We’re going to close down this live blog now. You can see a summary of the attorney general’s Commons appearance here. And you can read our full story here:
Some news from the meeting between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May: The Scottish first minister has said Downing Street must change course in order to avoid an “utterly disastrous” no-deal Brexit if the prime minister’s plans are rejected by MPs.
Sturgeon called for the UK’s departure from the European Union to be delayed in order to find a “workable alternative” to May’s Brexit deal. But, in talks at Westminster, May urged the first minister to listen to Scottish business chiefs and back the deal or risk going back to “square one”. Sturgeon said:
I used today’s meeting with the prime minister to reiterate that it cannot – and must not – be a false choice between her proposed deal and a no-deal outcome, which threatens to be utterly disastrous for jobs, business and living standards.
Instead, there must be a recognition that, if the PM’s deal is defeated in the Commons, as is widely expected, then a workable alternative is urgently needed.
That means there should be an extension to the Article 50 process, and we will join with those from other parties in trying to secure such an extension.
The SNP will lay our amendment to the meaningful vote later this week and we will continue to work with others to build consensus around alternative proposals that would deliver on the vote of the people of Scotland to remain.
With the UK government’s own published figures now making clear that any kind of Brexit would make us all poorer, the time has come for all those who oppose the extreme Brexit championed by the right-wing of the Tory party to come together and make a stand.”
A Downing Street spokesman said
The prime minister spoke about the support she has received from fishermen, farmers and business leaders – like Sir Ian Wood – who back the deal as it gives them the clarity and certainty they need to protect jobs and living standards.
The prime minister urged the first minister to listen to these voices in their support of the deal as opposed to risking a no-deal Brexit or going back to square one of negotiations.
Updated
Geoffrey Cox's statement - Snap verdict
Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has achieved something remarkable; he has united all the Commons opposition parties (and the DUP, which is not sure at the moment which side it’s on) who now want to see him face disciplinary action for not publishing his full Brexit legal advice. John Bercow, the speaker, has promised a decision very soon, possibly tonight, and so it is probable that within the next day or so we may get a full-blown Commons debate on the government’s contempt of parliament. We don’t know yet what the motion would say. Normally in these circumstances it would just be a referral to the privileges committee for an inquiry, but given the point made by Labour about the need to resolve this quickly (see 6.56pm), MPs could soon be voting on whether or not to suspend Cox from the Commons.
The opposition parties cannot agree on anything else about Brexit, and that helps to explain why they are so vocal about this. Cox put up a good argument as to why the executive should be able to keep some documents secret, and it is worth remembering that even Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has said the government should not have to release every document technically covered by the wording of the November “humble address” motion (5,000 of them, ministers say). But this point did not do Cox much good in the chamber today. MPs are far more interested in these procedural wrangles than most ordinary people and so perhaps this is just a parliamentary sideshow, although Brexit was supposed to be able the Commons “taking back control” and potentially this move could have more far reaching consequences. As Hilary Benn pointed out in the Brexit committee earlier (see 1.41pm), quite soon MPs may be voting on motions telling the government what to do next in the Brexit talks. The assumption had been that ministers would have the ability to ignore such votes. A “humble address” motion is different, because it is very specific and binding in a way that other Commons motions aren’t. Today’s show of force could just make ministers a bit more nervous about ignoring parliament - although it would be unwise to bet on it.
The disclosure row has overshadowed the substance of what Cox had to say about the deal, which is another win for the opposition - because Cox was far better at making the case for the deal than May has been. That is because he was frank about the compromises involved, and about the need to make a political judgment about the balance of risk. He was also colourful and interesting. As a moneybags QC, his speciality is winning over juries, and today an open-minded audience might have been persuaded. But few MPs come to this with an open mind, and so his two-and-a-half hour submission may have been wasted.
That’s all from me for today. A colleague will be updating the blog if there are any further developments.
Updated
Bercow tells MPs he will rule quickly on call for contempt proceedings debate
The statement has now finished.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow attorney general, rises to make a point of order. He asks how the opposition can follow up contempt proceedings. He mentions the joint opposition letter (see 6.05pm) and says Cox himself conceded he was in contempt.
He says the government is playing for time. It hopes contempt proceedings (which normally involve a reference to the privileges committee, which then launches an investigation) can be dragged out.
He says this matter should be proceeded with quickly
Bercow says he has only just been made aware of it. He will consider it and deliver a “rapid decision”, either before the Commons rises tonight (around 10.30pm), or first thing tomorrow.
Geoffrey Cox rises to make his own point of order. He tells Bercow that he will be writing to him tonight setting out the government’s views on this matter.
Cox has been taking questions for about two and a quarter hours now. Normally only the prime minister, on topics of major national interest, spends this long at the despatch box when making a Commons statement.
Cox says government decision to abstain on 'humble address' motion was mistake
Cox says the government should have voted against the Commons “humble address” motion saying the full Brexit legal advice. The government told its MPs to abstain, and so the Labour motion was approved without a division. Cox said the government should have voted against. Even if it had lost, it would have been in the same position as now, he says.
He says he had no discussion with the chief whip on how the Torries would vote.
Cox says no lawyer would be “worth his salt” if he allowed his personal political views to affect his advice to clients on a matter of law.
Cox told MPs earlier that, if necessary, he would be willing to be expelled from the Commons rather than back down over publishing his legal advice in full. As HuffPost reports, when asked about this, he said:
I hope the House will reconsider the position. I hope it will understand that no attorney would wish to place himself in contempt of the House.
The House has at its disposal the means by which to enforce its will ... It can seek to impose a sanction, I fully accept that. I simply say I cannot compromise the public interest.
Labour’s Kevin Brennan says, under the ministerial code, ministers can voluntarily release legal advice.
Cox says, just because legal advice has been released in the past, that does not mean it is a good idea.
He says the UK is “in the middle of a negotiation”.
When MPs protest, because the withdrawal agreement has been agreed, he says that after Brexit the UK and the EU will have to negotiate the future trade deal. He says in that negotiation many of the same arguments will apply.
Labour’s Chris Bryant says he had more sympathy for Cox before this session started than now. Even a government has to comply with the will of parliament.
Cox says suppose that document contained sensitive information. When a court decides whether something must be made public, a judge gets to read it first.
He says the “motion of return” (ie, the “humble address” procedure) was only supposed to be used to secure public documents. But the procedure has been re-invented, he says.
motion of return
Cox says he is only refusing to publish the full legal advice “to protect us” - meaning MPs as a whole, not the government.
This is from Charlie Falconer, the Labour former lord chancellor.
Attorney General is fundamentally misstating the Constitution. The Commons and not the AG is the ultimate arbiter of whether the full advice should be disclosed. If the Commons thinks it should AG cannot override that by his belief it’s not in the public interest to do so.
— Charlie Falconer (@LordCFalconer) December 3, 2018
Labour’s David Hanson says MPs found to be in contempt of parliament can be expelled from the House. Is Cox prepared to risk that?
Cox says he does not want to be in contempt of the Commons. He is “truly sorry” to be in this position. But he is only doing this because he thinks not publishing the advice is in the public interest.
Cox says he does not accept that the government is refusing to publish the full legal advice to protect the government. It is doing so to protect the public interest, he says.
Philip Davies, the Tory Brexiter, asks if the UK would have to pay money to the EU if it left without a deal.
Cox says he thinks the UK would have to pay money. A Lords committee said that the UK would not have to pay anything under EU law. But the UK would have obligations under international public law, he says. He says you could try to argue that those obligations did not apply, but he says he thinks that argument would fail. And he says, if the UK did try to avoid paying what it owed, there would be reputational damage. If you leave a club, you do not go without paying your bar bill, he says.
Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has raised an interesting new point on the Irish border backstop saying it would be invalidated legally if it became “permanent”.
He told the house that the backstop would “pertain indefinitely” if trade talks break down and there is no future deal and there is “no point in the government trying to disguise this”.
But he immediately went on the offensive saying that this was a “calculated risk” made in the knowledge that no other EU country or investor in another EU country would tolerate a permanent status for Northern Ireland both within the EU and in the UK and all the economical benefits that flow from that. He said:
As a matter of EU law, it would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge which would make it invalid.
This was an interesting new point because we knew that the withdrawal agreement does not allow the backstop to be the basis of a permanent relationship between the EU and the UK. But we did not know the fragility of the backstop arrangement, as argued by Geoffrey Cox, QC.
Cox also quickly saw off a challenge from the DUP’s Nigel Dodds with the same point.
He told Dodds he “wrestled” with the backstop, for “I am a unionist” but people have got to understand the fragility of its foundations.
Rivals, Cox told him, would “beat a path to the European Commission” protesting Northern Ireland had unfair advantage and “they would win”.
Six opposition parties launch joint call for contempt proceedings against government over legal advice
Six opposition parties have written a joint letter to the speaker calling for contempt proceedings to be launched against the government over its failure to publish its Brexit legal advice in full.
Here is an extract from the joint news release.
A cross-party alliance has today written to the speaker of the House of Commons asking him to consider launching contempt proceedings against the government for failing to release the attorney general’s full legal advice on the Brexit deal as ordered by Parliament.
The letter of complaint will now be considered by the Speaker who will decide whether at first glance there is a case of contempt and whether the matter should be referred to the committee of privileges.
And Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said:
The government has failed to publish the attorney general’s full and final legal advice to the cabinet, as ordered by parliament. We have therefore been left with no option but to write to the speaker of the House of Commons to ask him to launch proceedings of contempt.
The letter has been signed by representatives from Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems, the DUP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.
Labour, SNP, DUP, LibDems, Plaid and Greens come together in writing to speaker, accusing the government of being in contempt of parliament by failing to publish the full Brexit legal advice. Judging by the debate, the Tory right agrees with them. pic.twitter.com/h8JUkMWbn8
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) December 3, 2018
Cox says comparisons with the Iraq war are not appropriate. In 2003 the issue was whether or not the government was acting legally. In this case, the issue for MPs is whether or not it is acting wisely, he says.
David Davis says position paper on legal advice 'worse than we feared'
David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, and Suella Braverman, the former Brexit minister (they both resigned over Theresa May’s deal - but not at the same time) have both released statements saying the full legal advice should be published.
Davis said:
The legal summary document is worse than we feared: the backstop customs union is indefinite, the UK would be a rule taker and the European Court is in charge of our destiny, rather than the sovereign UK Parliament. This is not Brexit
This only reinforces what I’ve been saying for weeks: the legal advice must be published in full so that the House of Commons can debate this properly.
And Braverman said:
With very little time until the historic vote on the deal, it is only proper that MPs are fully aware of the legally implications of what they are deciding upon. The duty that we owe our constituents and the country demands that we should go into this vote with our eyes wide open. Withholding the advice will keep parliament in the dark and this can’t be right.
Cox says, if he complied with the will of this House, “I sincerely believe it would not be in all of our interests”.
Cox says sometimes there is no “full” legal advice. Law officers give advice in fast-moving circumstances. Sometimes that is “on the hoof”, and not comprehensive.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, says Cox has not answered the basic point about why is is refusing to comply with the Commons motion saying the legal advice must be published. He says the Commons is a higher authority than the government.
Cox says he will be happy to consider Rees-Mogg’s point. But it cannot be right that the Commons has the power to ask for any paper produced by the government. “Where does it end?” Can the Commons use a “humble address” to get hold of cabinet minutes, or intelligence papers. It cannot be right for the “humble address” to be used like this. Erskine May suggests “humble address” motions should only be used to secure papers of a public country.
He criticises opposition MPs for “baying and shouting”. He is trying to guard the public interest. He says Labour MPs should “grow up” and get real.
Cox says lawyers have to give people information that allows them to take a risk. He says there is no doubt that the fact that the UK cannot withdraw from the backstop indefinitely poses a risk. But MPs will have to take into account political factors too when they weight up that risk, he says. He says his view is that it is worth the risk.
Julian Lewis, a Tory Brexiter, says he would like one-word answer. Is it possible this could lead to the Commons being held in the backstop indefinitely against its will?
No, says Cox.
Cox says it would be “an astonishing thing” if the EU were not to act in good faith.
Dominic Raab, who resigned as Brexit secretary over the deal, says that taking a legal case against the backstop to the ECJ could take 10 years.
Cox says the 10-year estimate is “probably far too long”.
But well before that the pressures leading to the court case would also be affecting member states, who would minded to end the backstop.
Labour’s Hilary Benn asks for an example in international law where a failure to act in good faith has led to other parts of an agreement being discarded.
Cox says we are in a unique situation. We have never been in a situation where 45 years of close relationship have had to be untangled.
He says he will right to Benn about this to see if he can come up with precedence.
Turning to the point about publication of the legal advice, he says it is very rare for an attorney general to answer questions like this. It has only happened a few times in the last 50 years.
He asks what Benn would have done when he was in cabinet if he had been asked to act against what he thought was the national interest.
Cox says publishing full legal advice would not be in public interest
Harriet Harman, a Labour former leader of the Commons and former solicitor general, asks Cox to confirm that the publication of his document today does not mark compliance with the binding motion passed by MPs.
Cox says he is caught in “an acute clash of constitutional principle”.
He asks what would happen if he had given advice covering relations with foreign countries, or matters that might come before the courts in the future. Would it be right for that to be disclosed? It would not be in the public interest, he says.
- Cox says publishing full legal advice would not be in the public interest.
Nigel Dodds, the DUP’s leader at Westminster, urges Cox to abandon his support for the deal.
Cox says he has wrestled with his conscience on this matter, because he is a unionist. But he says this gives Northern Irish single market traders free access to the EU market. There will be hundreds of single market traders who don’t get the same access to the UK market, he says.
He says these traders would challenge this arrangement at the ECJ. “And they are likely to win”, he says.
Cox confirms backstop could last indefinitely under international law
Joanna Cherry, the SNP’s justice and home affairs spokesperson, says what has been published today is not the full legal advice. Will Cox publish it? If not, he will be in contempt of parliament.
And she asks if there is anything in international law to stop the backstop becoming permanent.
Cox replies: “As a matter of international law, no.”
But, if the backstop did become permanent, it would be “highly vulnerable to legal challenge” within EU law, he says.
He says article 50 is not supposed to set up a permanent customs arrangement.
- Cox confirms backstop could last indefinitely under international law.
- But, if it did become permanent, the backstop would be “highly vulnerable”, to a legal challenge at the ECJ, he says.
Updated
Cox says deal is 'sensible compromise' - even though he would prefer UK to be able to exit backstop unilaterally
Cox says the backstop is a solemn commitment to the people of Northern Ireland, saying the government will honour the Good Friday agreement.
He says he would have preferred the UK to have the unilateral right to exit the backstop.
But he will support the deal because he does not think the UK will be in it permanent.
This is a “sensible compromise”. He says it has unattractive features, but MPs will have to weigh it up against the alternative, which are are also unappealling.
- Cox says that he would prefer UK to have the right exit the backstop unilaterally, but that this deal is a “sensible compromise”.
Cox is responding to Thomas-Symonds.
He says Thomas-Symonds does not need to see his written legal advice. All he has to do is ask.
If questions are asked, he will answer them candidly, he says.
He says there are hundreds of treaties throughout the world that are permanent. The Vienna Convention has an entire section on permanent treaties, he says. He says he is willing to write to Thomas-Symonds with details.
He says there is no right to terminate if the backstop comes into force. But the question of how likely it is to come into force is a political judgment.
- Cox says MPs will have to make political judgment over how likely backstop is to come into force.
Thomas-Symonds asks Cox which bits of the withdrawal agreement are most likely to be permanent.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow solicitor general, is responding for Labour.
He says MPs should be able to read the actual legal advice. He says aspects of the advice have been selectively leaked to the media.
He says a report at the weekend said Cox advised the cabinet that the backstop would endure indefinitely if trade talks broke down.
He says Cox argued today that there were political reasons why that would not happen. But the legal position is different, he says.
He says the Tories would not put up a single MP to vote against the Commons motion saying the full legal advice should be published.
He asks if Cox can name any other international treaty where the UK does not have the unilateral right to terminate it.
Cox says the “divorce and separation of nations from long and intimate unions”, just as with humans, is a complicated process that will take time.
This agreement allows for the time and means for this process to unfold, he says.
Cox summarises areas where the ECJ will have a role after the transition.
But these are all time-limited applications, he says.
Cox turns to the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.
He says EU law will still apply during the transition.
But after the transition ends at the end of December 2020, that will end.
After that, EU law will only possess a relevance in the UK only in so far as it is necessary to wind down obligations lasting more than 40 years.
Cox says the backstop would give firms in Northern Ireland an advantage. Their goods would be able to circulate freely in the EU and the UK, while their EU competitors would not have that advantage.
Cox says 'no unilateral right for either party to terminate agreement'
Cox says “there is no unilateral right for either party to terminate this agreement”. (See 2.54pm.)
That means the backstop provisions would come into force, if required under the agreement, even if talks between the two sides had broken down, he says.
Updated
Cox says backstop is 'expressly intended' to be temporary
Cox turns to the backstop.
He summarises what the agreement says. (See 2.41pm.)
He says it is “expressly intended” that the backstop is meant to be temporary.
Cox says he does not want MPs to pass deal 'under any legal misapprehension'
Cox says he considers himself as having a legal duty to provide advice to the Commons.
He will discharge this duty with uncompromising and rigorous fidelity”.
If the deal is to pass, as he hopes it will, it should not pass under any legal misapprehension, he says.
But he says this is essentially a political decision. It is not a matter of lawfulness, but of prudence.
- Cox says he does not want MPs to pass deal “under any legal misapprehension”.
- He says agreeing Brexit deal ultimately a political decision, not a legal decision.
Geoffrey Cox's Commons statement on Brexit legal advice
Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, is making his statement now on the legalities of the Brexit deal.
He starts with a joke - it was good of the PM to warm up for him, he says. (At Tory conference he gave the warm-up speech for May.)
He says law officers often have to give legal advice in a fast-moving situation.
His statement goes alongside a legal commentary published today, he says.
Here is David Allen Green, the FT’s legal commentator, on the government’s Brexit legal position paper.
This is not legal advice.
— David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) December 3, 2018
This is not even a good summary of the draft withdrawal agreement.
This is of no real legal use or importance at all.
It is called a "position" no doubt because no other more meaningful word would be appropriate.https://t.co/QFNeH4ohmH
"What shall we call it, Attorney General? Advice?"
— David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) December 3, 2018
- No
"Summary of advice"
- No, avoid "advice"
"Legal analysis"
- No
"Legal comment"
- No
"Legal description"
- No, avoid "legal" too
"Essay crisis copy-and-paste job?"
- It's not even that
"Position"
- Ok, just about
Seriously, do not waste any time whatsoever reading this.
— David Allen Green (@davidallengreen) December 3, 2018
There are better executive summaries of the draft withdrawal agreement available.
Not even the government will have regard to this document internally.
This is a non-paper, a non-document.
Here is the Telegraph’s Brexit correspondent, James Rothwell, on what the EU might do if MPs vote down the Brexit deal.
I understand there is little to no political will on EU side to reopen Brexit talks at December summit if MPs vote down the deal. Not even to tweak the non-legally binding Political Declaration. It will simply wait and make a move in January at the earliest.
— James Rothwell (@JamesERothwell) December 3, 2018
Philip Davies, a Conservative Brexiter, asks May to name the three most successful negotiations she was involved in before the Brexit talks.
May says she will give him an example: passenger name records. When she became home secretary, she wanted to EU to improve the system for sharing these, she says. She says she was told that would never happen, because the UK was the only country that wanted this. But, “by painstaking work”, she secured agreement, and there is now a directive on this, she says.
ITV’s Robert Peston has put an interesting post on his Facebook page about the cabinet row about immigration policy. Here’s an extract.
The essence of the policy is that there will be an end to free movement of people from the EU, there will be severe restrictions on immigration of those with low or no skills, and the quantum of people with so-called high skills coming to the UK will be determined by demand ...
[The key disagreement] is between the PM, who thinks the immigration-policy implementation period should be the same as the Brexit implementation period, namely 21 months ending 31 December 2020, and the business secretary Greg Clark, who takes the side of big businesses who say they need a year or two more.
You may think this is a tedious argument about process.
But of course it goes much deeper - because if the PM stood up and said it would take years for the immigration policy to be implemented, that would play into fears that Brexit itself will take years longer to really happen than the 21 months of formal transition or implementation.
In the Commons Anne Main, a Conservative, asks what would happen to trade deals if the UK were in the backstop.
May says that there would be some restrictions on the UK’s ability to strike trade deals, but that in other respects the UK could carry on with them.
This is from Liam Fox, the international trade secretary.
This morning I sent the UK's services schedule to the @WTO. This is a technical exercise that will provide continuity for British businesses as the UK prepares to take up its permanent seat at the home of rules-based international trade #FreeTradeUK https://t.co/g2gW1mnruU
— Dr Liam Fox MP (@LiamFox) December 3, 2018
During Home Office questions, Sajid Javid, the home secretary, was pressed over the case of the missing immigration white paper. Following earlier comments that it was “unlikely” to be published before the meaningful vote (see 10.10am), he was unable to say if it would still be published in December - as he has previously stated to the home affairs select committee.
Questioned by that committee’s chair, Yvette Cooper, Javid replied:
All I can say is the white paper will be published soon, I wish I could say more than that. “It’s worth keeping in mind that this is the biggest change in our immigration system in four decades. It’s important that we take the time and we get it right.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says May discussed a future trade deal with President Trump. Did Trump offer to open up any area of the US market to the UK? And did May explain that the UK would not lower its food standards to allow in US products?
May says maintaining high agricultural standards is something the UK wants to do regardless of whether it is in the EU.
And she says that the issue of what aspects of the US market might be opened to the UK is exactly what the talks are about.
Corbyn says George Osborne slashed corporation tax to the lowest level in the G20, saying it would boost investment. But it didn’t. So did May ask other G20 leaders how they manage to secure so much investment.
He says climate change is the biggest issue facing the world. It is imperative that a sustainable economic model is put forward, he says.
He says May and other G20 leaders have failed to learn the lessons of the financial crash.
Jeremy Corbyn says, while economics are importance, our belief in human rights should never be subservient to them.
He says Saudi Arabia is the chief architect of the war in Yemen, which has killed 56,000 people. He says May just asked the crown prince not to use British weapons in the war. And he says May asked him to investigate a murder for which he is said to be responsible. She should have been tougher, he suggests.
Here is the quote, from Corbyn’s policy chief.
Jeremy Corbyn: "The PM told the media she would “sit down and be robust” with Mohammed Bin Salman. Rather than be robust as promised, she told the dictator ‘please don’t use the weapons we are selling you in the war you’re waging’ and asked him nicely to investigate the murder"
— Andrew Fisher (@FisherAndrew79) December 3, 2018
Theresa May says hers was the first visit to Buenos Aires by a British prime minister.
She says she arrived at the summit with a clear message that, after Brexit, the UK will be open for business and keen to sign trade deals.
She announced a new trade envoy to Argentina, she says. (See 12.24pm.)
She says urged other G20 leaders to work with the UK on ensuring supply chains are not tainted by modern slavery.
She says 19 G20 countries reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris climate change agreement, “but it remains a disappointment” that the US has opted out.
She says she met Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. She says she urged him to make sure that those responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi were held to account and urged Saudi Arabia to end the conflict in Yemen.
Theresa May's statement on G20 summit
Theresa May is about to make a Commons statement on the G20 summit.
Tory benches are very empty for a statement from the PM
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) December 3, 2018
This is from ITV’s Daniel Hewitt.
Theresa May is holding meetings with groups of Tory MPs to convince them to back her Brexit deal. One tells me: “it’s like my favourite aunt has slaved over a cake for my birthday and as much I don’t want to offend her, the cake is a mess, it tastes awful and I just can’t eat it”
— Daniel Hewitt (@DanielHewittITV) December 3, 2018
Here’s the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn with a summary of the government’s Brexit legal position paper.
In summary: the 43 page legal advice summary is expansive, blunt and at times extremely painful reading for MPs. The only plus for HMG is that may negate some of the calls to see the whole thing.
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) December 3, 2018
Ministers have released a summary of the Brexit legal advice, which spells out that the Northern Ireland backstop will continue indefinitely “unless and until” the UK and the EU are able to agree alternative customs arrangements, my colleagues Dan Sabbagh and Jessica Elgot report.
Here are some more lines from the Olly Robbins/Stephen Barclay committee hearing. These are from Steven Swinford and Jack Maidment (Telegraph), Matt Dathan (Sun) and Charlie Cooper (Politico Europe).
At the Dexeu select committee Stephen Barclay argues the 'best endeavours' clause of backstop - commitment to act in good faith - will ultimately enable UK to pull out if EU is obstructive.
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) December 3, 2018
But legal advice - and Olly Robbins - are clear that the clause is not legally binding
Stephen Barclay, the Brexit Secretary, refusing to say whether the Government has a Plan B should the PM's deal be rejected on December 11.
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) December 3, 2018
Asked what happens next if the Govt loses, he replies: "The honest answer is it is unclear".
It's a Family Affair at the @CommonsEUexit: Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns is getting very angry at the lack of answers from Brexit Sec Stephen Barclay, with his PPS and her husband (Jack Lopresti) sat just behind him! pic.twitter.com/fErXjV2kP9
— Matt Dathan (@matt_dathan) December 3, 2018
Robbins talking up linkage between withdrawal agreement and the future relationship political declaration. Government pushed hard for this. OR says it may be "unprecedented" for a PD to be "explicitly referred to" in a legal treaty, as PD is in Article184 of withdrawal agreement
— Charlie Cooper (@CharlieCooper8) December 3, 2018
And here is some comment on on the hearing.
From my colleague Peter Walker
Brexit is perhaps the most tumultuous and dramatic political debate of my lifetime. It takes a particular talent to, as Stephen Barclay has done for the last 1hr 15mins, make it sound as exciting as a regional team leaders' meeting on office furniture needs.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) December 3, 2018
From the Economist’s John Peet
Rees-Mogg, Bone and Chope v new Brexit secretary Barclay (all Brexiteers) is clearest example I have seen that we have reached the stage of the Revolution consuming its own
— John Peet (@JohnGPeet) December 3, 2018
The government summary also says, on page 16, that the EU could exclude the UK from access to “security-related sensitive information” in certain exceptional circumstances during the transition.
This is from the Sun’s Brussels correspondent, Nick Gutteridge.
What happens at next week's EU Council summit (Brexit not on agenda) if deal is voted down by MPs? And even if May resigns? Not so much per EU diplomat. May be last minute conclusions to 'express concern, reinforce contingency plans & call for indication from UK on way forward'.
— Nick Gutteridge (@nick_gutteridge) December 3, 2018
A source from the European Research Group, which represents Tory MPs pushing for a harder Brexit, says Geoffrey Cox’s actual legal advice to the cabinet was just six pages long. He says today’s government summary has been padded out, although presumably with the most damaging conclusions omitted.
The legal summary confirms that, if the Brexit transition period gets extended, the UK will have to pay more to the EU. It says:
During any extended implementation period, the UK would not be within EU budget arrangements, and would not be a member state for the purposes of union programmes and activities committed under the next multi-annual financial framework. So the joint committee would decide on an appropriate financial contribution, taking into account that the UK would not be receiving receipts as a member state participating in the union programmes and activities committed under the next multi-annual financial framework.
Back at the committee, Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, says “a huge amount” of work has gone into planning for a no deal Brexit.
This is from the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford.
Here's what they're not telling you.
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) December 3, 2018
Govt's legal 'position paper' states that 'good faith' clause enabling UK to leave backstop is 'common feature of international agreements' & recognised by ECJ.
BUT secret legal advice says EU is under *no legal obligation* to follow it
This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby.
NEW: Labour source tells me the Govt's document on the legal advice "falls short of what parliament decided" Ministers are treading on "very thin ice". Told that Cox must either indicate a u-turn in the Commons or face contempt motion as early as tonight
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) December 3, 2018
This is what the legal summary (pdf) says on page 26. It confirms that, if the UK signs the agreement, a future government will be stuck with it.
The agreement does not contain any provision on its termination. In the absence of such a provision, it is not possible under international law for a party to withdraw from the agreement unilaterally.
What summary of Brexit legal advice says about prospect of UK being stuck in backstop
The government’s Brexit legal advice has been contentious because MPs suspect that it is much more blunt about the UK finding it impossible to escape from the backstop unilaterally than anything ministers have said in public. The agreement makes it clear that a decision to end the backstop would have to be taken jointly by the UK and the EU, and so in one sense there is nothing secret or surprising about this. But there are suspicions that Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, was more negative about this in private than he has been in public.
The Sunday Times splashed on a story about this yesterday (paywall). Under the headline “Revealed: Brexit legal advice could sink Theresa May”, Tim Shipman reported:
Britain would be trapped “indefinitely” in a customs union with Brussels if MPs back Theresa May’s Brexit deal, according to leaked details of the attorney-general’s legal advice, which the government has suppressed.
Senior ministers say the prime minister is refusing to publish the advice because it contains a stark passage that makes clear the UK could end up locked in a “backstop” arrangement with the European Union.
In a letter to cabinet ministers last month, the contents of which have been disclosed to the Sunday Times, Geoffrey Cox declared: “The protocol would endure indefinitely.” The government’s top law officer ruled that the only way Britain could escape the backstop would be to sign a new trade deal, which could take years. But he warned Britain could remain trapped if those talks collapsed.
The details — confirmed by three serving cabinet ministers and the former Brexit secretary Dominic Raab — will enrage Eurosceptics and are likely to harden opposition to the deal.
This is what today’s summary (pdf) says about how the UK could get out of the backstop. Arguably it plays down the prospect of the UK being stuck in the backstop for a long period of time. The words “indefinite” and “indefinitely” don’t appear in today’s summary at all.
If the protocol starts to apply after the end of the implementation period, then it will continue to do so unless and until its provisions are superseded by a subsequent agreement between the UK and the EU establishing alternative arrangements. However, the protocol records the parties’ intention that the protocol should indeed be superseded by such a subsequent agreement, and that if it does start to apply then it should do so only temporarily (article 1(4)). The recitals confirm that the withdrawal agreement, which is based on article 50 TEU [Treaty of the European Union], does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK. Article 50 TEU only provides a legal basis for an agreement setting out the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal, which can take account of the framework for the future relationship but cannot itself include or constitute that relationship. The EU and the UK therefore agree to use their best endeavours to conclude a subsequent agreement by 31 December 2020 (article 2(1); see also article 184 of the agreement). Once such an agreement becomes applicable, then in accordance with provisions of that agreement setting out its effect on the protocol, the Protocol, or certain of its provisions, will either not come into force or cease to apply ...
Under the second paragraph of article 20, within six months of receiving such a notification, the joint committee must meet at ministerial level to consider it, having regard to all of the objectives referred to in article 1. So in addition to the conditions in article 1(3), it must have regard to article 1(4), which provides that “the objective of the withdrawal agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the parties set out in Article 2(1)”. Article 2(1) is the obligation on the UK and the EU to “use their best endeavours to conclude, by 31 December 2020, an agreement which supersedes this protocol in whole or in part”. It is also relevant to note in this context the obligation in article 184 of the agreement to use best endeavours to negotiate agreements governing the future relationship, and the reference in the recitals to the protocol recalling that the agreement, which is based on article 50 TEU, does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK. At this stage the joint committee may seek an opinion from institutions created by the 1998 Agreement: the Northern Ireland assembly, the Northern Ireland executive, the North/South ministerial council, the British-Irish intergovernmental conference, and the British-Irish council ...
It follows from the general provisions of the agreement and the protocol that the provisions in this article are subject to the dispute resolution procedure in Title III of part six of the agreement (see above), including reference by the joint committee to an arbitration panel whose decision is binding. An arbitration panel would be able to consider, for instance, whether the parties had acted in good faith in accordance with article 5 during the process, and whether a party had acted lawfully in reaching a view about whether the protocol was necessary to achieve its objectives.
Updated
Government publishes 43-page summary of Brexit legal advice
The government has just published its position paper on the Brexit legal advice (pdf). It runs to 43 pages.
Updated
Q: Under the withdrawal agreement the EU will set our customs taxes under the backstop. That is taxation without representation.
Barclay says he does not accept that reading of the agreement.
Rees-Mogg says it is in annex 2, article 3, sub-section 3.
He says taxation without representation like this is unacceptable.
Barclay says he does not accept that.
Rees-Mogg says Barclay does not seem to know about it, which is worrying.
The Tory Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg goes next.
He asks Robbins to confirm the reservations about the backstop Robbins set out in a letter leaked to the Telegraph.
Robbins refuses to discuss the letter, but he repeats the point he made earlier about the backstop being uncomfortable for both sides. (See 1.43pm.)
Rees-Mogg says he is not convinced it is uncomfortable for the EU.
Q: Is the UK still committed to the economic proposals in the Chequers plan, given how badly they were received at Salzburg?
Robbins says the reception was not as negative as people have claimed. He says the political declaration allows the UK go go on arguing for these measures.
Labour’s Emma Reynolds goes next.
Q: Can you confirm that the UK cannot withdraw from the backstop unilaterally?
That’s because it is an insurance policy, Barclay says (implying that the answer is, yes.)
He also says the backstop creates difficulties for the EU.
He says it would be difficult for the EU if it became parliament because article 50 does not allow a permanent solution. There would be a litigation risk. The EU could be sued by trader who felt firms in Northern Ireland had an unfair advantage over them, he says.
Q: You drafted a text that would have given the UK the ability to withdraw from the backstop unilaterally. Did that go to cabinet?
Robbins says he will not discuss what goes to cabinet.
He goes on:
Ministers asked us to look at a whole range of options for how to bring the backstop to an end, and so we did. And the prime minister and other ministers tested some of those out on European partners. But, what we went into the negotiation with in the end was a text that delivered the termination clause very much as it is laid out there.
Q: [To Barclay] When you lose the vote next week, will you resurrect Robbins’ draft termination clause?
Barclay says the government aims to win the vote. He says the deal on the table is the one the government needs to secure
Updated
Barclay says the political declaration on the future relationship is not be legally binding. But it is political binding, he says. He says the EU sees it as such, and that that is why they take it so seriously.
Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former cabinet minister, goes next.
Q: Do you have concerns about the backstop?
Barclay says he does have concerns about it. But the intention is never to get into it in the first place, he says.
Robbins says, if the backstop were to apply, there would be no arrangement for services with the EU.
Benn says that would affect, among others, broadcasters wanting to broadcast into the EU.
Robbins says the political declaration says both sides want a good arrangement on services.
Benn asked Robbins if he thought the backstop would be a “bad outcome” for the UK. (See 11am.)
Robbins said it was “a slightly uncomfortable necessity for both sides”.
It is an uncomfortable position for both sides and the reality ... is that there is not a withdrawal agreement without a backstop.
That reflects also, as I’ve said to this committee before, ministers’ commitments to Northern Ireland and to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, rather than being something imposed upon us.
So, it is a necessity and a slightly uncomfortable necessity for both sides.
Updated
Olly Robbins and Stephen Barclay questioned by MPs
Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit adviser, and Stephen Barclay, the new Brexit secretary, are giving evidence now to the Commons Brexit committee.
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair, started by asking Barclay about the government’s refusal to publish its Brexit legal advice in full, despite the Commons passing a binding motion saying it must. He asked if this meant the government would ignore future Commons votes on Brexit.
Benn has tabled an amendment to the motion next week that designed to give the Commons a proper say on what happens next if Theresa May’s deal gets voted down. But obviously that would prove pointless if the government were just to ignore the vote he proposes.
Barclay said Geoffrey Cox would cover this issue in his statement to MPs later. He refused to commit the government to always acting upon a motion passed by parliament.
Updated
David Miliband, the Labour former foreign secretary, told the World at One a few minutes ago that party’s claim that it would be able to go back to Brussels and renegotiate Brexit is unpersuasive. He told the programme:
I’m clear that Labour is against the government’s position. It is not clear what the rest of Labour’s position is, not least because the option of sending a new team of negotiators into Brussels is one that does not carry an enormous weight of conviction ... As the votes take place, then Labour will have to clarify its position too.
Miliband also said that he favoured a second referendum. This morning his former boss, Tony Blair, said people should be offered a choice between staying in the EU and a hard Brexit. (See 9.35am.) But Miliband said the obvious option would be to give people a choice between staying in and Theresa May’s deal.
Updated
Suzanne Evans quits Ukip, saying it's becoming 'successor to BNP'
Suzanne Evans, a former Ukip deputy chair, has become the latest high profile figure to leave the party over Gerard Batten, the current leader’s, support for Tommy Robinson and his agenda. Here is an excerpt from her statement explaining her move.
The NEC and Ukip MEPs might be willing to turn a blind eye to the obvious attempts by Gerard and Tommy Robinson to orchestrate a ‘Momentum-style’ takeover of Ukip, but I am not. Having planned to simply let my membership lapse in March, when it is due for renewal, I have today cancelled it instead.
I joined Ukip because it was a Brexit party, and because I wanted a referendum on our EU membership. I would never have joined Ukip as it stands today, obsessed as it is with becoming a successor to the BNP and the EDL, and putting an increasingly hostile and vicious focus on attacking the Muslim community en masse.
It's time for me and @ukip to part company. My full statement at https://t.co/z8tnEGSgRd
— Suzanne Evans (@SuzanneEvans1) December 3, 2018
Here is the start of the Press Association story about Theresa May’s appearance on ITV’s This Morning.
Theresa May has told Tory MPs to “hold their nerve” and back her Brexit deal.
The prime minister insisted she would still have a job in two weeks’ time as she faces a crunch Commons vote on her EU withdrawal agreement on December 11.
May told ITV’s This Morning: “At the end of the line it is, I think, about holding our nerve and getting this over the line so we can deliver on Brexit and people can have that better future.”
Asked if she would still have a job after the showdown vote, May said: “I will still have a job in two weeks’ time.
“My job is making sure that we do what the public asked us to, we leave the EU but we do it in a way that is good for them.”
Pressed on whether she would resign if the Commons rejected her Brexit deal next week, May said: “I’m focusing on, you know, getting that vote, and getting the vote over the line.
“Because this is, as I say, it’s an important moment in our history.
“This is not a, sort of ‘oh, well, it’s just any old vote’. Actually, this is about delivering for what people voted for when they voted in that referendum to leave the EU.
“I think that’s important for us as politicians to remember that.”
Referring to calls for a new referendum, the PM said: “People are talking about a second vote when we haven’t even delivered on the first vote.
“We asked people to vote. We said ‘please decide whether we should leave or remain’.
“People voted to leave and I think there’s a, sort of, democratic duty on us as politicians, having had that referendum, and having said it is your choice, to actually deliver on it.”
At the Number 10 lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman was why May did not say explicitly that there would never be a second referendum while she remained in Downing Street. In the past aides have said this on May’s behalf, but May herself has not been quite so categorical. Today her spokesman claimed that May had been “absolutely clear” on this point. Invited to say on the record that a second referendum would never happened while May was PM, he would not use the words suggested, but he did say: ‘There’s not going to be a second referendum.”
Photograph: ITV/PA
The Conservative MP Mark Menzies is already a government trade envoy to Chile, Colombia and Peru. Today the government has announced that his portfolio has expanded, and that he will also serve as trade envoy to Argentina.
On the Guardian’s list of how MPs will vote on the Brexit deal, we have him down as supporting the government. Presumably his vote is even more secure now.
Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary and a supporter of the People’s Vote campaign for a second referendum, has released this statement on behalf of the campaign about the delay in the publication of the government’s immigration white paper. He said:
On immigration, there are many difficult questions facing this country, but none of them are answered by the blindfold Brexit being pursued by the government. Today we learnt that plans for our future immigration policy are being concealed from parliament until after the crucial Brexit vote on December 11. This is quite simply unacceptable.
No parliament should be voting for a momentous and potentially irreversible decision like Brexit without knowing any of the important details about what it will mean for the future of the country. The government cannot be allowed to get away with hiding difficult decisions from parliament and the public. It is crucial that any immigration white paper is published before the Brexit vote next week.
And this is from Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, on the delay in the publication of the government’s immigration white paper. (See 10.10am and 11am.)
We were first promised this Immigration White Paper would be published by autumn 2017. Then by the end of 2017. Then by July 2018. Then in the autumn 2018. Then by the time of the meaningful vote. This isn’t a last minute Cabinet split, it’s been going on years https://t.co/pBIAdkyZe4
— Yvette Cooper (@YvetteCooperMP) December 3, 2018
This is from Carl Bildt, the former Swedish PM.
Excluding the UK from the security part of the Galileo satellite system, and thus forcing them out, is strategic folly of the first order. A solution must be possible. https://t.co/jMOixjvQsQ
— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) December 3, 2018
I’m just back from the Downing Street lobby briefing. Mostly it was taken up with totally unsuccessful attempts by the journos to get the prime minister’s spokesman to discuss what might happen if the government loses the vote next Tuesday. But we did learn two things of modest procedural interest.
- The government will publish its legal position statement on the Brexit agreement at 2pm. This is the document that the government promised in the debate on the “humble address” which led to the Commons passing a binding motion saying the full legal advice should be published. The position statement is not the full legal advice, but it is not clear yet how substantial it will be.
- Theresa May will open the five-day debate on the Brexit deal in the Commons tomorrow afternoon.
I’ve already mentioned the Sun story, knocked down by Sajid Javid, saying Downing Street has been considering postponing the Brexit vote because Theresa May seems so likely to lose. Here are three other Brexit stories around this morning.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid is locked in a Brexit row with Theresa May over how quickly to restrict low-skilled immigration, the Sun can reveal.
Sources claimed the home secretary wants to keep the border open to low skilled workers beyond the end of 2020 in a sop to business. But the PM is said to want to introduce restrictions as soon as the post-Brexit transition phase is over in two years’ time so firms are forced to train up young Brits ...
A Whitehall source said: “Sajid and the PM are at loggerheads. They agree on main points, but the argument is over how quickly they move to bring down low-skilled migration. Sajid wants to keep the system as it is for a while but she thinks there has to be a date, something to motivate firms to recruit here instead.”
Theresa May’s chief Brexit adviser secretly warned her that the customs backstop is a “bad outcome” for the UK which will see regulatory checks in the Irish Sea and put security co-operation at risk, The Telegraph can reveal.
Oliver Robbins warned in a letter to the prime minister that there is no legal “guarantee” that Britain will be able to break off from the backstop, potentially leaving the UK trapped in a customs union with the EU.
He argued that extending the transition period after Brexit would provide a more “cast iron escape route” than entering into the backstop, which under Mrs May’s deal will kick in if a solution to the Irish border issue cannot be found by December 2020.
He said: “We should not forget that the backstop world, even with a UK-EU customs union, is a bad outcome with regulatory controls needed somewhere between GB and NI, serious and visible frictions and process between GB and the EU, and no security co-operation provided for.”
A confidential analysis of the withdrawal agreement by the House of Commons’ own expert legal team comes to the same conclusion as President Trump – that Theresa May’s Brexit deal would prevent the UK from entering trade deals with countries such as the US ...
The note – marked ‘not for general distribution’ and obtained by BrexitCentral – is dated 26th November and states that the UK-EU customs union which would come into effect if the backstop is triggered “would be a practical barrier to the UK entering separate trade agreements on goods with third countries”.
This is in direct contradiction to the prime minister who has insisted that her deal will allow the UK to have an entirely independent trade policy. Indeed, she told the House of Commons just last Monday how “for the first time in 40 years, the UK will be able to strike new trade deals and open up new markets for our goods and services”.
The legal note – titled The Withdrawal Agreement: Legal and Governance Aspects – also appears to suggest that the prime minister’s claim (also repeated last Monday) that her deal “takes back control of our laws” by ending “the jurisdiction of the European court of justice in the UK” with “our laws being made in our parliament, enforced by our courts” does not entirely stand up to scrutiny.
I’m off to the lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
Updated
Q: Will the TV debate go ahead?
May says Jeremy Corbyn wants it to be on ITV. That is so he can watch I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, she says. But she says she is a Strictly fan and wants to watch that.
She says how the debate goes ahead is yet to be decided.
And that’s it.
May says she has had to focus on Brexit. But there is an awful lot else she wants to do.
Q: What about the strain on you? Does your husband every say, ‘Just let someone else do it’?
May says her husband is a huge support. But he agrees she should do what she thinks is right.
Q: What happens if the Commons votes down the deal?
May says this is the only deal available.
Q: And what happens to you if the deal gets voted down?
May says she is clear that she has a duty to deliver on what people voted for.
Q: Will you resign?
May says, if the government loses, it has to come back to parliament within a set amount of time and say what will happen next.
Q: Are you ruling out a second vote?
May says people voted to leave. So there is a democracy duty on politicians to deliver on the result of that vote.
May says UK 'can be better off' after Brexit
Philip Schofield asks: 'Will we be better off after Brexit?'
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) December 3, 2018
PM insists that Britain 'can be better off'
Schofield tries again: 'Will we be better off?'
PM replies: 'We can be better off'
We're already deep in the realms of semantics on the This Morning sofa
May's interview on ITV's This Morning.
Theresa May is giving an interview to ITV’s This Morning.
She has just told the programme that the UK could be better off under Brexit, depending on what decisions we take as a country.
Sajid Javid's Today interview - Summary
Here are the main points from Sajid Javid’s interview on the Today programme this morning.
- Javid, the home secretary, dismissed a report saying the government might postpone next Tuesday’s vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal because it expects to lose. (See 9.07am.)
- He effectively confirmed that the immigration white paper will not be published before the Commons vote. Originally it was meant to be available before the vote, but it has been held up, reportedly because ministers cannot agree on how swiftly to bring in a ban on immigration from low-skilled workers. Asked about its publication date, Javid said:
It’s unlikely, actually very unlikely, to be published before the vote. It will be published soon.
Explaining the need to take time, Javid said:
This is the biggest change in our immigration system in over four decades - the most significant change we’re going to see in immigration as we take control of our immigration system, so it’s important that we work on the details, that we listen to people, to businesses and others and we get the details right.
He also said that he was generally in favour of immigration.
I’m a big fan of immigration. I think our country is a lot stronger for it over generations.
- He said that the recent attack on a 15-year-old Syrian refugee at a school in Huddersfield reminded him of how he was attacked himself in a similar incident when he was at school.
I was absolutely outraged, and frankly it reminded me of an incident I had myself when I was 11 at school. That was the immediate memory that came back to me. And obviously I hated it, and I thought how that young boy must feel.
Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, is holding fresh talks about Brexit with Theresa May at Downing Street later today, as she continues to press her case for an extension to article 50 and a rejection of a no-deal Brexit.
The first minister is in London en route to the international climate conference in Poland, after securing the support of a majority of parties at Holyrood for a Scottish government motion opposing a no deal Brexit.
With the SNP, Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens in support, the Scottish parliament will almost certainly pass the symbolic motion on Wednesday. It has no legal effect but Sturgeon believes the devolved parliament’s vote will add to the growing pressure at Westminster to find an alternative route.
In a statement released before she flew to London, Sturgeon said:
Having now finally published its own official analysis of the economic consequences of Brexit, the UK government can no longer hide behind their own spin – it is clear that any kind of Brexit will make Scotland and the UK poorer.
The reality is the best deal is remaining in the EU, which is exactly what the people of Scotland voted for.
With so much at stake for people’s jobs and living standards, it is vital that MPs come together to reject the PM’s deal, to rule out a no deal Brexit and to secure an extension to article 50.
Even so, one of Scotland’s most prominent businessmen, Sir Ian Wood, an oil industry magnate, said there was a case for pressing on with May’s deal. He told BBC Scotland that while few people would say the deal was “a really good solution”, a no deal outcome would be disastrous. He said:
We cannot afford to have no outcome - it would be bad for Europe, it would be bad for the UK and it would take a long time to work our way through that.
Frankly, I think the proposal that’s on the table, I think it is workable. I think it is better than we have - we’re out of common market membership, but we’re maintaining some of the advantages.
Those included full control over UK fisheries, a boon, he said, for fishing communities in north east Scotland.
Blair says Brexit debate in second referendum would be 'much more realistic' than in 2016
Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, was on ITV’s Good Morning Britain this morning and he renewed his call for a second referendum on Brexit, with voters offered a choice between a hard Brexit and staying in. He told the programme:
Personally, I think the only way to resolve this is to have the option either remain, or alternatively leave but leave on terms that makes it clear this is hard Brexit, you’re leaving in the way that those who’ve most ardently argued for Brexit want ...
Of course, you only come to another referendum with huge hesitation because people have already had a vote. But I can’t see a way out of this that resolves the issue genuinely because if you go ahead with [Theresa May’s] version of Brexit – which I don’t think parliament will vote for – but if we did, we’re going to be arguing about this in the same way in a year’s time.
Having had the referendum, I don’t think parliament can just make up its mind now. I think the only thing that would be regarded as valid is going back to the people.
I think the question is difficult, but I think you’ve got to have a question that allows the people who really want, if you like the proper Brexit, to make their case. It allows people like me to make our case. Both of us make it on the basis of 30 months of experience of what Brexit really means.
I think the debate this time would be much more realistic because both sides can’t make whatever claims they want.
Blair was also asked about the prospect of a new political party being set up, to represent people with views like his. He implied he thought it would happen eventually, telling the programme:
I do think if you leave a large number of people politically homeless, at some point they will build a home.
Javid dismisses report key vote could be postponed because May risks huge defeat
Theresa May will be in the Commons later, making a statement on the G20 summit, with the historic vote on her Brexit deal now just eight days away. And Sajid Javid, the home secretary and a favourite to replace her as Tory if defeat in that vote leads to her departure, is also speaking in the chamber today, at Home Office questions.
But this is a day when the main Brexit news may come from two people who are much less prominent in the Brexit saga (although not necessarily much less important). Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit adviser (and a prominent figure in Brexiter demonology - they blame him for sabotaging the version of Brexit they want) is making a rare appearance before a Commons committee. And Geoffrey Cox, the Milton-quoting Brian Blessed voice double who serves as attorney general, will be in the Commons later making a statement about his Brexit legal advice. No 10 has offered him in a (so far, wholly unsuccessful) attempt to defuse the row about their failure to publish his legal advice in full.
First, though, Javid, who was on the Today programme this morning. Shortly I’ll post a full summary of the interview, which included Javid talking about how the recent attack on a Syrian refugee in Huddersfield brought back memories of how he was subject to a racist attack as a schoolboy and Javid confirming that the immigration white paper will not be published until after the Brexit vote. But on Brexit he did knock down a story in today’s Sun saying government whips were considering pulling next week’s vote altogether because they think defeat is inevitable. In his story Matt Dathan says Javid is one of those in cabinet who think it might be best to postpone the vote and press for more concessions at the EU summit on 14 and 15 December before asking MPs to take a decision. Dathan says:
Government whips have discussed plans to seek further concessions from the EU before putting the deal to MPs.
If pursued, the government would pull the vote on Friday — two sitting days before the December 11 showdown.
The PM would then go back to the EU demanding to reopen negotiations.
The move would see Mrs May return either with decisive concessions to win over Brexit rebels — or final proof that she tried her best.
It was among options discussed in the chief whip’s office in recent days amid panic that the government is on course to lose the vote by up to 200 votes.
Asked about this, Javid said the vote would go ahead as planned. He told the programme:
I don’t think there’s any chance of pulling the vote.
Then, when asked if the story was wrong, he went on:
I just don’t see that happening. I think this vote is taking place as planned.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Downing Street lobby briefing.
1.30pm: Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s chief Brexit adviser, and Stephen Barclay, the new Brexit secretary, give evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.
2.30pm: Sajid Javid, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Theresa May gives a statement to MPs about the G20 summit.
After 5pm: Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, makes a statement to MPs about his Brexit legal advice. He is also publishing a written statement summarising his advice.
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, after the Cox statement.
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
