the Commons but the party is unable to force a general election. McDonnell told the BBC:
We want a deal that will protect jobs and the economy. If we can’t achieve that - the government can’t achieve that - we should have a general election but that’s very difficult to do because of the nature of the legislation that David Cameron brought forward.
If that’s not possible, we’ll be calling upon the government then to join us in a public vote. It’s difficult to judge each stage, but that’s the sequence I think that we’ll inevitably go through over this period.
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg asked the shadow chancellor: “It is inevitable that if a vote of no confidence didn’t bring down the government and a general election, it is inevitable - to use that word that you just used - that there’d be another vote?” McDonnell replied:
That’s right. Our policy is if we can’t get a general election, then the other option which we’ve kept on the table is a people’s vote.
Is McDonnell stepping more closely to another referendum? sounds like it here... listen for yourself https://t.co/L4kIIEYAbL
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 28, 2018
In advance of Theresa May’s visit to Scotland this afternoon, the Scottish government’s constitutional relations secretary, Michael Russell, has accused the prime minister of trying to “cover up” the damage done by Brexit in the just-published Brexit analysis. Russell said:
The UK government is now wilfully and disgracefully pressing ahead with a policy it knows will hit living standards and the economy.
Worse, it is trying to cover up the scale of the damage by modelling proposals it put forward in the summer that the EU has already rejected, instead of the blindfold Brexit they are actually proposing.
Meanwhile, the Westminster Brexit publicity blitz continues with May’s deputy David Lidington booked to give evidence to a joint meeting of Holyrood’s finance and Europe committees tomorrow afternoon. Lidington visited Edinburgh last Friday but was rebuked by first minister Nicola Sturgeon for giving her too little notice to arrange a meeting. We’re still waiting to hear whether Sturgeon will manage to meet May while she is in Scotland today.
The European court of justice will deliver the opinion from its advocate general in the case about whether the UK can revoke article 50 next Tuesday.
#Brexit: Case C-621/18 Wightman on revocation of Article 50 - Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona will deliver his opinion on 4th December
— EU Court of Justice (@EUCourtPress) November 28, 2018
UPDATE: I’ve corrected this. The opinion from the advocate general is not the same as the court’s judgement, which is how I described it earlier.
Hi Andrew, the opinion of the Advocate General isn't exactly the same as the ruling. I believe @davidallengreen compared it to Mark Lawrenson giving his premier league predictions earlier...
— David Sharrock (@Shar_ds) November 28, 2018
FURTHER UPDATE: In the comments LostinBruges has more on the significance of the advocate general’s opinion. S/he posted this:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has one judge from each Member State, assisted by eleven advocates general whose role is to consider the written and oral submissions to the court in every case that raises a new point of law, and deliver an impartial opinion to the court on the legal solution. Although Advocates General are full members of the court, they do not take part in the court’s deliberations, and the Advocate General’s opinion is not binding on the court. Although the court reaches the same solution as the Advocate General more often than not, it cannot usually be stated that the advocate general’s opinion has been ‘followed’ in any given case, because the court may have reached the same conclusion via different legal reasoning. The role of Advocate General is created by Article 19(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 253 and 254 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Updated
Labour refuses to commit to calling immediate no confidence vote if MPs reject Brexit deal
Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman was keen to pour cold water on the idea that John McDonnell’s comment at a Guardian Live event last night, that a second referendum was an option Labour could “seize upon”, could mark a shift in Labour’s stance.
Asked about it after PMQs, he gave a prolix recitation of Labour’s position, as agreed at the party’s conference in Liverpool, that should the government lose the vote, and a general election not be called, “all options would be on the table”.
However, he insisted that, “we do not regard no deal as any kind of option” and declined to set out any others, aside from trying to rally parliament behind Labour’s alternative approach.
We’ve set our alternative plan for a deal that would work for the whole country. The key point is that the option of Labour’s alternative plan has to be on the table, and we believe there is majority support for it in parliament, and it would also command majority support in the country, across both Leave and Remain voters.
Asked whether Labour would immediately table a vote of no confidence in the government, if the vote on 11 December falls, he said:
If the government is unable to get its deal through parliament on something that’s absolutely crucial to its entire programme and to the future of the country, it will have lost the confidence of parliament in any case.
Corbyn’s spokesman repeated Labour’s opposition to a Norway-style deal - an option that appears to be gaining ground in Westminster. “We’ve said in relation to the Norway option that we just don’t think it works for Britain and we’ve said that all along,” he said.
Starmer signals Labour will seek debate accusing ministers of contempt of parliament over Brexit legal advice
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is now using a point of order to ask about the government’s decision to defy the binding Commons vote saying it must publish the full text of its legal advice on Brexit. He says John Bercow, the speaker, said at the time of the debate that the motion was binding.
He says a written statement today says Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, will make a statement to MPs on Monday. But he says he is deeply concerned about what Philip Hammond said this morning about the government refusing to publish the legal advice in full. (See 9.40am.)
Bercow says if Starmer is sure that ministers are not complying with the humble addresss, he could write to Bercow saying the House is subject to a contempt, and it will be for Bercow to deal with it. “I will not linger,”, he says.
(Bercow was just setting out the procedure, but he did so in such a way as to suggest the Starmer might not be wasting his time. And Starmer knew what the procedure is anyway, because he tried all this a year ago. See 10.57am. The point of order was really just about signalling what Labour will do next.)
- Starmer signals Labour will seek debate accusing ministers of contempt of parliament over Brexit legal advice.
Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Westminster, says he agrees with Starmer. Bercow says Dodds could write to him too.
In a speech this morning David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, rejected the government’s claim that Brexit would make the UK poorer. He said:
Treasury forecasts in the past have almost never been right and have more often been dramatically wrong.
As the Press Association reports, Davis said predictions the UK economy would contract by 2.1% in the 18 months after the Leave vote were unfounded, with it actually growing by 2.8%. He also said that other negative forecasts around unemployment and family incomes were also unfounded.
None of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass.
Davis suggested a Brexit scenario in which the UK reverts to a free trade deal with the EU based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could benefit the economy. “It would involve all the choking tentacles of the EU falling away,” he said. As the Press Association reports, Davis said UK exports to non-EU countries had grown four times faster than exports to the EU.
The future of the UK economy does not lie with the EU but with the wider world.
UPDATE: Here is a full text of the speech.
Updated
Here is more from John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, on the government’s Brexit impact analysis.
We’re in the ludicrous position of seeing an analysis produced today on the economic implications of Brexit which is in fact an assessment of the Chequers proposals abandoned months ago.
The government has been unable to assess the vague, half-baked deal the PM is promising, but what we do know is the latest proposals are worse than even the Chequers deal.
What the analysis produced by the Treasury today does show us is that the Tories plans will leave the country poorer.
Theresa May’s spokesman was asked after PMQs whether the government accepted that all the Brexit scenarios modelled in the Whitehall analysis - including the prime minister’s deal - will make Britain poorer. He replied:
I think what the prime minister said in there was that in all scenarios set out today the economy will continue to grow As the PM said, she believes she secured is the best available that’s consistent with the referendum - and today’s analysis backs that up.”
He added that the analysis doesn’t take into account “other decisions the government may make”, such as a souped-up industrial strategy.
Pressed further, the spokesman threw a revealing question back at journalists, asking:
Do you believe that when elected politicians ask the view of the public in a referendum, those same politicians should just be able to ignore that instruction? A country in which politicians ignore the will of the people, in what was the biggest democratic exercise in our history risks becoming divided, and divided countries do not prosper.
In other words, as ministers can’t quite bring themselves to say, yes Brexit may make the economy poorer than it would otherwise have been; but voters made a decision that other factors - sovereignty, control of migration - were more important.
Here is Torsten Bell, the director of the Resolution Foundation, a thinktank focusing on inquality, on the government’s economic analysis.
We've got little idea where between and FTA and Chequers we'll end up even if negotiations proceed from current deal. But big picture the analysis accepts that something in that space means a big hit to GDP (3.9%) and (more importantly for living standards) to GDP/capita (2.7%) pic.twitter.com/0iqkljurJF
— Torsten Bell (@TorstenBell) November 28, 2018
Back in the Commons, where the UQ is still going on, the Labour MP Chuka Umunna raises the same point that that Anna Soubry did. (See 1.14pm.) He says he and Soubry tabled an amendment to the finance bill demanding a Brexit analysis, and they only withdrew it because the Treasury promised it would publish an analysis of the government’s plan. But today’s analysis does not provide that, he says. He suggests he and Soubry were “misled”.
Stride says the government cannot model precisely what its plan will be because the political spectrum sets a framework covering a spectrum of outcomes.
David Henig, the trade specialist and former civil servant who heads the UK Trade Policy Project, has also posted useful thread on Twitter about the government’s economic analysis. He thinks it is “fraudulent”. His thread starts here.
So the Government has modelled an imaginary scenario based on the Chequers proposals that the EU has rejected. The figures, which then show it isn't that different to remain, are therefore of little use... https://t.co/byMvjfMGA5 pic.twitter.com/lVtusOaP5z
— David Henig (@DavidHenigUK) November 28, 2018
Kirsty Blackman, the SNP’s economic spokeswoman, has posted a useful thread on Twitter with excerpts from government’s Brexit economic analysis, with comment. It starts here.
Some excerpts from the UK Government’s Brexit analysis. (Short version: despite trying to manipulate the figures to make May’s deal look better, it still stinks)
— Kirsty Blackman (@KirstySNP) November 28, 2018
Updated
Here is the CBI reaction to the government’s Brexit impact assessment. It’s from the CBI’s chief economist, Rain Newton-Smith.
These forecasts paint a bleak picture over the long-term of a no deal Brexit or a Canada-style deal. It surely puts to bed some of the more far-fetched ideas that a hard landing Brexit will not seriously hurt the economy.
This is about real people’s lives and jobs in the years ahead and it’s clear to business that while the government’s deal is not perfect, it certainly fits the bill in reducing short-term uncertainty and opens up a route to a decent trade deal in the future.
May accused of having 'head in sand' after refusing to agree with Hammond about Brexit making UK poorer
The SNP has accused Theresa May of having her “head in the sand” because at PMQs she refused to agree with Philip Hammond, the chancellor, about Brexit making the UK poorer. (See 12.09pm and 12.22pm.)
In response Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Wesminster, said:
The chancellor explained that every possible Brexit scenario will make the UK poorer, yes astoundingly, Theresa May denied these comments in prime minister’s questions.
The chancellor’s comments chime with analysis published yesterday by the Scottish government, which shows that most likely outcome of the UK’s withdrawal agreement and political declaration on the future relationship with the EU will hit Scotland’s GDP growth by £9 billion, leaving every Scot £1,600 worse off.
No government should choose to weaken its economy and make its citizens poorer. Theresa May’s head is in the sand.
Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, says the government promised MPs it would produce a modelled analysis of its proposed deal. But that promise has not been met, she says. She says on the basis of that promise she withdrew an amendment to a bill on this issue.
Stride says he does not accept that promises have been broken. The analysis is covers a spectrum of outcomes, because the political declaration is not specific, he says.
Nicky Morgan, the chair of the Commons Treasury committee, starts by complaining that John Bercow has called three Tory backbench men ahead of her, even though the Treasury analysis was demanded by her committee. She says the Bank of England will publish its analysis later. And Philip Hammond will give evidence to her committee next week, she says. She urges MPs to consider all the evidence before coming to a view.
Bercow says he almost always calls every MP who wants to speak in a UQ, unlike other speakers. He says MPs should not worry about when they are called. The three Tories he called ahead of her were the father of the House, and two former cabinet ministers, he says.
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, asks Stride if he knows of any economic forecast that has got the figures right. Stride accepts such a forecast does not exist.
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, asks what was the point of modelling an plan (Chequers) involving the UK staying effectively in the single market for goods when the EU has rejected this.
Stride says the political declaration makes it clear that the details of the future trade deal are yet to be negotiated.
John Redwood, a Conservative Brexiter, asks Stride if the government will publish figures showing the UK growth rate in the 25 years before it joined the EEC, and since it joined the single market in 1992. That will show how bad the EU has been for the UK.
Stride says he suspects Redwood has seen the figures already.
Ken Clarke, the Tory former chancellor, asks Stride to accept that it is not possible to leave a free trade area and introduce barriers to trade without making the UK poorer. He says it is obvious the UK should stay in the single market and the customs union.
McDonnell says Brexit analysis is 'ludicrous' because it does not cover deal agreed with EU
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, says the least that MPs could expect was an oral statement from the Philip Hammond.
He says we are now in the “ludicrous” position of having an economic analysis of plans based on the Chequers proposals, which the government has abandoned.
He asks Stride to confirm that the deal on offer is worse for the UK than Chequers.
He asks what assumptions the Treasury has made about extending the transition.
Mel Stride, a junior Treasury minister, is responding to the UQ.
The economic analysis has been published, he says. He says it is not a forecast.
It looks at five scenarios, he says. He says this analysis shows that the deal on the table is the best deal
Urgent question on government's economic analysis of Brexit
Rachel Reeves, the Labour MP and chair of the business committee, raises a point of order. Why is Philip Hammond not hear to answer the UQ, she asks. She says he should be here on a such an urgent issue. He has had lots of time for broadcast interviews, she says.
Labour’s Liz Kendall says she has never heard a government say its policy will make people poorer. Is that what May came into politics for?
May says she does not accept this. The economic analysis shows the economy will continue to grow, she says.
Peter Bone, the Tory Brexiter, gets one of the final questions at PMQs. He says a Lords committee said the UK could leave the EU without having to pay anything to the EU. But May says the opposite. Who is right?
May says the Lords committee did say that. But there is a different opinion. She says the other view is that the UK will have legal obligations. She thinks the UK should meet its obligations.
PMQ - Snap verdict
PMQ - Snap verdict: God help us all if the five-day debate on Brexit is anything like this. Anyone looking for insight into what will, or will not happen, when the UK leaves the EU from these exchanges will be disappointed. May has had a relatively easy time of it so far, compared to some of her other recent Commons outings. She has had relatively little criticism from Brexiter Tories, and it was Jeremy Corbyn who put her under most pressure, although even these exchanges weren’t particularly decisive because he did not push as hard as he could done on certain issues. His quote from what May said about Blair being under an obligation to publish the Iraq legal advice was effective, although he did not make the obvious point that it is hypocritical for a government committed to letting parliament take back control to be defying the Commons. And he did not fully exploit the huge gap between what Philip Hammond is saying about how Brexit will make the UK poorer and what May is saying about how it won’t (because, she argues, there will be some growth anyway in the future). Hammond is not in the chamber (locked away in a cupboard by No 10 aides?) and the biggest takeway from the session is the split between 10 Downing Street and 11 Downing Street over how to spin the economic analysis report. May had a couple of good retorts to Corbyn, about Labour’s Brexit plan being shorter than her shopping list (which is quite possibly true - Labour has not published anything like a detailed plan for Brexit, and, as an accomplished cook, May’s shopping list may be quite extensive) and about the number of resignations from Corbyn’s front bench. What was also telling was that MPs seem to have given up asking May what she will do if she loses her vote. She has dodged this question so often that any further questions seem superfluous. We will just have to wait until 12 December to find out.
Updated
Simon Hoare, a Conservative, asks about rural communities and banking.
May says she recognises that free access to cash is important in rural communities.
The SNP’s Douglas Chapman jokes about how Scots will be dancing in the streets about May’s visit. What lessons has May learned from Brexit to speed things up when Scotland votes for independence?
May says the vote in 2014 settled this.
Updated
Theresa Villiers, the Tory former cabinet minister, asks for more funding for the police.
May says the police have been given extra money. But she recognises the importance of this issue.
Updated
Tracy Brabin, the Labour MP, asks about a constituent, Matthew, who waived his anonymity to speak about abuse he suffered at the hands of a clergyman. Will May agree to mandatory reporting of abuse in all areas, including in the church?
May says the child abuse inquiry has shown that too many people have suffered from this.
The government looked at mandatory reporting when she was home secretary. She says the evidence was mixed. There was some evidence saying it led to genuine cases being overlooked.
Updated
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Tory Brexiter, asks May if she agrees that, if her Brexit deal gets voted down, the UK should have a clean Brexit and leave without paying £39bn to the EU.
May defends her deal.
The SNP’s Ian Blackford wishes everyone a happy St Andrew’s Day for Friday.
He says the government analysis says real wages will fall under Brexit. Does May agree this will leave people poorer than the status quo?
May says she does not accept that. It shows this is a strong economy that continues to grow. And the model that best delivers on the referendum result is her plan, she says.
Blackford wonders if May has read the report. It clearly shows people will be poorer. He says May is taking us back to the Thatcher era; she thinks economic damage is a “price worth paying”. He says May is going to Scotland today. People in Scotland voted to remain. They are not prepared to give up their rights.
May says there have been 3.3m jobs created under this government. Employment is at a record high. The Scots voted to stay in the UK and for 13 Tory MPs.
Updated
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, asks an easy question about small business day.
May says she would like to visit some of the excellent shops Lamont mentioned.
Corbyn says, when May was in opposition in 2003, she said legal advice on the Iraq war should be published. So why won’t she practise what she preached on Brexit?
May says the advice any client receives from a lawyer is privileged. The government will publish a summary.
Corbyn says MPs should see the advice, warts and all. He says 20 ministers have resigned. “This is the most shambolic government in living memory.” She wants MPs to vote on a wishlist. It is clear parliament won’t back her plan. So she should make way for an alternative government.
May says Corbyn has seen 100 resignations. She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few.
Updated
Corbyn says after eight years of making the UK poorer through austerity, this “botched Brexit” will deliver more of the same. He says the report from the UN’s Philip Alston said, for the government, the impact of Brexit on poverty was an afterthought. Who is backing her plan?
May mentions different groups that back her plans. On the economy, she says youth unemployment is at a record low. And today the number of children in workless households is at a record low, as is the proportion of workless households.
Corbyn says the Alston report said there were 14 million people living in poverty. A private CBI email said it was not a good deal. May is just committed to working for frictionless trade. She used to guarantee frictionless trade. Now she is offering friction - and less trade. What is best? Extending the transition or falling into the backstop?
May says there is an exit from the backstop. But the government does not want to be in it in the first place. The EU cannot sign trade deals until the UK leaves. She says within a year the EU and the UK turned a short outline agreement into 560 pages of legal text. So in the two years available it will be possible to agree a deal, she says.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn also praises Lady Trumpington. And he says he wants to pay tribute to Harry Leslie Smith too. He was an irrepressible campaigner, and was passionate about healthcare for all.
He says Jeremy Hunt said on Sunday the Brexit deal mitigates most of the negative impacts of Brexit. Which ones does it not mitigate?
May says the analysis does not show that the UK will be poorer in the future. What would make the UK poorer would be Corbyn’s policies.
Corbyn says May said this was the best deal, and the only deal. It is not hard to be the best deal if it is the only deal. On that basis, it is also the worst deal. Does May agree with Hammond this will make people worse off?
May says this is the best deal which delivers on the result of the referendum. She says the political declaration is not a wishlist. It sets out ambitions for a broad partnership. What does Labour have to offer? Six bullet points. Her weekend shopping list is longer than that, she says.
Updated
Douglas Ross, a Scottish Conservative, says he has concerns about the Brexit deal. What assurances can May give to the fishing industry and for the union?
May says she is a committed unionist. She will ensure the UK becomes an independent coastal state. The UK will decide who gets access to UK waters. And fishing access will not be traded for anything else.
Labour’s Rosie Cooper asks about the “misery” inflicted on passengers by Northern Rail. There can be no more excuse. This fiasco began in May. Isn’t it time to end this franchise?
May says she is clear that the performance in the north following the timetable changes was “unacceptable”. Passengers are not getting the services they deserve, although there are more services now than there were. Where operators are at fault, the government will take action.
Theresa May starts by paying tribute to Lady Trumpington.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question at PMQs.
PMQs
PMQs will start soon.
I normally do a snap verdict as soon as Jeremy Corbyn has finished, because for many people what matters most at PMQs is how Theresa May and Corbyn perform against each other.
But, with the Brexit vote looming, what matters most is May v the Commons, and so I will post a verdict towards the end, squeezed in just before the economic analysis UQ.
Here is the key table from the government’s economic analysis.
Government publishes its economic analysis of Brexit
The government’s Brexit economic analysis is out. It runs to 90 pages and it is available here (pdf).
It is one of five government papers out today analysing the deal. You can find them all here.
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, will not be responding to the urgent question about the Brexit impact assessment, according to Labour. He will send his junior minister, Mel Stride, in his place.
Despite being able to do an extensive media round, @PhilipHammondUK is refusing to come to the House of Commons and answer questions on the Govt’s own analysis of various Brexit scenarios. He’s sending out @MelJStride in his place. #HidingFromScrutiny https://t.co/ZZucoutGE4
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2018
Under its new editor, Geordie Greig, the Daily Mail has turned against the Tory hard Brexiters and turned into a supercharged cheerleader for Theresa May. In that spirit it has splashed today on new polling from Survation which suggests that public support for May’s Brexit deal is increasing since it polled on this on 15 November, the day after May secured backing for the deal at a five-hour cabinet meeting.
Total support for the deal is up 10 points, the poll suggests.
Awareness of, and public support for the UK Government’s Brexit withdrawal agreement has increased significantly since Survation’s November 15th polling: https://t.co/jv87uRlJTx pic.twitter.com/pn1cXe2rgF
— Survation. (@Survation) November 28, 2018
(Note: this is just amongst people who have heard or seen details of the plan. That is 72% of all respondents. Amongst everyone - ie, if you included the people who told pollsters they did not know anything about the plan - support would possibly be lower.)
And by a narrow margin, people want MPs to vote for the deal, the poll suggests. (These figures are based on responses from everyone, not just from the 72% who have seen details of the plan.)
https://t.co/jv87uRlJTx pic.twitter.com/GV7FXldNnC
— Survation. (@Survation) November 28, 2018
Here is the Mail splash.
The Mail plays down other findings in the Survation poll less helpful to the PM, including 48% of people saying there should be a second referendum, and only 34% saying they are opposed.
Other polls have delivered very different results. At the end of last week Lord Ashcroft, the former Tory deputy chairman released some detailed polling on this topic and it found people saying MPs should vote down the deal by nearly two to one – although the question was skewed because it asked what MPs should do “if they are not happy with the terms on offer”.
Updated
There will be an urgent question on the government’s analysis of the economic impact of Brexit after PMQs.
BREAKING NEWS: @johnmcdonnellMP UQ granted at 1245 to demand that @PhilipHammondUK make a statement on the Government’s publication of economic and fiscal analysis of various Brexit scenarios. He should have made an oral statement, it is a shame he has had to be dragged here.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 28, 2018
The Financial Times’ Laura Hughes has more from the Michael Gove hearing, which has now finished.
Michael Gove: "I think the prime minister's deal is the best one for the country. The only thing I am advocating is the prime minister's deal."
— Laura Hughes (@Laura_K_Hughes) November 28, 2018
Michael Gove says Defra is preparing for a no deal Brexit but that "the thing that worries me most is what the impact would be in particular on food exporters in the event of no deal".
— Laura Hughes (@Laura_K_Hughes) November 28, 2018
What can MPs do if ministers refuse to comply with binding Commons motion on Brexit legal advice?
What can the House of Commons do if the government refuses to comply with the binding motion saying it must publish the full legal advice on the government’s Brexit deal? (See 9.40am.) Luckily I can give you an expert opinion on this, because John Bercow, the speaker, gave a detailed answer when asked about this last year (exactly a year ago today, in fact), after the Commons used a “humble address” motion to force the government to release its Brexit impact assessments.
A minister who refused to comply with a binding motion of this kind could be in contempt of parliament. Bercow went on:
A member wishing to allege a contempt should, in the first instance, raise it not in a point of order, nor indeed in the media, but by writing to me as soon as practicable after the member has notice of the alleged contempt or breach of privilege. I then decide whether or not the matter should have precedence ... I am more than happy to confirm that my doors are always open for such written notices.
As this note explains, if the speaker decided there was a case to answer, he would allow the MP to hold a debate in the chamber, normally on a motion referring the matter to the privileges committee for investigation. The committee (which is chaired by a Labour MP and does not have a government majority) would then investigate, and could recommend a punishment for the offending MP. That recommendation would then have to be endorsed by the Commons as a whole in a vote, although normally privileges committee reports are agreed without opposition.
Presumably opposition MPs have been writing letters to Bercow this morning. David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, was the person who spoke for the government on this issue in the legal advice debate when the “humble address” was passed, and so presumably he is the person now in contempt of parliament.
Gove insists supplies of drinking water won't run out under no deal Brexit
At the weekend the Mail on Sunday said that Michael Gove, the environment secretary, decided to back Theresa May’s Brexit deal because “Britain would run out of clean drinking water within days” if the UK left without a deal. The report said:
Whitehall disaster planners have warned Ministers that leaving the EU without a deal could spark a national crisis as crucial chemicals used in water purification are imported to the UK from Europe.
The deliveries risk getting caught in weeks of border chaos if Britain quits the EU next March without the Prime Minister’s deal with Brussels being approved by MPs.
The vital chemicals are timed to arrive ‘just in time’ and cannot be stockpiled as they are too volatile, meaning water plants would have to turn off the taps as soon as they ran out or risk poisoning millions.
At the environment committee Gove has just been asked about this. He said there was an issue with water, but that the Mail on Sunday report seemed to be founded on “Chinese whispers”. He explained:
It is the case that the water industry is reliant on chemicals that are imported from the EU in order to ensure that we have pure and safe drinking water. But it is also the case that the overwhelming majority of those chemicals come in to ports which are not in the narrow straights - they come in through Immingham rather than through Dover, some come through Dover. It is the case that prudently we have talked to the water companies, and I have been talking to the regulator, to make sure that those chemicals can be sourced.
So, if we leave without a deal, then we need to take appropriate steps to mitigate. We are taking those steps. So it should be the case that our water will be - in fact, it will be the case that our water will be completely safe.
Gove also denied being the source of the Mail on Sunday story.
Corbyn leads tributes to veteran Labour activist Harry Leslie Smith who has died
Second World War veteran and Labour activist Harry Leslie Smith has died aged 95, the Press Association reports. Smith, from Barnsley in South Yorkshire, championed human rights and the welfare state, and appeared at the Labour party conference in 2014 to speak about life before the NHS. A post on his Twitter account, which has more than 250,000 followers, announced his death on Wednesday morning.
At 3:39 this morning, my dad Harry Leslie Smith died. I am an orphan. #istandwithharry
— Harry Leslie Smith (@Harryslaststand) November 28, 2018
The PA story goes on:
The verified Twitter account links to a Facebook page called Harry’s Last Stand.
A post on that page, dated November 21, says: “My dad, Harry Leslie Smith is critically ill in hospital in Ontario Canada after a fall, yesterday morning. You can follow updates on his twitter feed harryslaststand and the hash tag IStandwithHarry This is his son, John.”
Jeremy Corbyn has led tributes from Labour MPs.
We will all miss Harry Leslie Smith - he was one of the giants whose shoulders we stand on.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) November 28, 2018
A World War Two veteran who dedicated his life to fighting for our National Health Service, a peaceful world and for countries to meet their moral responsibility by welcoming refugees. pic.twitter.com/1RW63dSa6Y
Very sad to hear of the death of Harry Leslie Smith. He was one of a kind who never wavered in his fight for equality and justice. We should all carry his passion, optimism and spirit forward.
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) November 28, 2018
RIP Harry Leslie Smith will always remember this wonderful speech on the NHS you gave at Labour Conference https://t.co/SGhKKMs4ES
— Jonathan Ashworth (@JonAshworth) November 28, 2018
Philip Hammond's morning interviews - Summary
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has given at least four broadcast interviews this morning. Here are the main points.
- Hammond confirmed that leaving the EU will make the UK poorer, even under Theresa May’s plan, which is intended to minimise the economic damage caused by withdrawal. On the Today programme, when it was put to him that GDP would be lower under every Brexit scenario, he replied.
Yes, you’re right in that analysis. If you look at this purely from the economic point of view, there will be a cost to leaving the EU because there will be impediments to our trade. What the prime minister’s deal does is absolutely minimise those costs.
- He said that a no deal Brexit would have “a much higher impact on the economy than the deal the prime minister has negotiated.”
- He claimed that over time the negative impact of leaving the EU under May’s plan would be minimal. At one point he said there would be “a very modest impact on the overall size of the economy”. And at another point he said:
The economy will be slightly smaller in the prime minister’s preferred version of the future partnership.
- He said economic impact was not the only factor to take into account when evaluating Brexit. He said:
I’m the chancellor so of course I look at the economy as being of overriding importance, but there are other considerations.
And I recognise that many people feel very strongly about the need to leave the European Union to regain control of our fishing waters, to regain control of migration and control of our borders, to have the right to do third-country trade deals. These are things which have value to people, and it is true that the economy will be very slightly smaller if we do the deal the way the prime minister has set out and negotiated, but the impact will be entirely manageable.
- He rejected claims that warnings about the impact of a no deal Brexit amounted to scaremongering. When this was put to him, he replied:
I’m not trying to scare anybody and I reject the term ‘scaremongering’. If the government wasn’t doing anything about the possibility that we could leave the European Union in just four months’ time with no deal at all, if we weren’t making any preparations, I’d be on this programme and you’d rightly be attacking me for not preparing Britain for a possibility which clearly could happen.
And in that case we know, for example, that there will be significant delays at the Channel ports because customs procedures will have to be introduced where they don’t exist now, and that will slow down the flow of vehicles and therefore the flow of good coming into Britain and going out of Britain.
Of course we have to prepare for that, we have to make arrangements that will, as far as possible, minimise any disruption that will be caused by that no-deal exit.
- He confirmed that the government will not publish its full legal advice on the Brexit deal, even though the Commons passed a binding motion saying it must. Asked about this, he said it would be “impossible for the government to function” if such confidential material was made public. He went on:
There’s a very important principle here, that the government must be able to commission impartial legal advice which absolutely tells it like it is to enable it to shape its decisions, while always complying with its legal obligation in the negotiations.
It would be impossible for government to function if we create a precedent that the legal advice that the government receives has to be made public.
We must have, as every other citizen has, the right to take privileged legal advice which remains private between the lawyer and the client.
So the client has the ability to ask the difficult questions, to receive full and frank legal advice, and then to make a decision based on that full and frank advice.
This is certain to be raised in the Commons later.
Updated
Here are two anti-Brexit MPs on Philip Hammond’s comments this morning.
From Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman
Jaw-dropping.
— Tom Brake MP (@thomasbrake) November 28, 2018
.@PhilipHammondUK calmly states on @BBCr4today that leaving the EU, with the PM's deal, No Deal or any other deal will damage British jobs.
Is he the first UK Chancellor who has openly admitted they intend hurting the UK economy?#PeoplesVote#FBPE
From the Labour MP Owen Smith
Philip Hammond’s admission that Brexit is going to cost our country between £40 and £150 BILLION per year is surely the first time in our history, other than in war, when a British Chancellor has advocated a policy that will inevitably mean cuts to the NHS, Schools, Defence etc?
— Owen Smith (@OwenSmith_MP) November 28, 2018
According to Steven Swinford in the Daily Telegraph (paywall), the government’s official analysis of the impact of Brexit will say that, under Theresa May’s Brexit plan, the economy will be between 1 and 2% smaller after 15 years than it would be if the UK stayed in the EU. Swinford writes:
A cross-government analysis is expected to show that under the Chequers agreement, which forms the basis of her deal, the UK’s GDP will be between 1 and 2% lower over 15 years than if it had stayed in the EU.
However, in a move that will prompt a backlash from Tory Eurosceptics, the ministers are expected to argue that the UK will still be significantly better off than it would if it left without a deal.
The analysis suggests that under a no-deal Brexit the UK’s GDP will be 7.6% lower than if it had stayed in the EU, equivalent to around £150bn ...
[The analysis] compares staying in the EU with four scenarios: the prime minister’s deal, a Norway-style deal, a free trade agreement with the EU and going onto World Trade Organisation terms under no deal Brexit.
The analysis suggests that under Mrs May’s deal GDP will be between 1 and 2% lower over the next 15 years. Under the Norway option GDP would be 1.4% lower, under the free trade scenario 4.9% and under no-deal 7.6%.
Hammond confirms that leaving EU will make UK poorer
In October 2016 Philip Hammond, the chancellor, told the Conservative party conference: “It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer.” But now he is admitting that they did. He has been giving interviews this morning ahead of the publication of the government’s official analysis of the impact of Brexit, and he confirms that Brexit will make the British economy smaller - even under Theresa May’s plan, which is intended to mitigate the economic impact of leaving the EU. He told Sky News this morning:
If you look only at economic benefits, yes there will be a cost to leaving the European Union.
This is, of course, no surprise to anyone who has taken an interest in the subject. (And in October 2106 Hammond himself knew that Brexit would harm the economy; in that speech he was just trying to make a point about what people thought they were voting for, not what they actually were voting for.) But Hammond’s decision to be so explicit this morning will probably anger his some of Brexiter colleagues, who refuse to believe mainstream economic forecasts.
It might also put him at odds with May herself, who on Monday in the Commons was rehearsing the ‘all forecasts are rubbish’ line championed by people like Jacob Rees-Mogg. (What she actually said was: “I think it would be an interesting debate for this house, the extent to which economic forecasts can actually be described as facts.”) She is bound to be asked about this at PMQs, and it will be interesting to see if she is willing to be as candid on this as Hammond.
There was a lot more in the Hammond interviews. I will post a summary soon.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: Airbus and ADS executives give evidence to the Commons business committee about Brexit.
9.30am: Matt Hancock, the health secretary, gives a speech at the King’s Fund annual conference.
9.30am: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environment committee about Brexit.
10am: Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, gives evidence to the Carl Sargeant inquiry.
10.30am: David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, gives a speech on the reliability of economic forecasts.
Around 11.30am: The Brexit department is due to publish the government’s assessment of the economic impact of Brexit.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
2.45pm: Executives from pharmaceutical industry give evidence to the Commons business committee on Brexit.
4.30pm: The Bank of England publishes its assessment of the economic impact of 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 when I finish, at around 5.30pm.
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 normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
