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

Brexit: government blocks 'meaningful vote' amendment after concessions to rebel Tories – as it happened

Stop Brexit Supporters Rally outside Of Parliament ahead of MPs Voting On Lords’ Amendments
Stop Brexit supporters rally ahead of parliament voting on Lords’ amendments Photograph: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

Evening summary

  • Theresa May has narrowly avoided a humiliating defeat over the Brexit bill after Conservative rebels accepted significant concessions from the government on the “meaningful vote” before the bill returns to the House of Lords next week. As the Guardian reports, MPs voted by 324 to 298 to back the government in rejecting an amendment passed by peers that would have strengthened the hand of the Commons in the event of it rejecting the final Brexit deal. But rebels led by Dominic Grieve claimed they had agreed to vote with the government on the understanding that further changes would follow, and they would sit down with ministers to thrash out remaining concerns over the next few days. Here is our full story.

Here is a table showing how MPs voted on the key division.

And here is my colleague John Crace’s sketch.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

The Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn has heard something different. He posted this tweet.

Newton Dunn was responding to this from the Tory Brexiter Bernard Jenkin, who was describing what he thought the government had offered.

ITV’s Carl Dinnen says the Brexit department statement (see 7.47pm) is consistent with the assurance given by Theresa May to the Tory rebels (or potential rebels - in the end most of them did not vote against the government.

Updated

Brexit department says despite compromise offer government will not let MPs bind its hands in negotiations

The Brexit department has just put out a statement about the government’s “meaningful vote” compromise. (See 4.55pm.) This is from a spokesman.

On the meaningful vote we have agreed to look for a compromise when this goes back to the Lords.

The Brexit secretary has set out three tests that any new amendment has to meet – not undermining the negotiations, not changing the constitutional role of parliament and government in negotiating international treaties, and respecting the referendum result.

We have not, and will not, agree to the House of Commons binding the government’s hands in the negotiations.

This effectively confirms that the government will not agree to clause 5C of the Grieve amendment. (See 4.55pm.) This goes beyond what government sources were saying earlier, when they just said they were open to a discussion about the Grieve plan.

Updated

The government has defeated the final group of Lords amendments, by 321 votes to 40 - a majority of 281. The SNP voted against, but Labour abstained.

In a point of order Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, says Labour has let down the people of Scotland.

The Labour MP for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray, uses Twitter to justify Labour’s stance.

Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, also rises to make a point of order. She says the way the government is applying the Sewel convention undermines Wales.

Anti Brexit campaigners outside parliament earlier today.
Anti Brexit campaigners outside parliament earlier today. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/REX/Shutterstock

Dominic Grieve told the Press Association that his amendment today was not about facilitating a second referendum. He said:

I think a second referendum is a wholly separate issue. If the public change their mind on Brexit, then my judgment has always been that parliament needs to consider that. Some of my colleagues don’t agree.

This debate in parliament today is not about second referendums, it is about trying to manage what is an extremely risky and complex process as well as possible.

MPs are now voting on remaining Lords amendments.

Lidington says the government agrees with the spirit of the amendment proposed by Chris Patten in the Lords (one of 15 amendments on which the government was defeated). But it is proposing amendments to tidy this up, he says.

John Bercow, the speaker, interrupts. Time is up for the debate.

Bercow asks MPs to approve government amendments to the Patten amendment. They go through on the nod, and then the Patten amendment, as amended, goes through unopposed.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart says Lidington is filibustering.

The Conservative MP Heidi Allen, who was one of the Tory MPs who rebelled over Dominic Grieve’s “meaningful vote” amendment in December, has said she abstained tonight because she was assured the government would accept parts 5A and 5B from the new Grieve amendment.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, says the UK government is legislating on matters that are devolved. He asks for an assurance that Westminster will not do that without a legislative consent motion.

Lidington says the Welsh government accepts that Westminster is honouring its obligations to devolutions. And he says the UK is honouring the Sewel convention (which says the UK government should not legislate for matters that are normally devolved without the approval of the devolved legislature). Lidington says the Scottish government’s Brexit minister, Mike Russell, has admitted that these are not normal circumstances.

  • Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, says UK government is honouring the Sewel convention with the EU withdrawal bill.

Lidington is still speaking in the debate. He says the Welsh government has agreed to what the UK government is proposing for powers being repatriated from the EU relating to matters normally devolved. The Scottish government has not accepted the government’s plans, but Lidington says the UK government has engaged constructively on this issue.

You can read the voting lists for the “meaningful vote” division here.

MPs are now starting the debate on the second set of amendments being considered today.

But because the programme motion has set aside just six hours for debate, and because the voting has taken so long, there are only about 15 minutes set aside for debate.

David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, opens the debate. These amendments cover devolution issues, he says.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart says the government should be ashamed of how little time has been set aside for this debate.

(Wishart has every right to complain. The government tabled some substantial amendments when the EU withdrawal bill was in the Lords relating to devolved powers. But the SNP are not represented in the House of Lords, and so the SNP have not had a parliamentary say on these matters.)

And the government won the the 11th and final vote in this round of voting, by 321 votes to 305 - a majority of 16. MPs voted to take out a Lords amendment requiring the government to seek parliamentary approval for phase two of the Brexit talks.

The government won vote number 10, another one removing a Lords amendment saying ministers could only pass secondary legislation when “necessary”, and not just when “appropriate”. Ministers won by 317 votes to 306 - a majority of 11 (the lowest of the night).

These are from Alex Wickham, who works for the pro-Brexit Guido Fawkes website.

According to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, government sources are not reading quite as much into the concession as Tory pro-Europeans like Dominic Grieve (see 6.07pm) or Phillip Lee (see 5.55pm.)

There could be at least four explanations for the briefing discrepancy.

1) Different parts of the government machine are giving out different messages.

2) The government is pulling back a bit, under pressure from Brexiters.

3) The Tory “rebels” read rather too much into what May and others in government were telling them.

4) The “rebels” are deliberately talking up what they think they secured from May to make it harder for her to back down.

It is quite possible that there is an element of all four in the mix.

Updated

Here is some more comment from journalists on the significance (or otherwise) of the government’s “meaningful vote” concession.

From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn

From Politico Europe’s Tom McTague

From the Economist’s John Peet

From the Telegraph’s James Rothwell

From Business Insider’s Adam Payne

The government won vote number 9, another one removing a Lords amendment saying ministers could only pass secondary legislation when “necessary”, and not just when “appropriate”, by 322 votes to 306 - a majority of 16.

Starmer says threat of 'humiliating defeat' forced May to make concession

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has put out this statement about the government’s “meaningful vote” concession. It is very much a holding statement; he is essentially holding fire until he has a better idea of what the government is offering. He says:

This vote was about ensuring parliament was given a proper role in the Brexit negotiations and that we avoid a no deal situation, which is becoming more likely with the divisions at the heart of this government.

However, facing the prospect of a humiliating defeat Theresa May has been forced to enter negotiations with her backbenchers and offer a so-called concession.

We will wait and see the details of this concession and will hold ministers to account to ensure it lives up to the promises they have made to parliament.

MPs are now voting to remove two more Lords amendments relating to the necessary/appropriate point.

In the eighth contested vote the government won by 320 votes to 305 - a majority of 15 (the smallest of the night). MPs voted to take out the Lords amendment saying ministers should only be able to use certain powers to pass secondary legislation under the bill where it was “necessary”, not where it was “appropriate”.

5 Labour MPs rebel against party whip in 'meaningful vote' division, and 2 Tories

Only two Conservatives voted against the government in the “meaningful vote” division (see 5.44pm): Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry. But five Labour MPs voted with the government: Ronnie Campbell, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, John Mann and Graham Stringer.

Dominic Grieve, who led the Tory rebellion over “meaningful vote”, has told the BBC that the trusts Theresa May to deliver on the agreed compromise. But if the government does not deliver, MPs can vote on this again, he says.

The government has won its seventh contested vote of the night - and its eighth, if you include the one that went through on the nod. (Or ninth if you include the programme motion.) MPs voted by 326 votes to 301 - a majority of 25 - to take out a Lords amendment that would have removed the power of ministers to decide when retained EU law can be challenged in court.

Phillip Lee says government concession on 'meaningful vote' makes resigning worthwhile

Phillip Lee has tweeted to say that Theresa May has “given her word” that the government will now give parliament a “voice” in the Brexit process. It was worth resigning for, he says.

MPs back government's compromise amendment on "meaningful vote'

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is now moving his amendment to the bill. This is the government “meaningful vote” one. (See 12.56pm.) It goes through on the nod.

This is not the final word on the matter. The compromise announced earlier (see 4.55pm) means this amendment will get beefed up later.

May avoids defeat in key division on MPs getting 'meaningful vote' on Brexit - but only after significant concession

Theresa May has won the key vote on giving parliament a “meaningful vote” on Brexit - although only by offering Tory rebels a significant concession. (See 4.55pm.) MPs voted by 324 votes to 298 - a majority of 26 - to reject the amendment passed in the Lords enabling parliament to take charge of the negotiating strategy if MPs voted against the Brexit deal in the autumn.

MPs are now voting on the key amendment; it is a motion to take out amendment 19, the Lords “meaningful vote” one tabled by Viscount Hailsham. (See 12.56pm.)

The government has won the fifth vote. MPs voted by 328 votes to 297 - a majority of 31 - to take out another Lords amendment relating to the exit day. (It was a Lords amendment taking the date out of the bill; now it is going back in.)

This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.

That explains why rebels were seen leaving the chamber towards the end of the debate. See 3.52pm.

A Downing Street source said the government has committed to “open discussions” on the Grieve amendment. But the source went on: “We have not said we will accept particular parts of it yet.”

But the Tory rebels, I understand, certainly think they have got government backing for 5A and 5B. (See 4.55pm.)

Robert Peston, ITV’s political editor, has put a good post about the government concession on his Facebook page. Here is an extract.

Arguably this transfers considerable power to MPs over the shape of a future Brexit deal. And it probably means that a no-deal Brexit is no longer any kind of realistic prospect.

It means that if May really believes she was able to put negotiating pressure on the rest of the EU by threatening to Brexit without a deal, she has lost that leverage.

In other words, one of her favourite catchphrases - that no deal is better than a bad deal - is dead. And that will be official in just a few days, when the bill returns to the Lords.

MPs are now voting to remove another Lords amendment on the exit day.

The government has won the fourth votes. MPs voted by 324 votes to 302 - a majority of 24 - to reject another Lords amendment on the exit day (ie, to put the exit day back in the bill after it was removed by peers).

This is from my colleague Peter Walker.

The Green MP Caroline Lucas is complaining about the voting arrangements. She is a longstanding critic of the way parliament works.

We are expecting 11 votes in this tranche of voting, Labour whips say.

MPs are now voting to remove another exit day amendment.

The government has won the third vote. MPs voted to reverse the Lords amendment removing the “exit day” from the bill by 326 votes to 301 - a majority of 25. That means 29 March 2019 is going back in the bill as exit day.

What the government has promised to Tory Brexit rebels - Snap summary and analysis

We don’t know that the Tory rebels may have been offered in private to persuade them not to vote for the Lords amendment on the “meaningful vote”. (See 4.18pm and 4.22pm.) But some of the negotiation was conducted in public, in the debate, by Robert Buckland, the solicitor general.

  • Buckland implied the government would accept section 5A of the Grieve amendment. He said there was “much merit” in it.
  • He said he would be willing to have a “structured discussion” with rebels on the whole of the Grieve amendment, with a view to accepting some or all of it in a new amendment in the Lords.

You can read the whole of the Grieve amendment here (pdf). It is on page five.

To summarise, the Grieve amendment says three things should happen if the Commons refused to back the withdrawal agreement in the autumn. Under the government amendment, a minister would already have to come back to the Commons to make a statement about what would happen next. The Grieve amendment says:

1) Within seven days of the statement MPs would have to vote on a motion approving the government’s approach. This is the 5A section.

2) If there is no agreement on Brexit withdrawal by 30 November, the government would have to give MPs the chance to vote on a motion saying what should happen next. This is 5B of the Grieve amendment.

3) If there is no agreement by 15 February 2019, the government have to bring the matter to the Commons within five days. But this vote would be different from the other two, because the government would then have to follow any “direction” given by the Commons in a vote in favour of a resolution. This is 5C in the Grieve amendment.

According to sources, the government has accepted that it will implement 5A and 5B, and it has agreed to talk about 5C.

The fact that it has not agreed to accept 5C is significant because 5C would be a binding vote. The 5A or 5B votes would not be binding. In theory (at least, from my reading of the amendment) the government could ignore them, just as it does ignore opposition day motions.

But the Tory rebels would doubtless argue that in practice such votes would be influential. If the Commons were to reject a Brexit deal, and then MPs were to vote against the government’s revised Brexit strategy, it would be hard to see how the prime minister could continue in office (although to remove her you might need a confidence vote - a different measure, that brings party loyalties into play.)

UPDATE: A Downing Street source told the Guardian the government has committed to “open discussions” on the Grieve amendment. But the source went on: “We have not said we will accept particular parts of it yet.”

But the Tory rebels, I understand, certainly think they have got government backing for 5A and 5B

Updated

The government has won the second vote, again rejecting a Lords amendment relating to the sifting committee. It won by 325 votes to 304 - a majority of 21.

MPs are now voting for the third time - to take out the Lords amendment taking the “exit date” out of the bill.

Government wins first vote to overturn Lords defeat on EU withdrawal bill by majority of 22

The government has won the first vote. It has voted down the Lords amendment on the sifting committee by 324 votes to 302 - a majority of 22.

Another Tory 'rebel' says she is satisfied with the government's concessions

It looks as if the government has bought off the rebellion. This is from Sarah Wollaston, another Tory who rebelled with Dominic Grieve in December.

MPs are now voting. But the first vote is not on the “meaningful vote” amendment. It is on the Lords amendment relating to the sifting committee.

Two Tory “rebels” welcome government concession and signal they will not vote for Lords “meaningful vote” amendment

Jonathan Djanogly, one of the 12 Tories who rebelled on the Grieve amendment in December, is speaking now. He says the government amendment does not go far enough. He prefers Greive’s amendment. He was very pleased to hear Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, say the government will consider this, he says.

He does not say how he will vote later, but it sounds as if he won’t vote against the government.

Labour’s Frank Field is speaking now. He says two thirds of Labour constituencies voted for Brexit.

Robert Buckland intervenes again. He repeats the point about he he will look carefully at amendments tabled in the Lords.

Antoinette Sandbach, another Tory who rebelled with Grieve in December, says there has been an “important concession” from the government. Without it, she would have voted for the Lords amendment, she says.

  • Two Tory “rebels” welcome government concession and signal they will not vote for Lords “meaningful vote” amendment.

From Sky’s Beth Rigby.

John Bercow, the speaker, cuts the time limit for speeches to two minutes. The Lib Dem Tom Brake is speaking now. He says the Lib Dems have tabled an amendment saying the final deal should be put to the people in a referendum.

Politico Europe’s Tom McTague has a good tweet-length description of what is at stake with the “meaningful vote” division.

From ITV’s Carl Dinnen.

Labour’s Stephen Doughty says he was horrified by today’s Sun front page. Those tabloids don’t own patriotism, he says.

Mark Harper, the Conservative former chief whip, is speaking now. He says he thinks the third part of the Grieve amendment, 5c, is flawed. It would give the opposite side in the negotiation an incentive to hold up talks, he says.

He says the government has offered to bring forward a new amendment in the Lords. That is the best solution, he says.

Updated

The Labour Brexiter Kate Hoey is speaking now. She says the Lords amendment is designed to ensure the UK does not get a deal from Brussels, so the government has to go back offering further concessions, such as more money.

This is from the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh.

From the Times’ Patrick Kidd.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Lee is still speaking.

He says he supports Theresa May’s leadership. But it would be dishonourable to keep quiet, or to criticise the government from within, he says.

Phillip Lee
Phillip Lee Photograph: Parliament TV

Phillip Lee, the Conservative who resigned as a justice minister, is speaking now.

He says he resigned to help Grieve get his amendment through.

He says he has four points to make.

First, he says he supports the need to back institutions. When people want something against society’s interests, parliament is there to protect them. That was the case when MPs banned the death penalty even though the people favoured it.

Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston both intervene to congratulate Lee. Wollaston says there is no majority in the country for a destructive Brexit.

Lee says a choice between bad or worse is not a proper choice. It is not one that parliament should accept.

He says the people of his constituency will be affected negatively by Brexit. He needs to speak up on their behalf.

He says the Brexit vote in this constituency was not clear cut. Some parts voted for leave, some voted for remain.

He says in the future it will be nations with allies that survive.

He says he does not think we can turn back the clock.

But if Brexit is worth doing, it is worth doing well, he says.

Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, says the government should adopt the Grieve amendment. He says he thinks that is probably Robert Buckland’s view in private. And it is probably David Davis, the Brexit secretary’s view, he says. At least it was Davis’s view when he was a backbencher.

He says ministers know that the view of the House is. They should accept it.

Sir Bill Cash, the Conservative Brexiter, is speaking now. He says the Grieve amendment is not a compromise. In parts it is the same as the Lords amendment, he says.

He says people fought and died over the issue of how governs this country.

In this case, an act of parliament gave the decision to people in a referendum.

George Freeman intervenes. He says he does not accept Cash’s analysis. He says he wants Theresa May to be able to go and negotiate. But what is wrong with the Commons having the ability to tell the government to go back to try again.

Cash says the decision to opt for Brexit was taken by the people. The Commons must respect that.

This is from Politico Europe’s Tom McTague.

This is from my colleague Heather Stewart.

Labour’s Chris Leslie is speaking now. He says the government should accept the Grieve amendment. He says it can go to the Lords, and the government could then amend it there.

This is from ITV’s Robert Peston.

The Telegraph claims that four more ministers are prepared to resign over Brexit, but not necessarily today. It does not name them, but quotes a source close to Phillip Lee, the minister who resigned this morning.

Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, says this bill could be the most important passed by the Commons since the second world war. She says she is being criticised by the Brexiters for rebelling. But they rebelled against the government; Edward Leigh has rebelled 58 times, she says.

She says Brexiters are undermining Theresa May.

She says she respects Robert Buckland. But he is not the most senior minister, she says. She says if the government wants to avert a rebellion, it should accept the Dominic Grieve amendment.

She says the Brexiters are supported “by Russian bots and their dirty money”.

Condemning threats to MPs, she says that one pro-remain MP had to attend an event with six undercover armed officers because of death threats.

I am getting a little tired of honourable members and right honourable members on the backbenches, in government, even in the cabinet, who come up to me and others in quiet and dark corridors, to British businesses who demand private meetings where they lay bare their despair but refuse to go public, to the commentators who say to me ‘You’re doing a great job, keep on going’ in the face of death threats, which mean that one of our number had to attend a public engagement with six armed undercover police officers. That is the country we have created and it’s got to stop.

Anna Soubry
Anna Soubry Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

This is from the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy, one of the most experienced parliament watchers.

Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Commons Brexit committee, says the “meaningful vote” amendment is the most important one being debated this week. He says all MPs believe in the sovereignty of parliament. To ensure that they have this in the autumn, they need to back the Lords amendment, he says.

Minister offers last-minute concession on the Brexit “meaningful vote” as crunch vote looms

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general who tabled the rebel amendment for a “meaningful vote” that was passed last December, is speaking now.

He says he tabled his new amendment (see 12.56pm) to help David Davis, the Brexit secretary.

He complains about the state of the public debate.

The irrationality of the debate we are having on the details of Brexit is truly chilling.

He says the government is trying to pass hugely complex legislation. But anyone who questions how it might work is denounced by the newspapers.

He says there could be a crisis if parliament rejects the deal and there is no fallback.

Robert Buckland, the solicitor general, intervenes from the front bench. He offers to meet Grieve tomorrow to discuss a possible compromise. It seems a repeat of the offer David Davis made earlier. (See 1.42pm.)

Grieve says this is quite late.

Buckland intervenes again. He says there is “much merit’ in clause 5A in the Grieve amendment.

Overnight I have read very carefully the amendment that he tabled and I think, for example, with regards to 5a there is much merit in the approach that he urges this House to adopt.

Can I say I need more time to think about the other parts of his amendment but by indicating my position on a key part of it, I am indicating that the government is willing to engage positively ahead of the Lords stages.

5A would beef up the government amendment by saying, not only would a minister have to make a statement to MPs after a vote against the withdrawal deal, but also that a minister would have to put a motion to the Commons seeking approval of the government’s approach.

Grieve suggests that does not amount to much. He says the idea of having a vote on the government’s position “really isn’t rocket science”.

He says 5B and 5C are more important.

Buckland intervenes again. He says he will use the Grieve amendment as the basis for a “structured discussion” on what happens next.

Someone shouts out “six months” - meaning it has taken six months to get to the stage where the government offers this concession.

Grieve says MPs will have to decide what they want.

Labour’s Chris Byrant says the government could accept the Lords amendment, and then amend it in the Lords along the lines Buckland suggests.

Grieve says that would not be possible.

Ken Clarke intervenes. He says other ministers in Buckland’s position would accept the amendment wholesale. He says Buckland cannot do that because of hard Brexiters in government.

Grieve says it is foolish to say parliament cannot direct government when negotiating a treaty.

  • Minister offers last-minute concession on the Brexit “meaningful vote” as crunch vote looms. But Dominic Grieve, one of the leading Tory rebels, sounded unimpressed.

Updated

Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, is speaking now.

The Lib Dems are calling for a referendum on the final deal. He welcomes the fact that Phillip Lee, in his resignation statement (see 10.59am), acknowledged the logic of having a second referendum.

Cable says, if people vote to leave in a second referendum, he would accept the result.

The Times’ Henry Zeffman has more on what has been happening in the chamber while the speeches have been going on.

Richard Harrington, a business minister, has denied reports that he will follow Phillip Lee and resign over Brexit, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg reports.

Leigh says Ken Clarke had some fun joking about the European commission knowing the Tories are divided.

But, he says, if the Lords amendment stands, that would enable the commission to hold up the talks.

Clarke intervenes. He says people made this argument in December. But the Commons passed the Grieve “meaningful vote” amendment, and the next day nothing happened. The negotiations were not affected, he says.

Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative Brexiter, is speaking now.

He says the Grieve amendment tabled last night (see 12.56pm) just implements the Lords amendment, but in fewer words.

If the Lords amendment stands, it will be a “catastrophe” for the government, he says.

He says the government’s opponents want to create a situation where the whole process is frustrated.

The Commons has already decided to leave the EU, he says.

Grant says all the devolved administrations should have a say in the final Brexit deal. He says the contempt shown so far for the Scottish parliament and other devolved bodies has been astonishing.

He says, if Scotland is not shown more respect, the government may find that the people of Scotland interpret “take it or leave it” as referring not just to Brexit, but to the whole relationship with the UK.

Peter Grant, the SNP’s Europe spokesman, says more time should have been set aside for the debate.

He says the UK is heading for dictatorship if people who disagree with the majority view are labelled traitors.

And he urges MPs to take the language of violence out of the debate. He says a year ago the Labour MP Jo Cox died. Practically the last words she heard were “death to traitors”. And today someone else has pleaded guilty to plotting to kill an MP.

Clarke says it is 'ridiculous' to claim Lords amendment undermines PM because EU already knows Tories divided

Clarke is still speaking, explaining why he backs the Lords amendment on a meaningful vote. (See 12.56pm.)

He says the Lords is not proposing that all 650 MPs have a meeting and decide what to do next. The Lords amendment says the government would have to follow what was set out in a Commons motion. But that motion would be moved by a government minister, he says.

He says today’s vote is important for the constitutional position of the Commons. He has never known such a weak parliament, taking orders from the government, as in the timetable motion. (See 2.13pm.)

He says all the government amendment is offering is a written statement. There are piles every day, he says. MPs don’t read them. He says the written statement may well end up saying: “House of Commons, get lost.”

What does the government say in its amendment that the House should be faced with? Within 28 days, a written statement will be produced amongst the piles of written statements we have every day - and dare I suggest not every member of parliament usually bothers to go through the piles of written statements?

What’s a written statement going to say? It could say: ‘Well in that case there’s no deal, we’re leaving.’ It could say: ‘Well we’re going to do this and that’s it, that’s the end of the parliamentary process.’

It might as well say: ‘Oh House of Commons, get lost.’ And that is a wholly inadequate response to the votes we had before parliament.

And he says the argument that keeping the Lords amendment would undermine the prime minister is “ridiculous”. It is based on the theory that in the continent they don’t know there are divisions in the cabinet.

This generates some solid laughter.

He says on the continent people are bemused by the British. Other EU governments have to get the approval of their parliaments for Brexit. Today’s debate is just an attempt by “zealots” to stop this parliament having a say.

He says he will vote for the Lords amendment. He hopes the government regrets trying to block it.

Ken Clarke
Ken Clarke Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

This is from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.

Clarke, Soubry, Hoey and Field rebel against their respective whips over programme motion

Ken Clarke, the father of the Commons and veteran Conservative pro-European, is speaking now.

Clarke has already rebelled once today. According to the Press Association, he and Anna Soubry rebelled over the programme motion.

They were cancelled out by two Labour MPs, Kate Hoey and Frank Field, who voted with the government.

Updated

Matthew Pennycook is still speaking. He says the new David Davis amendment (see 12.56pm) does not go much beyond what the government promised in December.

Labour’s John Mann says Labour voters in the Midlands and the north do not want to see the Brexit negotiation carried out by 650 members of parliament. How will Labour explain to them that the unelected Lords will overturn the Commons and the refererndum.

Pennycook says this is about the Lords saying MPs should take control if there is no deal.

He says a ‘take it or leave it’ vote cannot be said in any sense to be genuinely meaningful.

He says MPs backing the Lords “meaningful vote” amendment are not trying to block Brexit.

More from the Times’ Henry Zeffman. He is watching the debate from the press gallery, and so can see things no visible to people watching the TV coverage.

George Freeman also tweeted this about Phillip Lee earlier.

The Conservative MP George Freeman says he could rebel over the “meaningful vote” issue.

In the December vote on the Grieve amendment, Freeman said he would support it but changed his mind at the last moment after hearing a government concession of sorts.

Antoinette Sandbach, the Conservative pro-European who was one of the 12 Tories who rebelled on the Grieve amendment on the “meaningful vote” in December, posted this on Twitter earlier.

These are from the Times’ Henry Zeffman

Julian Smith, of course, is the Conservative chief whip.

And this is from the Labour MP Stephen Doughty.

Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, is speaking now.

Labour’s Graham Stringer, a Euroceptic, intervenes. He accuses the Lords of going way beyond their constitutional role and suggests they are trying to block Brexit.

Pennycook does not accept this.

Davis sets out three conditions that any new “meaningful vote” amendment would have to meet

Davis says the Hailsham amendment would represent a profound shift in constitutional practice.

He quotes from the Bogdanor article again.

Stephen Hammond, a Conservative pro-European, asks what would happen under Davis’s new amendment if there were no deal.

Davis says ministers would come back to the House. The House would have the chance to respond.

Dominic Grieve intervenes. He says the government has not made provision for no deal. He says his amendment provides a mechanism for addressing what would happen if there were no deal.

He says he does not think the bill can get royal assent until it has a provision explaining what would happen if the government tried to leave with no deal.

Davis says he has not had much time to study the Grieve amendment.

He is happy to have a conversation about this, he says.

But three principles must be kept in mind.

1) They must not undermine the government’s negotiating postion.

2) They should not undermine the principle that the government, not parliament, negotiates treaties.

3) They must respect the result of the referendum.

First, we must never do anything that undermines the government’s negotiating position or encourages delays in the negotiations.

Secondly, we cannot change the fundamental constitutional structure which makes the government responsible for international relations and international treaties.

Thirdly, we must under all circumstances respect the result of the referendum. That’s what this House voted on article 50.

He says he is happy to meet Grieve to discuss potential solutions, provided these three principles are observered.

  • Davis sets out three conditions that any new “meaningful vote” amendment would have to meet.

He winds up urging MPs to back the government.

Updated

Davis is now talking about the “meaningful vote” issue. (See 12.56pm.)

He says a peer described the Hailsham amendment as a no Brexit one.

He quotes from the article Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutional expert, wrote at the weekend. Bogdanor wrote:

More fundamentally, the Hailsham amendment would substitute parliament for government in the negotiating process. If parliament refused to approve the agreement, it would require the government to return to the negotiating table to secure a better one. That is a constitutional absurdity. Parliament’s role is to scrutinise legislation and policy; 650 MPs, still less 800 peers, cannot themselves negotiate.

Davis says it has always been accepted that the government negotiates treaties. That was the case when the Maastricht treaty or the Amsterdam treaty or the Lisbon treaty were being considered by parliament.

What [the Lords amendment] actually amounts to is an unconstitutional shift which risks undermining our negotiations with the European Union.

Labour’s Frank Field says, if the Lords amendment stands, the government will be going naked into the negotiating chamber.

Davis says the European commission reads all British papers, especially the Financial Times and the Times. And they believe them, he says.

He says the Europeans do not want the UK to leave.

He summarises the Hailsham amendment (pdf).

Davis says people who talk about a meaningful vote want to reverse the result of the referendum.

Updated

Davis is now talking about delegated powers.

He refers to a Lords amendment saying ministers should only used delegated powers when “necessary”, not when “appropriate”.

He says in practice it may be necessary for ministers to use these power when they are appropriate.

The SNP’s Joanna Cherry intervenes. She says the government is going back on pledge made when the legislation was proposed.

Davis says the Lords amendment could prevent ministers making sensible changes to regulations.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general and a leading pro-European, says he does not agree.

Davis says Grieve is a very good lawyer. But other lawyers disagree.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, and a laywer, says appropriate could mean anything. Ministers could use it to change laws in almost any circumstances. He says, with “appropriate” at the test, minsters could not be challenged in court.

Davis says Clarke is a good friend. They were able to have lunch together for two hours without discussing Brexit. But he says he disagrees on this.

Davis is now talking about the Lords amendment removing the amendment introduced by the government in the Commons putting the Brexit “exit day” in the bill.

He says the Commons had already reached “a sensible position” on this matter. The government will stick to it.

Davis says the government has improved the bill in a number of areas.

He is going to address the main issues addressed the amendments in the group being discussed today.

First, there were amendments to the “sifting committee” (a committee being set up to decide what pieces of secondary legislation introduced under the bill get put to a full vote in the Commons.)

Davis says the Lords amendments would make it harder for ministers to use secondary legislation.

He says he knows the Lords want to improve the bill. Their changes can seem sensible in isolation. But their cumulative affect is damaging, he says.

I understand that the House of Lords wants to improve the bill in various ways, and each of some of their changes individually can seem sensible and proportionate when seen in isolation, but the cumulative effect of these changes can sometimes make it impossible to deliver the smooth and orderly exit we want.

Updated

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is opening the debate now.

He says more than 1,000 non-government amendments have been debated, and hundreds of government ones.

Today they are debating the Lords ones.

He says, when amendments have been made undermining the purpose of the bill, or undermining Brexit, the government will reject them.

The programme motion has passed by 321 votes to 304 - a majority of 17.

Both May's customs plans likely to be rejected by EU, Ivan Rogers tells MPs

Both of Theresa May’s mooted customs plans are very unlikely to be accepted, meaning that the Brexit process is heading for a “major crunch”, according to Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK’s former chief diplomat to the EU.

Appearing before the Commons home affairs committee, Rogers – who stepped down from the role in January 2017 and has since then regularly expressed sceptical views on the Brexit process – also warned how extraordinarily complex it would be to leave the EU, saying people must realise it was a process of many stages.

Quizzed about the two customs plans, the so-called max fac and the customs partnership, Rogers said both seemed implausible. On max fac he said:

Max fac doesn’t solve the problem as other see it, so they don’t understand why max fac is on the table at all. However facilitated the border, it’s still a border, and still demonstrably different from what we’ve got now. So I don’t think you’ll ever get max fac agreed, personally.

On the customs partnership he said:

It’s complex, to put it mildly. We don’t know whether the technology could be devised. It certainly doesn’t exist at the moment. It involves us operating as a third country power, policing the external border of the European Union, and then an extraordinarily elaborate machinery for remitting back to importers the difference between what our tariff rates have become once we use our sovereign trade policy and what the EU [does].

If you were confronted by that from the other side of the table, and that were Europeans putting it to us and saying, could we police your external border of your external customs union, and operate that, I can imagine what the UK systems answer would be.

After the customs partnership idea had been submitted by the UK, Rogers said, the EU had asked “five killer questions” on how it would work, and received no answer. He continued:

If they’re in that position and saying neither max fac nor new customs partnership is a runner then, you know, you don’t need to be in my shoes to say we’re heading for a major crunch.

On the sheer complexity of Brexit, Rogers told MPs:

That’s not messing up Brexit or undermining it or reversing it, or anything. It’s saying: you’ve got a huge number of areas where you’re extricating yourself from the existing relationship and the existing acquis [body of EU law], which is thousands and thousands and thousands of pages long.

And then you’re developing, over time, some immediately some less immediately, a different relationship which the EU where some bits you like … and there are other areas where you may want autonomy and divergence, and quite radical divergence over time, but you may not be able to assess in the next couple of years how radical.

This is a revolutionary system change. If you take Brexit seriously, which I do, you can;’t say, we can do all that in a jiffy. It’s not going to happen.

He added: “That’s not obstructive to say that, it’s just to say all of this is going to be bloody difficult to do.”

This would, he said, require a series of stages of exit. Rogers said that while he did not see membership of the EEA - the so-called Norway model – as a good long-term answer, it could be “a perch for a number of years where you got some of the freedoms and sovereignty that you would want”.He added:

I’ve always seen an EEA model as implausible as the medium/longer term destination, but not necessarily inconceivable as a short-term transition chamber route out of the EU.

Timetable for debates and votes

Here is the Commons library briefing (pdf) explaining all the Lords amendments that MPs will be voting on this afternoon.

And here is a shorter guide from my colleague Peter Walker.

There will be two sets of votes this afternoon - at 4.15pm and at 7.15pm.

The vote on the “meaningful vote” amendment or amendments (see 12.56pm) will come in the first tranche of voting.

MPs debate EU withdrawal bill

MPs are now starting the debate on the EU withdrawal bill.

First they have to agree the programme motion setting out the timetable for the debate - six hours today and six hours tomorrow.

There has been an objection, and so it is being put to a vote.

What MPs having a "meaningful vote" on Brexit means - The 5 alternative versions

The key vote this afternoon will be on what is being described as the “meaningful vote” issue. This refers to the vote that parliament will have on the Brexit withdrawal agreement if, as planned, it is agreed in the autumn.

But the term “meaningful vote” is not particularly helpful because there are at least five versions of what this might entail. Here is a quick summary.

1 - The government version - “take it or leave it”. Originally Theresa May resisted offering MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal, and she only confirmed that there would be one in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017. The government firmed up the commitment when the article 50 bill was going through parliament, and gave an even more precise commitment in a written statement in December. Ministers do not accept that this is a meaningless offer; MPs will be able to say no. But if they do say no, the UK will leave the EU without a deal, which is why critics say this would not amount to a meaningful vote.

2 - The Dominic Grieve version from December - limiting the powers ministers will have to implement Brexit until MPs have passed legislation. This is the amendment passed by MPs, against the wishes of the government, in December. The government was defeated by a majority of 4 after 12 Tories rebelled. At the time this was widely reported as a “meaningful vote” amendment. But actually what it was really about was preventing ministers using powers in the EU withdrawal bill to implement Brexit until an EU withdrawal and implementation bill has been passed.

3 - The Lords version - enabling parliament to take charge if the withdrawal deal is not passed. This amendment, tabled by the Conservative former cabinet minister Viscount Hailsham (better known as Douglas Hogg) was passed by peers in April by a majority of 91. The wording is complicated (pdf), but essentially it says that if MPs do not pass a resolution backing the deal agreed by the government, the government is obliged to follow “any direction” in future Brexit talks set out in a resolution passed by the Commons. That means, if MPs were to vote down the deal but vote in favour of a resolution telling ministers to go back to Brussels and try a different approach, ministers would have to obey. This is the version the government wants to vote down today.

4 - The government compromise - a ministerial statement after a no vote. In an attempt to avert defeat, the government has tabled a compromise amendment to be debated today. It is amendment 19 (a), on the order paper here (pdf). It is quite long, and gives details of documents the government will publish before the autumn vote, but essentially it does not alter the fact that a vote against the deal would not stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal. The key new commitment is that, if MPs were to vote no, a minister would come back to the Commons within 28 days to say what would happen next. Since the answer could be “not much”, it is not seen as a significant concession.

5 - The latest Grieve proposal - enabling parliament to take charge at the last moment. This is the amendment tabled last night, and it is an amendment to Davis’s amendment. It says if there is no agreement by 30 November, there must be a vote on what happens next. And if there is no agreement by 15 February 2019, the government would be bound to follow any “direction” given by MPs in a resolution passed by the Commons.

Updated

Soubry claims at least one MP will not vote as they want on Brexit bill because of threats

In the Commons Anna Soubry, the Conservative pro-European, has just raised a point of order. She said that, to her personal knowledge, at least one MP was not voting as they wanted to because of threats to them, their staff and their family.

To my knowledge at least one honourable member on these benches will today and tomorrow not vote in accordance with their conscience because of threats to their personal safety, to members of their parliamentary staff and members of their family.

John Bercow, the speaker, said no MP should be subject to threats. Any MP subject to threats should take appropriate action, he said.

  • Soubry claims at least one MP will not vote as they want on Brexit bill because of threats.

Updated

Number 10 did not have much to say about the Phillip Lee resignation at the Downing Street lobby briefing, BuzzFeed’s Emily Ashton reports.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg is picking up suggestions the government will lose the vote on the “meaningful vote”.

What Phillip Lee's resignation means

Dr Phillip Lee may not be a household name, but his decision to quit as a minister so he can vote against the government on Tuesday could have far-reaching consequences.

His focus, in particular, on the meaningful vote amendment, already on a knife-edge for the government, has given the Tory whips an even bigger headache than they were already facing.

By standing down ahead of the first votes on Theresa May’s painstakingly crafted and much amended Brexit bill, he will have, deliberately or not, put the screws on any wavering backbenchers who might be having second thoughts about rebelling.

Most of the original eleven rebels on the meaningful vote amendment, led by Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, have indicated that they will stand firm. One told the Guardian that at least a couple of other MPs were considering joining the rebel alliance.

As ever in this parliament, every vote matters. Despite offering last-minute concessions to rebels, May lost on the original meaningful vote amendment back in December by 309 to 305 votes. With Labour saying it has rallied all but its most pro-Brexit MPs behind it, the result will again come down to the wire.

Tory party insiders insist that Lee is “not trying to cause an avalanche” and he is more concerned about the principle of giving parliament a meaningful vote over the final Brexit deal. In his resignation statement he claimed “I would find it hard to live with myself afterwards if I let it pass”.

But actions have consequences, and some of those on the Tory benches who share his views, particularly those without the responsibility of a ministerial role, will now feel emboldened.

A defeat would be yet another blow to May’s authority. It would also undermine her negotiating clout with Brussels, if a combination of Tory rebels and the opposition could together inflict such a serious defeat.

The MP’s departure is also a personal blow for the prime minister. Lee was part of her leadership team and a constituency neighbour. One MP even describes them as “friends”. May doesn’t have many in the party, and although Lee says she remains the best person to lead the country at this time, he adds that “more strength, vision and integrity” is needed.

Last night, Lee attended the ‘22 committee of Tory backbenchers, where May attempted to unify the party ahead of the crucial votes with a plea not to vote against the government on the withdrawal bill. Today, the party stands more divided on Brexit than ever.

ITV’s Robert Peston thinks the Phillip Lee resignation could presage a Tory split.

Mmm. Not so sure about that. Lee is resigning as a minister, not from the party. And in his resignation statement he goes out of his way to praise Theresa May’s leadership. (See 10.59am.) People have been predicting a Conservative party split over Europe for ages, and when Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless defected to Ukip, it looked as though that might have been the start of a proper break-up. But it wasn’t. What’s extraordinary about the Conservative party is how its held together. That’s party because the pro-Europeans have been marginalised. It is not predominantly a pro-Brexit party.

These are from the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope.

If you want a break from Brexit for a moment, my colleague Alex Hern is covering Arron Banks’ appearance at the Commons culture committee on a separate live blog.

This is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has written a blog about the Phillip Lee resignation. She says he is “categorically not the only Tory MP among the younger ranks who is upset and irritated by how the government is handling Brexit.”

Opposition MPs have praised Phillip Lee for his decision to resign.

From Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader

From the Labour MP Chuka Umunna

From Angela Rayner, the shadow education secretary

From the Lib Dem MP Tom Brake

The Conservative MP Nick Boles has used a tweet on Phillip Lee’s resignation to make none-too-subtle jibe about David Davis, the Brexit secretary.

Phillip Lee's resignation statement - Summary and analysis

Here are the main points from Phillip Lee’s resignation statement.

  • Lee says that he is resigning today so that he can vote in favour of the Lords “meaningful vote” amendment.

We should ... empower our parliament so that its role is not limited to making fake choices – such as between a ‘bad deal’ and a cliff-edge ‘no deal’. Our Parliament should be able to direct our Government to change course in our interests. In all conscience, I cannot support the Government’s decision to oppose this amendment because doing so breaches such fundamental principles of human rights and parliamentary sovereignty. A vote between bad and worse is not a meaningful vote. And I cannot bring myself to vote for it in the bastion of liberty, freedom and human rights that is our parliament.

Lee does not talk about other EU withdrawal bill amendments, and so it is not clear if he will rebel on other amendments, or just this one.

  • He says the government is heading for a Brexit outcome that “will be neither fully to leave the EU, nor fully to stay”.

The outcome that is emerging will be neither fully to leave the EU, nor fully to stay. This is not an outcome for which anyone knowingly voted. In my view, this raises the important principle of legitimacy.

Lee voted remain, but his critique is increasingly shared by leading Brexiters. For example, Boris Johnson (here), Daniel Hannan (here) and Nigel Farage (here) have all said much the same in recent days.

  • He calls for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. This is significant because so far parliamentary support for a second referendum has been very limited. (Only around 40 MPs are said to be in favour.) A referendum is probably the only mechanism that would enable Brexit to be stopped.
  • He calls for article 50 to be paused or revoked so that Brexit can be delayed.

We should recognise that the UK and EU are not ready for Brexit and pause, extend or revoke Article 50 so that we do not leave before we are ready.

The government has repeatedly ruled this out. But experts say article 50 could be revoked, and the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, floated this very idea only last night. (See 9.30am.)

  • Lee floats the idea of renegotiating EU membership, or single market rules, implying that this could result in the UK staying in.

We should ... re-engage with our European and international friends to talk about how to achieve the aims that we share for the future in ways that respect individual countries’ interests and sovereignty. Since 2016, electorates in many countries across Europe have expressed similar concerns to those that we expressed in the referendum and so much is changing, and will continue to change, across the whole of our continent.

There is little support for this idea in parliament, but Tony Blair (here) and Gordon Brown (here) have both made similar arguments.

  • Lee says employers in his Bracknell constituency have told him Brexit will be bad for business.

As a member of parliament, I also have a major responsibility to my constituency of Bracknell. In extensive consultations with local employers, both large and small, I have been warned that they expect Brexit as it is currently being pursued, whatever the negotiated settlement, will damage their business. I have spoken to people, many of whom have lived, worked and raised their family here, whose fears for their futures I am not always able to allay. Regrettably, it seems inevitable that the people, economy and culture of my constituency will be affected negatively, and I cannot ignore that it is to them that I owe my first responsibility.

According to an analysis (pdf) by the academic Chris Hanretty, Bracknell voters backed Brexit in the EU referendum by 53% to 47%, making it marginally more pro-Brexit than the UK average.

  • Lee says he has found it “virtually impossible” to change Brexit policy in government. (That is not very surprising. He was a junior minister in a department, justice, with little purchase on Brexit policy.)
  • He stresses he supports Theresa May and still thinks she is the best person to lead the country.

I strongly supported Theresa May’s bid to lead the Conservative Party in 2016. I have great respect for her and still believe that she is the best person to lead the country at this exceptionally difficult time.

This goes some way toward quashing claims that pro-European Tory rebels are a threat to her leadership. (Lee is implying he would vote against May on the EU withdrawal bill, but in support of her in a confidence vote on her leadership of the party.)

  • He says Brexit is turning out to be more complicated than people claimed in the referendum.

The practicalities, logistics and implications of leaving the EU are far more complex than was ever envisaged and certainly more complex than the people were told in 2016. The UK is not going to be ready in time, neither is the EU, and both would suffer from a rushed or fudged agreement.

He implicitly accuses the leave campaign in 2016 of peddling “dreams and dogma”, not plans “rooted in reality and evidence.”

  • He stresses that he is resigning after “a great deal of personal reflection” and discussion with friends and trusted colleagues. But he does not say if he had warned the whips, or Downing Street, of what he was planning
  • He twice stresses his medical background (he is a GP) when explaining his decision. For example, he says:

In my medical experience, if a course of treatment is not working, then I review it. I also have a duty to get my patient’s informed consent for that action.

People tend to trust GPs, at least more than MPs. Another Tory pro-European rebel, Sarah Wollaston, is a GP, as is the leading Brexiter and international trade secretary, Liam Fox.

Responding to Lee’s resignation, a Downing Street source said:

We will get a good deal that works for everybody in the UK. The government’s amendment today provides for a meaningful vote.

Phillip Lee, who resigned as a justice minister today so that he can speak out against the government’s Brexit policy.

Phillip Lee
Phillip Lee Photograph: Conservative Party/PA

More from Phillip Lee on Twitter.

Lee calls for referendum on final Brexit deal after resigning from government over Brexit

Phillip Lee has posted more about his resignation on Twitter.

  • Lee calls for referendum on final Brexit deal.

Here is Lee’s tweet.

Justice minister resigns to campaign against government's Brexit policy

Philip Lee, a remain-supporting justice minister, has resigned from the government to speak out against the government’s policy on Brexit. In a tweet he said he was “incredibly sad” to resign but felt he had to to “better speak up for my constituents and country over how Brexit is currently being delivered.”

No 10 rejects last-minute 'meaningful vote' compromise ahead of key Brexit debate

Another big parliamentary challenge for Brexit is coming this afternoon, but Theresa May will be more optimistic than might have been expected a few weeks ago, when the House of Lords was merrily rewriting her EU withdrawal bill to give it much more of a remain flavour and the prospect of all those defeats being overturned in the Commons seemed uncertain.

The bill is now back in the Commons, with 15 amendments added against the government’s wishes. The government is going to accept one of them (an almost entirely tokenistic one, saying the UK will be able to choose to stay in EU agencies after Brexit) but on the others it is offering compromises (on three), or planning to simply vote down what the Lords was proposing.

Last week Labour was looking forward to “a whole catalogue of victories against the government” during the two-day debate starting today. But it seems that some potential Tory rebels have been won over by the argument that they should not undermine May’s negotiating position and now it looks as though the only really tricky vote for the government will be the one this afternoon on whether or not parliament should have a “meaningful vote” on the final withdrawal agreement.

There have been a series of developments overnight. Here are the key ones.

  • Downing Street has said it will not back the Grieve compromise. This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.
  • Leading Conservatives remainers and leavers have united to propose a new amendment on customs, intended as a compromise measure designed to avert the debate about whether the UK should seek to remain in a custom union with the EU until a later date. Here is the amendment.

On the Today programme Sir Oliver Letwin, the former cabinet minister who is one of the signatories to the amendment admitted that this was just about delaying the divisive vote. Asked if the amendment just “just kicked the can down the road”, he replied:

That is a very sensible thing to do. If you are engaged in trying to sort something which is complicated out, it makes sense to do it when you know what the thing that you are debating looks like.

  • Jeremy Corbyn has defended Labour’s decision not to back the Lords amendment saying the UK should stay in the European Economic Area (EEA) - the so-called Norway option that would keep the UK in the single market. In a post on Facebook this morning he said:

The Norway model does not reflect the needs of the much larger British economy. It would mean taking rules from Brussels, but having no role in making them. It would not deliver the comprehensive new UK-EU customs union we want to negotiate. Nor would it meet our commitment to no hard border in Northern Ireland. We cannot settle for this.

  • Leo Varadkar, the Irish prime minister, has floated the possibility of delaying Brexit. In an interview with Irish broadcaster TV3, he said:

You’ll know that there are a number of different scenarios that could arise if we’re in a no-deal situation. For example, it is possible to extend Article 50, to allow more time for negotiations to take place. There is the possibility of an interim deal, or a transition period, pending an outcome or final negotiations around the transition period.

  • Newsnight’s Nicholas Watt has reported that May is expected to endorse the “max fac”, or “maximum facilitation”, plan for customs after Brexit, not the alternative “new customs partnership” proposal that she originally favoured.
  • Pro-Brexit tabloid papers have claimed that MPs will be betraying Brexit if they vote against the government today. Here is the Sun splash.

And here is the Daily Express.

Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s guide to all the Lords amendments the government is trying to reverse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.

10.30am: Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about post-Brexit immigration policy.

10.30am: Arron Banks, the Leave.EU founder, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee. We will be covering the hearing on a separate live blog.

After 12.45pm: MPs begin debating the Lords amendments to the EU withdrawal bill. The first round of votes, including divisions on the “meaningful vote”, will come three hours after the debate starts. There will then be further votes six hours after the start of the debate.

Mostly today I will be focusing on the debate, but I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at the end of the day.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ 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

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
If you're copy-pasting from AI, you aren't learning. Try these "active" shifts instead
Learn how to use AI as a study partner that enhances learning instead of replacing it.
Tom’s Guide
Tom’s Guide
Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Lucille Ball was like a mother to me'
Arnold Schwarzenegger adored working with Lucille Ball and described her as being "like a mother" to him.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
As An Old School Red Hot Chili Peppers Fan, The New Netflix Doc Is The Story I Needed To Hear
Fight like a brave!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Kansas City cat rescued by firefighters after fleeing vet visit
Kitteh in trouble they were there on the double.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Woman brought a shower caddy to Costco’s food court, and 2 million people are now reconsidering everything they know about shopping
It’s a simple hack.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
‘Men in women dominated field’: Woman picked the club, thinking it was just a fun first date. Then he scams her twice
"A creative way to have a free night out"
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play