Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow (earlier) and Jedidajah Otte (later)

Three ministers resign to join 29-strong Tory revolt on Brexit indicative votes – as it happened

Closing summary

MPs vote to begin ‘indicative votes’ on Brexit

As not much has happened in the past hour, I’m going to close the blog by republishing my colleague Andrew Sparrow’s excellent snap analysis for those who missed it an hour or so ago. Thanks and goodnight.

If Sir Bill Cash is to be believed, MPs have tonight voted to begin a process that will lead to a “constitutional revolution”. (See 10.59am.) It is impossible to predict quite where this will end up, but Cash’s claim seem hyperbolic.

MPs have voted to have more votes on Brexit. Wednesday’s will be the ninth big Brexit debate this year, and the first where supposedly the Commons is “taking back control”. Sir Oliver Letwin wants MPs to vote on paper, not in the division lobbies, on a wide range of Brexit options. But there are many reasons why this might not have quite the dramatic impact Cash fears. Here are six.

1) MPs have not yet been promised free votes on all, or even some, of the measures, but unless that happens the voting could end up just being a re-run of what has happened in normal votes on Brexit amendments. Some government ministers have said there is no point having indicative votes without giving MPs a free vote, but Theresa May sounds less keen. Speaking for Labour, Sir Keir Starmer implied this afternoon that Labour MPs would get free votes on some propositions but not others.

2) There is no guarantee yet that there will be a majority for any plan - although Letwin may opt for a voting system that eliminates unpopular options until one is left as the winner.

3) The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea - staying in a customs union with the EU. (See 5.32pm.) Motions passed by the Commons are not binding on the government, and it is very hard for the legislature to force a PM to do something she does not want to do.

4) MPs may well use Wednesday’s debate to pass another motion freeing up more time for indicative votes at a later stage. In other words, the process could become self-perpetuating. This would worry ministers much more, particularly if it led to MPs trying to free up time to allow the Commons to pass legislation. But that could lead to ministers seeking a way of trying to retaliate to sabotage the Letwin process.

5) It is not obvious that all options will be on the ballot anyway.Interestingly one of the most high-profile supporters of a second referendum, Owen Smith, said in the debate this plan should be excluded at this stage. (See 9.19pm.)

6) The prospect of MPs trying to push May towards a softer Brexit could possibly help her, by persuading Tory Brexiters to back her plan in a vote on Thursday to prevent Brexit being watered down. There is no guarantee that this will happen, but it is not impossible.

Sky’s Lewis Goodall seems chirpy:

And on this note, I’m wrapping up. Thanks for tuning in, good night.

Updated

Here a rather eerie observation from the Daily Mirror’s Pippa Crerar:

Updated

My colleagues Heather Stewart, Jessica Elgot and Rowena Mason have written a superb analysis of tonight’s events.

Here an excerpt:

Controlling the parliamentary timetable is usually a key power of the sitting government, but MPs have been drawing up plans to step in after May repeatedly declined to change course, despite her deal being roundly rejected on two occasions.

Defending the move, the Tory rebel Dominic Grieve said parliament had been “prevented from doing its ordinary job” by the “straitjacket” imposed by the government.

“Seeing that the government has run into the sand, and has had its deal rejected, we have got to find an alternative,” he said. “There should be nothing that is forbidden to be discussed.”

Read the full story here.

Updated

Arron Banks, the co-founder of the Leave.EU campaign, meanwhile seems to have come to the conclusion that Remain is better than May’s deal.

Updated

In the eyes of Conservative MP Nick Boles, the night has been a resounding success for parliamentary democracy.

Twitter is flooded with projections for what might happen on Wednesday.

This from the Daily Mail’s deputy political editor John Stevens:

Various MPs are already busy sharpening their knives.

One does wonder what the ERG will think of the “compromise” mentioned here.

Commenting on tonight’s votes in the Commons and the resignations of three ministers, Guto Bebb MP, leading supporter of the People’s Vote campaign, said:

The scale of the Government’s defeat and the principled resignations of ministers Richard Harrington, Alistair Burt and Steve Brine tonight are more nails in the coffin of a Brexit deal that very few in the country or Parliament have ever wanted.

The Prime Minister has now lost control of this process. What is needed now in this national emergency is not more posturing or playing roulette with people’s lives but to give Parliament the time and space needed to work out what Brexit means, as well as begin preparing for important democratic elections to the European Parliament.

When it becomes clear that any form of Brexit will let down everyone - no matter how they voted in 2016 - MPs will decide the only way out of this crisis is to hand the final decision back to the British people.

Updated

While some see a parliamentary revolution in tonight’s passing of the Letwin amendment, others are more concerned about the potentially now more likely prospect of a general election, now that the Government has lost even more control, and MPs in favour of a soft Brexit or a second referendum will have a day on the decks next Wednesday.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg seems convinced that this is now increasingly possible, and writes:

Tonight could be the official start of a journey to a softer Brexit led by a majority in Parliament, Brexiteers beginning to back down in earnest, or the start of the next stage of a standoff between the government and Parliament that could only end with a ‘democratic event’ - code in Whitehall for what you and me would normally call an election.

Full story below.

Henry Newman, director of Open Europe, seems to agree.

Updated

Evening everyone, I’m taking over from my colleague Andrew Sparrow and will be rounding up some reactions to this zinger of a night in the Commons.

Insults were hurled, birthday songs were sung and a whole host of things did not quite go as planned - in particular for Ed Vaizey MP, who apparently got his amendments confused.

Updated

MPs vote to begin 'indicative votes' on Brexit - Snap analysis

If Sir Bill Cash is to be believed, MPs have tonight voted to begin a process that will lead to a “constitutional revolution”. (See 10.59am.) It is impossible to predict quite where this will end up, but Cash’s claim seem hyperbolic.

MPs have voted to have more votes on Brexit. Wednesday’s will be the ninth big Brexit debate this year, and the first where supposedly the Commons is “taking back control”. Sir Oliver Letwin wants MPs to vote on paper, not in the division lobbies, on a wide range of Brexit options. But there are many reasons why this might not have quite the dramatic impact Cash fears. Here are six.

1) MPs have not yet been promised free votes on all, or even some, of the measures, but unless that happens the voting could end up just being a re-run of what has happened in normal votes on Brexit amendments. Some government ministers have said there is no point having indicative votes without giving MPs a free vote, but Theresa May sounds less keen. Speaking for Labour, Sir Keir Starmer implied this afternoon that Labour MPs would get free votes on some propositions but not others.

2) There is no guarantee yet that there will be a majority for any plan - although Letwin may opt for a voting system that eliminates unpopular options until one is left as the winner.

3) The government would not be obliged to accept any plan deemed most popular with MPs, and in fact May strongly hinted this afternoon that she would reject what many expect might emerge as the most widely-supported idea - staying in a customs union with the EU. (See 5.32pm.) Motions passed by the Commons are not binding on the government, and it is very hard for the legislature to force a PM to do something she does not want to do.

4) MPs may well use Wednesday’s debate to pass another motion freeing up more time for indicative votes at a later stage. In other words, the process could become self-perpetuating. This would worry ministers much more, particularly if it led to MPs trying to free up time to allow the Commons to pass legislation. But that could lead to ministers seeking a way of trying to retaliate to sabotage the Letwin process.

5) It is not obvious that all options will be on the ballot anyway. Interestingly one of the most high-profile supporters of a second referendum, Owen Smith, said in the debate this plan should be excluded at this stage. (See 9.19pm.)

6) The prospect of MPs trying to push May towards a softer Brexit could possibly help her, by persuading Tory Brexiters to back her plan in a vote on Thursday to prevent Brexit being watered down. There is no guarantee that this will happen, but it is not impossible.

That’s all from me for tonight.

My colleague Jedidaja Otte is now taking over.

Updated

These are from Hannah White, deputy director of the Institute for Government.

Here is the full text of what Jeremy Corbyn said in his point of order a moment ago.

Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate the house for taking control.

The government’s approach has been an abject failure and this house must now find a solution.

So I pay tribute to [Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn] and others, who have worked to achieve tonight’s result.

The government must take this process seriously. We do not know what the house will decide on Wednesday. But I know there are many members of this house who have been working for alternative solutions, and we must debate those to find a consensus.

And this house must also consider whether any deal should be put to the people for a confirmatory vote.

Where this government has failed, this house must, and I believe will, succeed.

The SNP’s Angus MacNeil asks, if the Commons cannot reach a decision on Wednesday, whether more time will be allowed for the indicative votes process.

Bercow urges him to take things one step at a time.

The Tory Brexiter Sir Bill Cash says that what has been agreed by the Commons is “a constitutional revolution” and that the house will will live to regret it.

Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, asks Bercow if he will set up a committee to ensure that the indicative votes process runs smoothly on Wednesday.

Bercow says Oliver Letwin will take charge of the process, and he says he is sure Letwin will want to ensure it runs properly.

Patrick McLoughlin, the Conservative former chief whip, says Bercow recently sent a letter to MPs saying they should treat each other with respect. Was Bercow following that in what he said about Greg Hands?

Bercow says, if he caused offence, he is happy to apologise. He did not think Hands would mind, he says.

Jeremy Corbyn makes a point of order to praise the house for taking control. Where the government has failed, the house must succeed, he says.

The Tory Brexiter David Davies says Sir Oliver Letwin has now installed himself as a jobbing prime minister. How can he be held to account?

John Bercow, the speaker, tries to quell the noise. He urges the Tory MP Greg Hands to be quiet, saying Hands was once a whip, and not a very good one. That provokes even more jeering.

The main motion has now been passed by 327 votes to 300 - a majority of 27.

That just reinforces the Letwin vote, because the main motion is now basically the Letwin amendment.

Here is an Institute for Government explainer on indicative votes.

Government claims vote for Letwin's indicative votes plan sets 'dangerous precedent'

The government has issued this response to the defeat on Letwin. A spokesman for the Brexit department said:

It is disappointing to see this amendment pass, as the government made a clear commitment to provide a process to find a majority in parliament for a way forward this week.

This amendment instead upends the balance between our democratic institutions and sets a dangerous, unpredictable precedent for the future.

While it is now up to parliament to set out next steps in respect of this amendment, the government will continue to call for realism – any options considered must be deliverable in negotiations with the EU. Parliament should take account of how long these negotiations would take, and if they’d require a longer extension which would mean holding European parliamentary elections.

From ITV’s Robert Peston

MPs are now voting on the main motion, as amended.

Essentially this is a rerun of the vote on Letwin.

Government defeats Beckett amendment by majority of three

MPs have voted down the Beckett amendment by 314 votes to 311 - a majority of three.

The eight Labour MPs who voted against Letwin

And here is the full list of MPs who voted against Letwin.

They include eight Labour MPs.

Labour MPs who voted against Letwin
Labour MPs who voted against Letwin Photograph: HoC

The 30 Tories MPs who rebelled to vote for Letwin amendment

Thirty Conservative MPs voted for the Letwin amendment.

Here is the full list.

30 Tories who voted for Letwin amendment
30 Tories who voted for Letwin amendment Photograph: HoC

The full list of MPs who voted for Letwin is here.

Updated

Here is Graeme Cowie, a Commons library clerk specialising in Brexit, on the Beckett amendment.

Three ministers resign to back Letwin amendment

As well as Richard Harrington, the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt and the health minister Steve Brine have also resigned because they voted for the Letwin amendment, government sources have confirmed.

Updated

Text of Margaret Beckett's amendment

MPs are now voting on Dame Margaret Beckett’s amendment.

Here is the full text.

At end, add “and orders that, in the event that the UK comes within seven calendar days of leaving the European Union without a deal, the government must make arrangements within two sitting days, or if this house has been adjourned for more than four days to arrange for the House to be recalled under standing order no. 13 (Earlier meeting of the House in certain circumstances) for this purpose, for a minister of the crown to move a motion on whether this house approves the UK leaving the EU without a deal and on whether the UK government should be required to request an extension of the period in article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union in order to avoid a no-deal Brexit and to give time for parliament to determine a different approach.”

Updated

May suffers fresh Brexit defeat as MPs opt to take control of indicative votes process by majority of 27

MPs have backed the Letwin amendment by 329 votes to 302 - a majority of 27. That is a much bigger margin of victory than many people were expecting.

Updated

Here is Harrington’s resignation letter.

According to Labour’s Mary Creagh, the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, another pro-European, is also voting for the Letwin amendment.

Business minister Richard Harrington resigns to back Letwin amendment

The government has confirmed that Richard Harrington has resigned as business minister. He will be voting for the amendment.

Harrington has been on the verge of leaving the government for some weeks now. Recently he effectively challenged the PM to sack him, as he praised the Airbus boss for describing the government’s handling of Brexit as a “disgrace”.

Richard Harrington
Richard Harrington Photograph: Newsnight

Here is the text of the Letwin amendment.

At end, add “and, given the need for the house to debate and vote on alternative ways forward, with a view to the government putting forward a plan for the house to debate and vote on, orders that –

(a) Standing order no. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that order) shall not apply on Wednesday 27 March;

(b) precedence on that day shall be given to a motion relating to the business of the house in connection with matters relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union other than any business of the house motion relating to the consideration by the house of a motion under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and then to motions relating to that withdrawal and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union other than any motion moved under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

(c) if more than one motion related to the business of the house is tabled, the speaker shall decide which motion shall have precedence;

d) the speaker shall interrupt proceedings on any business before the business of the house motion having precedence at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March and call a member to move that motion;

(e) debate on that motion may continue until 3.00 pm on Wednesday 27 March at which time the speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion including the questions on amendments selected by the speaker which may then be moved;

(f) when those proceedings have been concluded, the speaker shall call a member to move one of the other motions having precedence;

(g) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this order or an order arising from the business of the house motion may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption on Wednesday 27 March.”

MPs vote on Letwin amendment

The debate is over.

Labour decides not to move its amendment.

That means MPs go straight on to the Letwin amendment, which is being voted on now.

This means, if the government does get defeated on Letwin, the result will get onto the 10 o’clock news.

Richard Harrington, the pro-European business minister, has resigned, the BBC says.

Barclay says, if MPs do not pass the withdrawal agreement this week, they risk a longer article 50 extension.

But, if MPs vote for the deal, the UK can be out of the EU within weeks, he says.

Ken Clarke, the pro-European, asks Barclay when the government will schedule its own indicative votes process.

Barclay says these questions were addressed at the start of the debate.

He says Labour criticised the government for not committing to definitely accepting the results of the indicative votes process. But Sir Keir Starmer said Labour would not automatically accept the results either, he says.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, is winding up for the government now.

He says the central question at stake is, who controls the order paper?

He says the government has promised its own version of indicative votes.

The SNP’s Stephen Gethins intervenes. Will Barclay be voting for the case he is making in his speech? (Two weeks ago Barclay defended the government motion saying article 50 should be extended at the despatch box, and then voted against it in a free vote.)

Barclay says defends his speech in the debate two weeks ago, saying he criticised amendments that he voted against.

Sir Oliver Letwin says, if the government objects to the amendment coming from a backbencher, it could adopt it itself.

Barclay says David Lidington addressed this argument earlier.

Chapman says indicative votes should not include unacceptable options, like no deal, or “unicorns”, like the Brady amendment.

Jenny Chapman, the shadow Brexit minister, is now winding up for the opposition.

She says different MPs have different views on how indicative votes could be carried out.

She says the Labour amendment and the Letwin amendment both avoid being prescriptive on this point.

From Sky’s Lewis Goodall

The SNP’s Tommy Sheppard is speaking now. He says ministers complain that the Letwin amendment would alter the balance of power between the executive and the legislature. That is exactly what it should be passed, he says.

In the debate Owen Smith is speaking now. He says he made the case for a second referendum when he challenged Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership unsuccessfully in 2016.

Speaking in favour of the Lewin amendment, he says he is worried that, if there are indicative votes, the government will try to “bamboozle” MPs by offering them a whole smorgasbord of options, including a second referendum.

But that would be “tricksy” and “deceitful”, he says, because a second referendum is a process matter, not an eventual outcome. He says he hopes the speaker would not allow this.

In a fraught meeting of Tory Brexiters in the European Research Group tonight, the group’s chair Jacob Rees-Mogg told supporters he would back the prime minister’s deal if May could secure the support of the DUP.

Inside the room however, the loudest thumping on the desk came after an emotional speech by the DUP’s Sammy Wilson railing against the deal, saying it could see Northern Ireland separated from Great Britain under the terms of the backstop.

MPs leaving the room were in anxious disagreement about the path ahead. “We have got to make them see sense and see that we could lose Brexit forever if we vote this down,” one MP said.

Another said they did not feel now was the moment to cave. “If we give in now, we will never know what we could have achieved,” another said. “I am appalled by it all and disgusted and the British people are never going to forgive us.”

Nick Boles, one of the Conservative MPs who has backed the Letwin amendment, says he was not impressed by David Lidington’s offer at the start of the debate of an alternative government procedure. (See 6.10pm.)

Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is urging MPs to back the Letwin amendment.

This is what the Conservative MP Charlie Elphicke thinks about the prospect of pro-European ministers resigning to vote for the Letwin amendment.

At various stages in the Brexit process there have been reports about pro-European ministers threatening to resign en masse if they don’t get some concession from the government. Those threats have always been withdrawn - normally (but not always) after Number 10 shifted a bit towards what the pro-Europeans wanted.

According to ITV’s Robert Peston, something similar seems to be happening again.

Steve Baker, one of the Tory Brexiter invited to Chequers yesterday, says he and his colleagues are not calling themselves “Grand Wizards”.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, who revealed the use of the nickname (see 7.44pm), says it was never intended to be derogatory.

This is from the Conservative MP Damian Collins, who says he will vote for the Letwin amendment tonight.

Collins was not one of the 15 Tories who defied the whip to vote for the Hilary Benn indicative votes amendment two weeks ago.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

A government source has denied Jeremy Corbyn’s claim that Theresa May suggested splitting the vote on the withdrawal agreement from the vote on the political declaration when they met at lunchtime earlier. (See 3.06pm.) The source said it was simply being explained to Labour side that the EU summit conclusions published last week - which could see article 50 extended to May 22 - referred only to the withdrawal agreement. “It was a clarification that came up in the course of a wider conversation,” the source said.

The source said that in order to satisfy the terms of the EU Withdrawal Act, the Commons “meaningful vote” had to cover both the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.

Labour’s Lisa Nandy is speaking in the debate now. The government must rule out no deal, she says. Asked why by someone on the government side, she says she recently spoke to a constituent whose son is on a waiting list for an EU medical trial. She says she was desperately worried about how a no-deal Brexit could stop her son being included.

Updated

This is from the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford.

George Osborne, the Tory former chancellor and now Evening Standard editor, is among the many on Twitter pointing out that the most senior Tory Brexiters have, according to one report (see 7.44pm), acquired a nickname used by the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan.

Updated

Back in the debate Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Brexit committee, says Lidington’s argument against the Letwin amendment was “hopelessly confused”. Lidington said the government was opposed to the amendment offering an indicative votes process, but the government was also saying it would do the same if the Letwin amendment failed.

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Grieve says excessive respect for 2016 referendum result has stopped MPs debating Brexit options properly

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, is speaking now. He says his is the second name on the Letwin amendment. But, unlike Letwin, he wants a second referendum, he says. He says he thinks Brexit is a mistake of historic proportions.

He says he also disagrees with Letwin on May’s deal. Grieve says he thinks it will deliver a third-rate outcome.

If MPs could vote against it by a majority of 230, that suggests a fundamental error has been made, he says.

He says there has been a tendency to close debate down on the grounds that MPs must honour the result of the referendum.

He says he has been an MP for long enough to have heard this case before. In the New Labour era, when Tony Blair had a huge majority, some people even suggested there was no need for second reading votes on bills. Bills should just go through on the nod, it was said.

But, Grieve says, in a democracy you should never close down debate.

He says the mess we are in is at least in part due to the way debate has been closed down.

One of the tendencies that has crept in throughout the whole of this debate ever since the referendum result came out has been a tendency to close down debate on the basis that it is not proper to pursue it because the referendum result must act as a diktat which prevents such debate taking place.

You cannot have a working democracy where you close down debate ... To argue that the referendum result imposes a permanency which cannot be challenged is, in my judgment, entirely wrong and when I look at the mess into which we’ve got ourselves, it does appear to me to be at least in part the consequence of pushing this argument and thereby preventing democratic process working.

  • Grieve says excessive respect for the 2016 referendum result has stopped MPs debating Brexit options properly.

He says he thinks the Commons has an exceptional capacity to find solutions.

But a straightjacket has been imposed on what is acceptable in debate.

Labour’s Stephen Doughty says marches and petitions are part of that too.

Grieve agrees. He says he was at the march on Saturday, and the good humour of the crowd was striking. He says that compares with the “rabidity” of some Brexiters.

Dominic Grieve
Dominic Grieve Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

Beckett says, since Theresa May said in her statement earlier that “unless this house agrees to it, no deal will not happen” (see 5.32pm), she thought the government would accept her amendment.

But it has not agreed to do so, she says.

Dame Margaret Beckett, the Labour former foreign secretary, is speaking in the debate now.

She says her amendment will ensure the UK does not leave the EU unless MPs vote for it.

You can read all the amendments in full, including Beckett’s, on the order paper (pdf).

Back in the debate Sir Nicholas Soames, the Conservative former minister, is speaking now. He says he will vote for the Letwin amendment. But he stresses that he has voted for Brexit more often than some of the high-profile Brexiter rebels who have voted against Theresa May’s deal.

He says he is “truly distraught” at what Brexit has done to the country.

Parliament should now do its duty, and bring these matters to a conclusion, he says.

Talking of the rebel Brexiters invited to Chequers yesterday (Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steve Baker, Dominic Raab, David Davis, Iain Duncan Smith), the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says apparently people are calling them the “Grand Wizards”. They have been meeting, she says.

Obviously you would never expect Kuenssberg to name her source, but anyone familiar with the work of Boris Johnson will know that he is very fond of the “nailing jelly to the wall” metaphor.

Updated

The SNP’s Stephen Gethins is speaking in the debate now. He says Theresa May invited a small, elitist group of Brexiters to Chequers yesterday, all of whom have prompted a project that has failed.

Anna Soubry, the former Conservative who defected to the Independent Group, says many Conservative MPs are facing their constituency annual general meeting at the moment. They are more worried about what their local activists think than about the national interest. Gethins says Soubry knows the Conservative party better than he does.

The Guardian has just published an article by Michael Heseltine, the former Conservative deputy prime minister, which reads like a version of the speech he gave at the People’s Vote march on Saturday.

Here is the article.

Here is an extract.

As I told marchers at last Saturday’s demonstration in London, I dismiss with contempt the image of us as an island wrapped in a union jack, glorying in the famous phrase that captured, for so many, Winston Churchill’s spirit of defiance in 1940: “Very well, alone”. I was there. I saw our army evacuated, our cities bombed, our convoys sunk. Churchill did everything in his power to end this isolation. Alone was never Churchill’s hope or wish: it was his fear ...

Margaret Thatcher would have been appalled to see Britain excluded from the top table. Theresa May dashed across the Channel last week, only to be excluded from a meeting of our former partners, and presented with a take-it-or-leave-it offer. That is what the Brexiteers have done to our country: a national humiliation, made in Britain, made by Brexit.

And here is the full speech.

Michael Heseltine’s speech at the People’s Vote rally

Letwin says MPs should allow themselves a couple of days to do what should have been done over a couple of years.

He says he thinks it would make sense to start by allowing MPs who support various options, like a people’s vote, or Norway plus, or whatever.

He says the Speaker has a lot of experience at choosing amendments that have support in the house for debate.

He says he is opposed to revoking article 50, but he accepts it is a serious option.

Updated

My colleague Jessica Elgot says some supporters of a second referendum are arguing that this should not be an option in indicative votes, because that is a process option not an outcome option.

Letwin says he thinks he will have to press his amendment to a vote tonight.

Ken Clarke, the Tory pro-European, intervenes. He asks what system would be used to decide what system MPs can agree on. He says he thinks the single transferrable vote system would be best.

Letwin says this could be discussed on Wednesday. But he says he thinks it would be best for MPs to vote on all options at the same time, voting on paper, so the Commons can determine which ideas have a lot of support, and which don’t.

He says that would deal with the problems that might arise if people vote sequentially.

After that, there could be further votes, he says.

Oliver Letwin
Oliver Letwin Photograph: Parliament TV

This is from the Press Association’s Richard Wheeler.

Letwin says he is surprised to find himself in the role of rebel.

He always used to be a very loyal MP, he says.

And he says, although he voted remain, he thinks the result of the referendum should be honoured.

In the past he has tried to bring Tory backbenchers together, he says.

He also says he has voted for Theresa May’s Brexit deal, and will continue to do so.

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative who has tabled the key indicative votes amendment, is speaking now.

He says people have said that his amendment would overturn an ancient constitutional principle.

But he says the principle that government business takes precedence in Commons business only dates back to 1906.

(Letwin’s amendment would suspend this rule for a day, on Wednesday, so as to allow the start of the indicative votes process.)

Starmer says he used to say the PM was surviving by the week. Then he said she was surviving by the day. Now she is surviving by the hour, he says.

He ends by urging MPs to back the Letwin amendment so they can take back control.

This is from Iain Anderson, a Brexit-watcher, PR professional and former Tory adviser.

In a very close division, 310 votes might not be enough. Two weeks ago the Hilary Benn amendment, also calling for an indicative votes process, was defeated by 314 votes to 312.

Here is the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on where we are with the Letwin vote tonight.

See 6.18pm for more on this aspect.

Back in the debate Ken Clarke, the pro-European, asks Starmer if Labour will allow its MPs a free vote during the indicative votes process. He says this is what happened in 1972 when the government passed the legislation taking the UK into Europe.

Starmer says, if the Letwin amendment is passed, Labour will decide what it will do. But the party does not know what the options might be. If one option were to be a no-deal Brexit, of course Labour would whip against it, he says. And he says, if MPs backed that, Labour would still not support it.

  • Starmer says Labour MPs will not necessarily be given a free vote on all indicative vote options.

About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country. (See 6pm.)

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column (paywall) with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns. According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”

Starmer says he thinks the government will lose the debate on the Letwin amendment tonight.

Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, is now responding for Labour.

He says the government’s position seems to be that it sort of sees the case for indicative votes, but disagrees with them too.

Turning to the Labour amendment, he says Labour is not criticising anything in the withdrawal agreement. He says he hopes this means Labour now supports the withdrawal agreement.

Lidington is now talking about the statutory instrument laid by the government today changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act to take account of the fact that Brexit has been delayed. He says the SI contains two alternative new dates, to reflect what was agreed in Brussels last week.

Sir Oliver Letwin intervenes. He says, if the government’s only objection to the amendment is that it is not a government one, ministers could have accepted it as a government amendment. He tells Lidington he could just offer to adopt the amendment, and hold the same debate on Wednesday, in the same way.

Lidington says he cannot offer more on that now. But Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, may be able to say more when he winds up the debate, Lidington says.

Sarah Newton, the Conservative who resigned as a minister earlier this month so she could vote to rule out a no-deal Brexit, tells Lidington it would be easier just to accept the Letwin amendment.

Lidington says the Letwin amendment would disrupt the balance between the legislature and the executive.

Updated

Labour’s Wes Streeting says Lidington cannot persuade MPs not to vote for Letwin, on the grounds that something similar will be available, without being able to say when the debate will be, for how long it will last, and what will be on the order paper.

Ken Clarke says, given what Lidington has just announced, the government is promising what Letwin proposes. So why don’t they just agree to set aside Wednesday for indicative votes.

Lidington says, until the Letwin amendment is put to a vote, the government won’t know if Wednesday is available.

Lidington says, if the Letwin amendment is defeated, the government will set aside time for a debate later this week intended to allow MPs to find a way forward. Following consultation, further time might be set aside for further debates he says.

But if the Letwin amendment is carried, Wednesday will be set aside for this process, he says.

Asked if the government will allow free votes, Lidington says it is too early to say.

Vicky Ford, a Conservative, asks if the government is committing to indicative votes this week.

Lidington says, if the Letwin amendment gets defeated, the government will set aside time for a debate this week.

Labour’s Liz Kendall ask, if Letwin falls and the government holds a debate, whether the government will choose the options for debate.

Lidington says the government will not choose the options. But the government will not be silent either.

This is from Nick Boles, one of the Conservative MPs backing the Letwin amendment.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, says he thinks the case for revoking article 50 is getting stronger. He says he is concerned by reports that the cabinet has been influenced by what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best by the country.

Lidington says the PM has always been guided by the national interest. He says abiding by the result of the 2016 referendum is in the national interest.

Updated

The BBC’s Norman Smith thinks we could get the third meaningful vote on Thursday.

The SNP’s Pete Wishart describes Lidington as “the putative prime minister”. He is the second MP to joke about the weekend newspaper stories saying Lidington was being lined up as a caretaker prime minister. He could not do a worse job than May, Wishart says. He asks Lidington if he accepts revoking article 50 is an option.

Lidington says he does not accept that. He says the march and the petition show some people have a strong desire to remain. But you cannot ignore the views of the 17.4m people who voted leave, he says.

Updated

David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, is now opening the Brexit debate.

It is next steps six, or NS6. If you want reminding what all the others were, there is a summary here.

Updated

Bercow confirms Letwin's amendment will be put to vote

John Bercow, the Speaker, says he has selected three amendments for the Brexit debate.

1) Labour’s amendment. This calls on the government “to provide sufficient parliamentary time this week for this house to find a majority for a different approach”.

2) Oliver Letwin’s amendment. This calls for Commons business on Wednesday to be set aside for a series of indicative votes. It does not specify what options will be voted on, or how the votes will take place.

3) Dame Margaret Beckett’s amendment. This says that if the UK is seven calendar days from leaving without a deal, the house should be recalled to consider a motion on whether or not MPs approve such a move.

Updated

Theresa May’s statement is now over. On a point of order, Labour’s Angela Eagle asks what would be the point of indicative votes given May has said she will not abide by the results.

John Bercow, the Speaker, says that is an “extremely important point”. But he cannot rule on it now, he says.

Updated

Theresa May's Brexit statement - Summary and analysis

Here are the main points from what Theresa May said in her opening statement, and in her responses to MPs. It hasn’t been a great success. She angered the DUP by suggesting the politicians in Northern Ireland were to blame for article 50 being extended, she disappointed MPs hoping that she was genuinely committed to indicative votes, and some of what she said about the possibility of a long Brexit delay seemed to contradict what she was saying last week.

Oh, and she also had to issue what was effectively a non-apology apology.

On the plus side, unless I missed it, no Conservative called for her to resign. Given that there were stories in yesterday’s Sunday papers claiming a Tory coup was already underway, that probably counts as an achievement.

Here are the main points.

  • May said she did not yet have the support to win a third meaningful vote. But she implied she was hoping that would change by the end of the week. She said:

Mr Speaker, I continue to believe that the right path forward is for the United Kingdom to leave the EU as soon as possible with a deal, now on 22nd May.

But it is with great regret that I have had to conclude that as things stand, there is still not sufficient support in the house to bring back the deal for a third meaningful vote. I continue to have discussions with colleagues across the house to build support, so that we can bring the vote forward this week, and guarantee Brexit.

  • May implied that she decided to delay Brexit primarily because the absence of an executive in Northern Ireland meant it was not ready for a no-deal Brexit. She said:

And I requested a short extension to the article 50 process to 30th June. I regret having to do so. I wanted to deliver Brexit on 29th March. But I am conscious of my duties as prime minister to all parts of our United Kingdom and of the damage to that union leaving without a deal could do when one part of it is without devolved government and unable therefore to prepare properly.

This is not an argument that May has made in public before. The DUP is to a large extent to blame for the fact that Northern Ireland does not have a power-sharing executive (although it claims it’s the fault of Sinn Féin), and DUP MPs like Nigel Dodds (see 4.07pm) and Sammy Wilson (see 4.32pm) responded angrily.

  • She claimed that passing the Letwin amendment tonight would unbalance “our democratic institutions”. She said:

The amendment in the name of [Oliver Letwin] seeks to provide for this process by taking control of the order paper. I continue to believe doing so would be an unwelcome precedent to set, which would overturn the balance of our democratic institutions. So the government will oppose this amendment this evening.

  • She said she was “sceptical” about whether an indicative votes process could deliver a solution to Brexit and she refused to commit to accepting any outcome indicative votes might produce. The government is committed to trying to find a consensus in parliament if May’s deal does not get passed, although it has not given details of how it will do this yet and it has generally not been referring to “indicative votes”. May said the commitment still stood. But she went on:

I must confess that I am sceptical about such a process of indicative votes.

When we have tried this kind of thing in the past, it has produced contradictory outcomes or no outcome at all. There is a further risk when it comes to Brexit, as the UK is only one half of the equation and the votes could lead to an outcome that is unnegotiable with the EU.

No government could give a blank cheque to commit to an outcome without knowing what it is.

So I cannot commit the government to delivering the outcome of any votes held by this house. But I do commit to engaging constructively with this process.

  • She implied she would reject calls for the UK to stay in the customs union (see 4.04pm) and calls for a second referendum (4.42pm) even if MPs backed them in indicative votes.

The bottom line remains, if the house does not approve the withdrawal agreement this week, and is not prepared to countenance leaving without a deal we will have to seek a longer extension. This would entail the UK having to hold European elections. And it would mean that we will not have been able to guarantee Brexit.

She also described this option as a “slow Brexit”.

  • She claimed in her opening statement that a no-deal Brexit would only happen if MPs vote for it. She said:

We must confront the reality of the hard choices before us.

Unless this house agrees to it, no deal will not happen.

But, when pressed on this, she refused to confirm that a no-deal Brexit would only happen if MPs voted for it (see 5pm), and she insisted she was not taking no deal off the table. (See 4.30pm.)

  • She sought to repair the damage done to her relations with MPs by her speech last week, in which she blamed them for blocking Brexit, by saying she respected people who disagreed with her. She said:

Mr Speaker, this is the first chance I have had to address the House since my remarks last Wednesday evening.

I expressed my frustration with our collective failure to take a decision, but I know that many members across this house are frustrated too.

We all have difficult jobs to do.

People on all sides of the debate hold passionate views and I respect those differences.

I would also like to thank all of those colleagues that have supported the deal so far, and those that have taken the time to meet with me to discuss their concerns.

Later, in the face of further criticism over what she said, she said she “regrets” the impression she gave. (See 5.18pm.)

  • She refused to confirm that she intends to lead the next stage of the Brexit negotiations. (See 5.21pm.)
  • She said MPs would vote on the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act on Wednesday.
Theresa May
Theresa May Photograph: UK PARLIAMENTARY RECORDING UNIT/HANDOUT/EPA

Updated

May refuses to confirm she intends to lead next stage of Brexit negotiations

The SNP’s Lisa Cameron asks if May intends to lead the next phase of the Brexit negotiations.

May says she has always said there is a job to be done, and she intends to carry on doing it.

  • May refuses to confirm that she intends to lead the next stage of the Brexit negotiations.

May says it was never her intention for her speech last week to be seen as an attack on MPs and she says she “regrets” if it is seen like that.

Labour’s Jess Phillips says this is all about a psychodrama in the Conservative party. She says May constantly disappoints her.

As just an observer, it doesn’t seem very constructive to me at all, but what did seem constructive was all the meetings she had over the weekend and the people, sorry, men, she invited to those meetings.

What comes out this morning shows without any doubt to anyone any more if anyone even had any left, this is just some psychodrama in the Tory party.

And every time I think the prime minister does actually have a duty, she totally disappoints me.

This is about whether [Boris Johnson] can become the prime minister and it’s writ for all to see. This has got to end.

If we have indicative votes and we come up with a new way for the political declaration, how can [the PM] guarantee any of that will happen, because it won’t be her?

Updated

Labour’s Paula Sheriff says she asked May last week to dial down the hate. But May responded with a “despicable” speech attacking MPs. What will May do now to dial down the hate?

May says in her speech last week she was expressing her frustration. She says, after their conversation, she took action to ensure some of the things Sheriff mentioned were investigated. May says she will take care about the language she uses.

Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, says he welcomes the line in May’s statement saying, unless the Commons agrees, no deal will not happen. Does that mean there will only be a no-deal Brexit if MPs vote for it?

May says MPs must back her deal if they want to avoid no deal.

Updated

The Tory Brexiter Martin Vickers asks May for an assurance that she will not agree a further, long extension of article 50.

May says she wants the UK to leave the EU soon. She says a long extension would involve the UK having to participate in the European elections. Constituents would find that unacceptable, she says.

May says MPs will vote on the the statutory instrument changing the date of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act on Wednesday.

May suggests she would refuse plan for referendum if MPs propose it in indicative votes

Chris Leslie, the Independent Group MP, asks May if she is saying she will reject a confirmatory vote if that is what MPs vote for in indicative votes.

May says people want a confirmatory vote to have remain on the ballot paper. So it would be a second referendum, she says. And that means it would defy what people voted for in the referendum.

  • May suggests she would refuse to accept a plan for a referendum if MPs back it in indicative votes.

Updated

Labour’s Seema Malhotra asks if May is willing to shift her red lines in response to how MPs vote in indicative votes.

May says she has aready set out her position on this.

The DUP’s Sammy Wilson says all of the government’s no-deal planning applies to Northern Ireland. He accuses May in her statement (see 3.36pm) of using Northern Ireland as an excuse for delaying Brexit.

Crispin Blunt, the Tory Brexiter, says what May said in her statement about MPs voting against no deal torpedoes her deal. He says it is the most shameful surrender by the UK since Singapore in 1942.

May says she is not taking no deal off the table.

Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks why it is acceptable for May to call three votes on her deal, but for the public to be denied a second vote.

May says the Commons has to implement the results of the referendum.

Rachel Maclean, a Conservative, asks May to confirm that the government will not hold European elections. People would find that hard to understand.

May says she agrees. But she says the only way to be sure of avoiding that is to pass her deal.

May says some MPs want her to say what she will do on 11 April if her deal is not passed. And others want her to say she will do whatever MPs ask. The two arguments are not consistent, she says.

Sarah Newton, who resigned as disabilities minister earlier this month to vote against no deal, asks if May can say any more about how she will let MPs find a way forward.

May says David Lidington will address this in his speech at the start of the debate later. But she says any plan must accept the EU’s unwillingness to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

Labour’s Pat McFadden asks if May regrets what she said about MPs in her speech last week.

May says she was trying to make the point that it is the moment for parliament to decide.

Ken Clarke, the Tory pro-European, asks May to back away from the Tory manifesto. He says it only came out half way through the campaign. And she dropped one idea in it (the so-called “dementia tax”) very quickly.

May says, if Clarke were still a minister, he would not agree to any plan produced by parliament.

Labour’s Rachel Reeves asks May to confirm that, if she does not get her deal passed by 12 April, she will seek a longer extension of article 50.

May says she cannot say that she will accept anything that comes up in parliament. All MPs have a duty to deliver on the manifestos on which they were elected, she says.

Mark Francois, the Tory Brexiter, says May told MPs from the despatch box on 108 occasions that the UK would leave the EU on 29 March. Now the chancellor has opened the door to a second referendum. Has she told him that she does not accept this idea?

May says she has not changed her mind on this. She believes MPs must accept the result of the first referendum.

Updated

Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader at Westminster, says May seems to be arguing for the first time that the UK needs extra time to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. Why? And he says Leo Varadkar and Michel Barnier have both said there would be no border checks in Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit. Why did May agree to it in the first place?

May says, when you look at the detail of what the EU has said, it is clear that EU law says checks would need to be applied.

May suggests she would not accept customs union membership even if MPs were to vote in favour

Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP, asks if May is ruling out negotiating the UK joining a customs union with the EU.

May says there are a number of questions that MPs need to address. What rules would the UK abide by? Would it have to abide by state aid rules? Would it have to accept free movement? She says her manifesto ruled out a customs union. She thinks it is very important for the UK to be able to strike its own trade deals.

  • May suggests she would not accept customs union membership even if MPs were to vote in favour.

Theresa Villiers, the Tory Brexiter, asks what would happen at the Irish border in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

May says a statement issued by the EU today says that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, all EU laws would have to be complied with.

Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, says if May does not hold a vote this week, the UK will either have to leave the EU on 12 April, or apply for another extension. What will she do?

May says she did say there is not enough support for another meaningful vote at the moment. But she still hopes to get that support, she says.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, says people are embarrassed by this government.

He asks if May will respect the will of parliament and reject no deal.

May says Blackford should accept that the people of Scotland voted to remain in the UK.

She says votes in the Commons count. But so do the votes of the 17.4m people who voted to leave the EU.

Updated

May is responding to Corbyn.

She says she gave Corbyn an advance text of her statement. In it, she says she cannot commit to accept the result of anything decided in indicative votes.

She says no MP can commit to accepting something that contradicts the manifesto on which they were elected.

And MPs have a duty to respect the result of the referendum, she says.

Referring to the fact that “a number of people” marched on Saturday, May says Corbyn’s deputy, Tom Watson, went on the march. Corbyn normally goes on marches himself. But he did not on Saturday. Perhaps he was involved but not present, she says.

Updated

Corbyn says government’s approach to Brexit has become 'national embarrassment'

Jeremy Corbyn says the government’s approach to Brexit has become “a national embarrassment”.

He says last week’s EU summit was another negotiating failure for May.

He says she requested a short extension of article 50, even though David Lidington said that would be “reckless”.

He says it was “irresponsible” and “dangerous” for May to pit parliament against the people in her speech last week.

People are frustrated, he says. He says it is no surprise that people marched against the government. Even leavers are frustrated, he says.

He says May’s deal is dead.

He says May has united the CBI and the TUC against her deal.

He says it is time for parliament to take control. That is why Labour will back the Letwin amendment.

He says the speaker said there would have to be significant changes for a third meaningful vote. But there are no significant changes, she says.

He says May should not block attempts by MPs to find an alternative way forward.

Will May accept any decision by MPs?

He says Labour would support a public vote to block no deal or a chaotic Tory deal.

It is time for parliament to work together on a plan B, he says.

May says this is her first address to MPs since her speech on Wednesday last week, when she blamed them for blocking Brexit.

She says she was expressing her frustrations. She says she knows MPs are doing their jobs, and she respects the fact that people have strong views on both sides.

May says she is 'sceptical' about whether allowing MPs indicative votes will produce decision

May says the government is opposed to the Letwin amendment.

She says the government remains committed to trying to see if a Commons consensus can be reached if her deal is not passed.

But she says she is “sceptical” of this process. In the past when this procedure has been tried, it has produced contradictory conclusions, or no conclusions at all.

  • May says she is “sceptical” about whether allowing MPs indicative votes will produce a decision.

Theresa May's Commons statement on Brexit

Theresa May is now making her Commons statement on Brexit and last week’s EU summit.

She starts by referring to her letter to Donald Tusk requesting a short article 50 extension.

She says she wanted the UK to be able to leave the EU on 29 March.

But she says she was conscious of the need to protect the union, and of the damage that a no-deal Brexit could do in Northern Ireland, where there is no executive able to take steps to minimise the risk.

She sums up the offer from the EU.

She says the government has today laid the statutory instrument changing Brexit date.

Brexit date has already changed under international law, she says. She says if MPs fail to pass the statutory instrument, that will create legal uncertainty. But it won’t change the internationally-recognised Brexit date.

  • May says she does not yet have enough support to win a third meaningful vote.

Updated

I asked Labour why Jeremy Corbyn was opposed to splitting the votes on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. (See 3.06pm.) A party source said Labour would not back something giving “zero clarity” about the future, which is why it wants its changes to the political declaration written into law.

Andy Shaw, a reader, has got an even more specific answer.

He is right. The relevant part of the act is here.

And Politics.co.uk’s Ian Dunt is good on this too.

Updated

May set to tell MPs she does not yet have enough support to win third meaningful vote

This is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Two more questions from BTL.

User avatar for bobblomax

@andrew
Do any sources suggest that the demo or the petition were discussed in cabinet?

This was raised at the Number 10 lobby briefing and, although the prime minister’s spokesman did not say exactly what was said about the march and the petition, he did not give the impression that a lot of time was spent discussing them, or that they are having much impact on the government’s thinking. The spokesman accepted that there were “strongly-held views” on Brexit on both sides. But he said the PM’s view was that the country had staged a “very large democratic exercise” and voted to leave, and that MPs had to honour this.

User avatar for Millgor

@Andrew

Why is No. 10 saying that MV3 might not happen this week when the E.U. statement made it clear that it must happen this week and otherwise the May 22nd date is gone and the only options then left are either no deal or a Monty Python type "now for something completely different" plan by April 12th?

The EU offer is less blunt than that. Read what Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, said late on Thursday night (my bold text.)

In the first scenario, that is, if the withdrawal agreement is passed by the House of Commons next week, the European Council agrees to an extension until the 22nd of May.

In the second scenario, that is, if the withdrawal agreement is not approved by the House of Commons next week, the European Council agrees to an extension until the 12th of April, while expecting the United Kingdom to indicate a way forward. What this means in practice is that, until that date, all options will remain open, and the cliff-edge date will be delayed.

The UK government will still have a choice of a deal, no-deal, a long extension or revoking article 50.

This implies that if the UK were to pass the deal next week, and then request an extension of article 50 from 12 April until 22 May, that might be feasible.

The Labour party has just released this statement about Jeremy Corbyn’s meeting with Theresa May at lunchtime. A spokesman said:

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May met for over an hour in parliament and had a frank and comprehensive exchange of views.

Jeremy Corbyn made clear there was no basis for bringing back the meaningful vote on Theresa May’s deal for a third time.

The Labour leader did not accept the prime minister’s suggestion that the withdrawal agreement could be separated from the political declaration.

This is more revealing than these meeting read-out statements often are. Here are the two key lines.

  • Theresa May is considering asking MPs to vote on the withdrawal agreement separately from the political declaration, Labour has revealed. Until now May has treated them both as a package, and MPs have been asked to vote on both together (eg, in the motion for MV2). But the EU summit communique issued last week said that, for the UK to get Brexit extended until 22 May, MPs just had to pass the withdrawal agreement. The EU statement did not mention the political declaration in the context of a vote this week. This is significant because there is little in the withdrawal agreement (which focuses on the transition, the £39bn payment and the backstop) that Labour objects to; most of Labour’s objections to May’s deal relate to the political declaration. The Labour statement does not explain why Corbyn refused to separate the two issues.
  • Corbyn told May she should abandon the third meaningful votes.

Corbyn was joined at the meeting by Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, and Nick Brown, the Labour chief whip. May was supported by Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, and Julian Smith, the government chief whip.

The Labour team came away with the clear impression that the government would not be bound by any decision of parliament in indicative votes. That is what Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, suggested this morning too.

UPDATE: A government source later rejected Corbyn’s claim about May wanting to split the vote on the withdrawal agreement from the vote on the political declaration. See 8.51pm.

Jeremy Corbyn (right) and Sir Keir Starmer
Jeremy Corbyn (right) and Sir Keir Starmer Photograph: Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

Updated

Here is the Financial Times’ political editor, George Parker, on the choice facing Theresa May.

Last month George Eustice resigned as fisheries minister because he was opposed to Theresa May’s willingness to contemplate extending article 50. He is seen as a relative hardliner on Brexiter - he once stood as a Ukip candidate - but in an interview with Radio 5 Live’s Emma Barnett this morning he said he favoured the Norway option. He explained:

The right settlement is somewhere in the space of what’s called the Norway option. It’s the European free trade association. The UK actually invented it in 1959, and we built a coalition of countries, including Norway, but in those days also Austria, Portugal and Sweden and others too.

And I think we should rely on existing legal rights under what’s called the EEA treaty, that’s the European Economic Area, like Norway – but leave the European Union as soon as we can, and effectively become an Efta state, an Efta member instead. That gives us a close economic tie with the European Union - but gives us our independence back.

Eustice also said he thought a majority of MPs would “get behind a variant of the Norway option”.

(But would Efta want the UK as a member? On Friday the prime minister of Iceland, one of the Efta countries, didn’t sound too keen.)

James Forsyth and Katy Balls have a useful cabinet write-up at the Spectator. Here’s an extract.

May also appears to be moving more firmly towards ruling out no deal. One minister says that it is the ‘the first time she has said it so definitively’. This minister says that ‘it is the issue of the union seems to be what has really convinced her’ of this.

Anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray speaking to a pro-Brexit supporter outside the Houses of Parliament today.
Anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray speaking to a pro-Brexit supporter outside the Houses of Parliament today. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

On the World at One the housing minister Kit Malthouse dismissed the Letwin plan for indicative votes on Brexit, echoing what Number 10 said about it earlier. (See 1.28pm.) Matlhouse said:

I hope members across the house realise that it has significantly detrimental constitutional implications and will vote it down so that we can continue with an orderly, iterative process of reaching consensus across the house rather than a kind of X Factor.

From a reader BTL

User avatar for tomilous

Silly question: why would Bercow accept to put back the Meaningful Vote back to Parliament given what happened last week? Its content hasn't changed.

It’s not a silly question at all, but it is one that I answered here last week.

Here is some on what happened at cabinet this morning.

From the Times’ Francis Elliott

From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn

From the Financial Times’ Sebastian Payne

From ITV’s Paul Brand

From the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford

From the Times’ Sam Coates

No 10 refuses to confirm next meaningful vote will take place this week

I’m just back from the Downing Street lobby briefing. Here are the key points.

  • Number 10 refused to say when the next meaningful vote on Theresa May’s deal would be held. The prime minister’s spokesman said it remained the case “that we will only bring the vote back if we believe that we are in a position to win it”.
  • The spokesman said that the Letwin amendment being debated tonight (see 9.38am) would unbalance the constitution. Asked what the PM thought of the move, the spokesman said:

She has said that tying the government’s hands in this way by seeking to commandeer the order paper would have far-reaching implications for the way that the UK is governed and the balance of powers and responsibilities in our democratic institutions.

  • Ministers did not urge May to consider offering to resign at this morning’s cabinet, the spokesman said. Yesterday one report claimed that 11 cabinet ministers wanted May to make way for another leader and that “the plotters” were planning “to confront May at a cabinet meeting” today. Today the spokesman would not comment on suggestions that her critics did not have the courage of her convictions.
10 Downing Street
10 Downing Street Photograph: Isabel Infantes/AFP/Getty Images

Theresa May has spoken to Arlene Foster, the DUP leader. But the DUP has not lifted its opposition to the PM’s deal, the BBC reports.

Here is some more from ITV’s Paul Brand on cabinet.

I’m just off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now.

I will post again after 1pm.

This is from the BBC Laura Kuenssberg.

The cabinet has decided to press ahead with the third vote on Theresa May’s deal tomorrow, ITV’s Paul Brand reports.

UPDATE: But it is not confirmed, Number 10 says.

Updated

John Whittingdale, the Tory Brexiter, has just told BBC News that a lot of his Brexiter colleagues would have “more confidence” in voting for Theresa May’s deal if they knew she was standing down as PM.

This morning’s cabinet is over. Ministers declined to respond to any questions from reporters when leaving Downing Street, the Press Association reports.

(Left to right) chief secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss, defence secretary Gavin Williamson and Welsh secretary Alun Cairns leaving 10 Downing Street after cabinet.
(Left to right) chief secretary to the Treasury Liz Truss, defence secretary Gavin Williamson and Welsh secretary Alun Cairns leaving 10 Downing Street after cabinet. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Readers have posed a whole series of procedural questions BTL. Here are some I hope I can helpfully answer.

Why would offering to resign help May get her deal through the Commons?

User avatar for PenneArrabiata

@Andrew

Could you explain how a "plea bargain" for May to resign would actually lead to her WA being passed? It strikes me that it doesn't have a chance in hell of working unless she is using the threat of her own continued incompetence as a weapon.

The next phase of the Brexit negotiations will probably end up being longer, more fraught and more important than negotiating the withdrawal, because it will determine the future trade relationship, and Brexiters want a true believer in charge, not someone who voted remain like May. Given that most MPs expect May to be forced out quite soon anyway, an offer to resign may seem to have little merit. But prime ministers often cling on longer than their colleagues, or the commentariat expects, and comments by MPs like Boris Johnson (see 11.26am) suggest a move like this might be a difference - particularly if MPs fear the alternative would be Oliver Letwin or Hilary Benn running Brexit.

When will the statutory instrument changing Brexit day be put to a vote? And can it be amended?

User avatar for herero

Andrew when the SI on the withdrawal comes back is it possible to amend it to stop 12 April being another cliff edge for May to abuse?

To delay Brexit until 12 April, the government will have to pass a statutory instrument changing the day of Brexit in the EU Withdrawal Act. That will have to take place this week, although we have not been told when, yet. The SI cannot be amended, and there is no serious risk of the government losing.

Can parliament really bind the hands of the government?

User avatar for Marmaduke Algonquin

Andrew:

In all this talk of "Parliament taking control", Oliver Letwin has said ATL that "...any indicative votes would be advisory rather than binding on the government "

Liam Fox and Barclay both have said that the Government will ignore anything which keeps us in the SM or the CU.

How is this Parliament taking control? Is there any way Parliament can actually bind the hands of the Government?

Talk of parliament “taking back control” is journalistic shorthand. The Oliver Letwin amendment would involve the government losing control of what gets debated in the Commons on Wednesday, but any vote for a Brexit plan B would not be binding on the government. At one point Yvette Cooper had an alternative plan for parliament taking back control, involving MPs passing a bill requiring the PM to extend article 50. There are also amendments ordering or instructing the government to do certain things, implying the government would be in contempt of parliament if it ignored them.

In reality, though, it is very hard for the Commons to force the executive to do something it does not want to do. For more on this, see the first answer here, and the third answer here

Does the withdrawal agreement make a Norway-style Brexit impossible?

User avatar for JonnyHTFC

@AndrewSparrow (or anyone else) Given the PD is not legally binding, is there anything in the WA that would not allow a Common Market 2.0 / Norway Plus type Brexit to be pursued in the transition period (i.e. under the WA)?
I acknowledge that Labour argue that, under the WA, we would be leaving with no guarantees, be in an inferior negotiating position etc. (and they have raised security, standards etc. issues also) and they want A customs union rather than THE customs union.
However should Labour or a soft Brexit coalition form the government after the WA is signed what, if anything, would prevent a Common Market 2.0 / Norway Plus type Brexit?

To make reporting simpler, journalists refer to Theresa May’s deal, but it is important to remember that it comprises two parts: the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration. Tory critics of the plan are particularly unhappy with the WA, because it includes the backstop. Labour is more unhappy with the PD, because it does not include remaining in the customs union. But the PD is relatively elastic, and with minor changes (that the EU would consent to) it could accommodate a Common Market 2.0 Brexit.

How likely is another confidence vote?

User avatar for mrudagawa

Andrew, amongst everything else that's going on, do you think another Confidence vote in the government is a possibility and is it likely it would be voted down again?

Jeremy Corbyn is unlikely to call another confidence vote until he thinks there is a chance of getting some Tories, or the DUP, to vote against the government. In the past a handful of pro-European Tories have hinted that they might vote against the government in a confidence motion to prevent a no-deal Brexit, but at least two of those (Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston) have now left the party anyway. There has also been speculation about hardline Brexiters voting with Labour to prevent a soft Brexit, but this might not be logical because it could just result in an election and a Labour government that would pursue a softer Brexit anway.

Boris Johnson suggests May could get Brexiters to back her deal by promising to stand down

Boris Johnson, the former foreign secretary, was one of the Brexiters invited to Chequers yesterday for talks with Theresa May about how she might get her deal through parliament. Doubtless readers of his £275,000-a-year Daily Telegraph column would have liked to have read about what happened, but he did not mention it in the article (paywall) he managed to file yesterday, presumably after his deliberations with the PM.

Instead Johnson used it to deliver what sounds like an ultimatum.

On every side we are being frightened with false fire. It seems to be that there are two ways forward. If she really wants her deal to go through parliament, the PM could still set out convincing proofs of how the next phase of the negotiations – when all the key questions are to be settled – will be different from the first. How will we be able to take back control of our laws? Will we really do free trade deals? And can we really go on with a negotiating team that has so resoundingly failed?

If she cannot give that evidence of change – she should drop the deal, and go back to Brussels, and simply set out the terms that so many on both sides – remainers and leavers – now believe are sensible.

Extend the implementation period to the end of 2021 if necessary; use it to negotiate a free trade deal; pay the fee; but come out of the EU now – without the backstop. It is time for the PM to channel the spirit of Moses in Exodus, and say to Pharaoh in Brussels – LET MY PEOPLE GO.

Johnson’s second proposal, that the UK should effectively request a transition without the backstop (the old Malthouse plan, part two - remember that?), is almost certainly a non-starter, because the EU has ruled it out repeatedly.

But his first proposal, that May should “set out convincing proofs of how the next phase of the negotiations ... will be different from the first”, seems a coded reference to May announcing her own resignation. He seems to be hinting that a promise to quit from May could persuade Tory Brexiters to back her deal.

Not surprisingly, the Telegraph’s take on Johnson’s column is rather different.

Guide to all the Brexit debates so far

Even those of us who follow Brexit closely are beginning to lose track of quite how many debates on the topic there have been, and what they have all been about. So here is a summary.

This is a list of all the key votes this year, either on the deal or on what happens next.

There have been two categories of debate. The main ones have been so-called meaningful votes (MV) on the deal, that decide whether or not the deal gets passed. But there have also been a series of so-called next steps (NS) debates about what happens next, or plan B. Some of these NS debates have taken place under the auspices of the EU Withdrawal Act, which in section 13 directs what must happen in parliament if the withdrawal agreement gets voted down, but others have taken place following promises by the prime minister.

Tonight’s debate will be the sixth next steps debate (NS6). Here are the others.

MV1- Tuesday 15 January: This was the night Theresa May suffered the biggest government defeat in the era of democratic politics when MPs voted down her Brexit deal for the first time, by a majority of 230. Some 118 Conservatives voted against.

NS1 - Tuesday 29 January: May managed to salvage a victory, but only by getting Tory MPs to unite behind the Brady amendment, which said her deal would only be acceptable if the backstop were “replaced” by “alternative arrangements”. As well as effectively having to vote against her own deal, May was also defeated when MPs passed the Spelman amendment, ruling out no deal. Some 17 Tories defied the whip to back it.

NS2 - Thursday 14 February: May suffered a surprise defeat when what was meant to be non-controversial motion just restating the NS1 result got voted down, by a majority of 45, because hardline Brexiters in the European Research Group did not want to be seen to be endorsing the Spelman result. The vote had little practical effect, but it was humiliating for May, whose defeat was decided entirely by a whipping decision taken by the ERG.

NS3 - Wednesday 27 February: Unusually May was on the winning side, as Tory and Labour MPs united to support a backbench amendment committing the government to allowing a vote on extending article 50 if it lost MV2. But it was an amendment tabled by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, underwriting a verbal promise only made by May to stop pro-European ministers resigning en masse.

MV2 - Tuesday 12 March: This was the second vote on the deal, taking place after a late-night rush by May to Strasbourg the night before to firm up new assurances with Jean-Claude Juncker, the European commission president. But legal advice from Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, saying the legal risk of being stuck in the backstop remained “unchanged”, torpedoed any hope of victory, and the deal was voted down by a majority of 149, with 75 Tory MPs voting against.

NS4 - Wednesday 13 March: This was the debate on ruling out a no-deal Brexit. But the government motion only ruled out no deal on 29 March, and May was defeated twice as MPs voted to rule out a no-deal Brexit for good. Some 17 Tories defied the whip and voted against any no deal in the final vote, with another 29 Tories abstaining, including four cabinet ministers.

NS5 - Thursday 14 March: This was the debate where MPs approved, by a majority of 211, a government motion approving an article 50 extension until 30 June if MPs backed May’s deal. Unusually for a Brexit debate, May did not lose a single vote, after the Benn amendment saying parliament should take control was defeated by a majority of two, and a second referendum amendment was rejected by a majority of 249.

Updated

Sabine Weyand, the EU’s deputy chief Brexit negotiator, has also been tweeting about the European commission’s press notice about a no-deal Brexit. (See 10.10am.) The EU is ready for a no-deal Brexit, she is implying.

EU says it is 'increasingly likely UK will leave without deal on 12 April'

This is from Daniel Ferrie, press spokesman for Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, flagging up a news release issued by the European commission saying it is “increasingly likely that the United Kingdom will leave the European Union without a deal on 12 April”.

Updated

Liam Fox has indicated the government could ignore MPs’ views from indicative Brexit votes this week if parliament’s stated choice goes against the Conservative manifesto, insisting the real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal, my colleague Peter Walker reports.

Michael Gove, the environment secretary, leaving his home this morning. Yesterday he denied reports that he was angling to take over from Theresa May as prime minister.
Michael Gove, the environment secretary, leaving his home this morning. Yesterday he denied reports that he was angling to take over from Theresa May as prime minister. Photograph: Adrian Dennis/AFP/Getty Images

Katie Perrior, who worked in Number 10 as Theresa May’s director of communications before the 2017 general election, has joined those saying she should announce her resignation. Writing for the Times, Perrior said:

Maybe it’s time to stop finding scapegoats and admit that Theresa May and her lack of leadership has made a bad situation worse. With great sadness, it’s time for her to swap her departure date in return for the deal. It’s the least she can do.

Yesterday there were reports that cabinet ministers were being invited to spend the hour before cabinet in a reading room looking at papers about the government’s plans for indicative votes. But the Telegraph’s Steven Swinford says that idea has been shelved.

Updated

You can read all the amendments for this evening’s Brexit debate on the Commons order paper (pdf). The main cross-party indicative votes one has been tabled by Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former cabinet minister.

In an interview on the Today programme he said that any votes would be advisory rather than binding on the government and that it could take several rounds of voting to find a majority for any option - if one gets found at all.

Asked if it was possible that all options were rejected, he said:

Of course I have to accept that. I can’t predict what parliament will do.

May chairs cabinet ahead of statement to MPs as calls for her resignation continue

Good morning. It has become customary at this point on a Monday for me to type out some spiel about how this is the decisive week for Brexit. But, frankly, you must all be getting fed up of those by now, so let’s just move on.

This morning Theresa May is chairing cabinet, before addressing MPs this afternoon ahead of a vote that may well see MPs voting to “take control” of the Brexit process. Quite how the rest of the week is going to pan out remains to be seen, but here are some of the things that may (or may not) get resolved before the end of the week.

1) Will MPs get indicative votes on the way forward? Almost certainly, yes, is the answer, but we don’t know if that will be under a process directed by the government, or under a process directed by the House of Commons following the passing of a backbench amendment tonight. And we don’t know how long that process will take, and whether it will produce a majority for anything.

2) Will May bring her own deal back to the Commons for a vote? At the end of last week her colleagues were assuming the vote would be on Tuesday, but that plan seems to have been shelved and now it is not clear whether the vote will even happen at all.

3) Will May back plans to move towards a softer Brexit, assuming MPs push for this, or will she firm up planning for a no deal? If she chooses the former option, Brexiters in her party will erupt. If the latter, pro-European ministers may resign en masse. Given May’s history of zig-zagging between the two strategies, it is hard to know where she will go. Almost two weeks ago she seemed to take no deal off the table. A week later, she did a U-turn and ruled out a long article 50 extension instead.

4) Will she announce plans to stand down - possibly in return of Tory Brexiters agreeing to back her deal, or possibly in a more chaotic manner if her position becomes unsustainable?

Certainly, the pressure on her is not easing up. Here is today’s Sun splash.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Theresa May chairs a cabinet meeting.

12.30pm: Downing Street lobby briefing.

After 3.30pm: May gives a statement to MPs about Brexit and last week’s EU summit.

After 5pm: MPs begin the latest Brexit debate. At 10pm they are due to vote on an amendment calling for parliament to take control of the Brexit process.

Today I will be focusing exclusively on Brexit and, as usual, I will be covering the breaking news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.

You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply ATL, although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Super Mario Galaxy Movie stars Chris Pratt and Charlie Day refuse to confirm or deny whether Wario and Waluigi will show up
Charlie Day and Chris Pratt are staying silent on whether Wario and Waluigi are in The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, and it's only fueling the rumors
Total Film
Total Film
Pizza and bread products sold in 10 states under recall for possible metal shards
Trader Joe’s Focaccia Bread with Roasted Tomato & Parmesan is part of the recall
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Sony's Spider-Man 'cancellation' explained
Don't panic – it's not the end of the Spider-Verse.
Creative Bloq
Creative Bloq
Clavicular arrest: Who is the controversial influencer and what is ‘looksmaxxing’
The 20-year-old controversial social media star promotes the theory that maximizing male attractiveness — often through surgical intervention – is the key to success and superiority
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Why Zendaya Is ‘Disappearing’ From Public Life After 2026
Why Zendaya Is ‘Disappearing’ From Public Life After 2026
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
“This Is Why She Can’t Keep A Man”: Jennifer Lopez, 56, Brutally Slammed Over Her Daring Stage Outfit
“When grandma won't accept that she's just embarrassing," wrote one user.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play